This article addresses the gap in the literature by empirically assessing a cross-national comparison of institutional anomie theory (IAT) and self-reported cyberoffending. We used survey data from Finland, Hungary, and the United States to examine the relationship between institutional anomie and cybercrime. Each country represents different types of societies, which makes them interesting cases for cross-national comparison. With Hungary representing a conservative welfare regime, Finland a social democratic welfare regime, and the United States a liberal welfare regime, we predict that the more political regimes intervene in economic relations and support non-economic institutions, the less applicable IAT's variables will be in predicting cybercrime perpetration. In line with these predictions, binomial regression models suggest that IAT works best in the United States, where individualism, achievement, and fetishism of money increased the indices of cybercrime offending. IAT variables were less useful in predicting cybercrime offending in the other nations. Yet, also in line with our prediction, family has a strong external control function in Finland, protecting participants from cybercrime offending. However, no IAT indexes achieved statistical significance in Hungary, where a work-based welfare system suppresses family-related values. Education has a mixed effect on cybercrime offending. Thus, IAT is valuable for understanding cybercrime offending; however, it should be examined in more countries with social institutions and individual value systems different from that of the United States.