The article examines the phenomenon of academic fraud, which is represented by the concepts of dishonest behavior, deception, cheating of students. The purpose of the study is based on the analysis of more than 40 foreign studies (Cizek, McCabe, Whitley, Bowers, Jacobson, Berger, Millhan, Haines, Diekhoff, LaBeff, , Calabrese & Cochran, Davis, Grover, Becker, & McGregor, Michaels & Miethe, Newstead, Franklyn-Stokes, & Armstead, Anderman and Midgley, Evans, Craig, & Mietzal, Diekhoff, Haines, Rettinger & Jordan, Michaels & Miethe; Smith, Ryan, & Digging, Taylor, Pogrebin, & Dodge, Schab, Dawkins, Murdock, Hale, & Weber, Finn & Frone, Kerkvliet, Roig & DeTommaso, Malinowski & Smith, Ward & Beck, Shmeleva, Dremova and others) define the portrait of the actor of academic fraud. The authors identify predictors of dishonest academic behavior such as: gender, intercultural differences, marital status, religious beliefs, self-efficacy assessment, level of student abilities, subject area, group mentality, membership in fraternities or sororities, academic performance, learning goals, internal interest in the subject area, self-control, physiological characteristics (impulsivity, need in sensations, the desire for sensations), moral development and additional personal characteristics, such as personality type and locus of control. The analysis of research has shown that the actor of academic fraud does not have a clear profile, all the above variables (demographic, academic, motivational and personal characteristics) need to be considered from the point of view of situational factors in which this behavior is carried out. There is a tendency in research that actors consider academic fraud to be an unpunished, often ignored and technologically simple violation, which in turn acts as a problem for future research in this area.