When faced with the choice of behaving corruptly, are people more willing to accept a bribe or to embezzle money? Situations of bribery and embezzlement usually differ in the number of decision-makers involved and, with this, in the level of responsibility that each one entails. This study makes use of outcome-equivalent games to examine participants’ willingness to engage in these two types of corruption. The results show people are more likely to undertake bribery than embezzlement, suggesting that sharing the responsibility for the outcome leads to a higher willingness to engage in corruption. In an additional experiment eliciting social norms related to bribery and embezzlement, I find a clear norm of no-corruption, and further find that the social appropriateness ratings for each type of corruption are not significantly different. My findings suggest that anti-corruption efforts should account for factors that facilitate rule-breaking behavior, such as shared responsibility.