It isn't a justification; it's an explanation.
Because, I agree: if there wasn't such a societal emphasis on material goods (ie the Benz), there would be less embezzlement.
To take the next step and use that explanation to rationalize one's own cheating makes it is a justification (or rationalization, whichever you prefer).
GP certainly used it as his justification.
> Because, I agree: if there wasn't such a societal emphasis on material goods (ie the Benz), there would be less embezzlement.
Noting that that relationship might exist is entirely different from saying "this relationship exists therefore I shall embezzle."