Timeline for Is this fraud? And if so, to what extent am I responsible?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 20, 2023 at 2:33 | comment | added | G_B | There are circumstances in which it's defensible. This isn't one of them. | |
| Sep 20, 2023 at 2:32 | comment | added | Flater | @GBsupportsthemodstrike: "The fact that OP believes this claim to be dishonest is the point where it becomes unethical to support it." This is precisely where I read that. You think A, someone else says B which contradicts A. The point you're making is that if you believe B to be incorrect, it would inherently be an act of dishonesty to not follow through with A. Such an response would be devoid of humility and leaving the door open to being mistaken. Holding a personal belief does not necessitate a person to always act on that belief. Tentatively deferring to other information is reasonable | |
| Sep 20, 2023 at 2:22 | comment | added | G_B | I have not suggested that OP is infallible, and I have no idea how you're managing to read that into what I wrote. The fact that OP believes this claim to be dishonest is the point where it becomes unethical to support it. If I see somebody coming out of a bank in a hurry with a pillowcase full of money, that does not conclusively prove they're a bank robber. Perhaps they were just taking their money in a handy pillowcase to deposit it, and then suddenly remembered an urgent appointment! But it'd be unwise to offer them a lift on the basis of that doubt. | |
| Sep 19, 2023 at 9:58 | comment | added | Flater | @GBsupportsthemodstrike: I'm not saying it's impossible to be all about the truth in the face of the corporate chain of command, and lord knows I've fought this fight many times over, but at the end of the day this is considered by many to be an overly naïve interpretation of workplace etiquette. I'm merely suggesting OP avoids blatantly calling their manager a liar and instead stay out of it as much as possible as this is the more prudent avenue for their own good. Deferring to a manager's claim is not lying, it is following the chain of command without blindly supporting the claim yourself. | |
| Sep 19, 2023 at 9:53 | comment | added | Flater | @GBsupportsthemodstrike: You seem to argue from a point of it being impossible that OP may be mistaken or unaware of something. If you want to think this about yourself and act accordingly, have at it. If OP wants to think this about themselves and act accordingly, they can have at it too. But my advice as to how to behave professionally includes accepting that you may not be aware of the full picture yourself and unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary (remember: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence), basing yourself off of information you receive is perfectly reasonable. | |
| Sep 19, 2023 at 8:58 | comment | added | G_B | OP has made it clear (to us, not the client) that they are pretty sure that pen testing never took place and that the boss is trying to involve them in a lie. Given that belief, this would not be "taking a claim from a superior on good faith". | |
| Sep 19, 2023 at 0:27 | comment | added | Flater | @GBsupportsthemodstrike: The white lie I was referring to is OP downplaying how certain they are that no pen testing took place. I called it a white lie because OP claims to be very sure of themselves. However, I'm not convinced that OP should actually be as sure of themselves as they claim to be. I called it a white lie to sidestep any discussion on how strongly OP believes themselves to be correct, to redirect the conversation into "even if you believe so, it does not mean you should outright state it with such conviction", which I believe to be a correct business professional approach. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 10:43 | comment | added | Flater | @GBsupportsthemodstrike: If you want to get down to brass tacks, OP cannot conclusively prove that no pen testing took place. That would be proving a negative. Going against management who claims otherwise would be a significant exposure risk if it cannot be backed up, and it would be reckless to suggest doing so purely on the merit of OP's claim that something did not take place. There is a difference between lying and taking a claim from a superior on good faith. There's nothing wrong with only acting on what you concretely know but it is not guaranteed to be correct or the optimal response. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 10:41 | comment | added | G_B | My comment wasn't about the draft document at all. It was about your suggested response in the upcoming meeting, which is the bit that you were characterising as a "white lie". | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 4:05 | comment | added | Flater | @GBsupportsthemodstrike: Putting it differently, there is a difference between a draft document and a published document even if both documents contain the same content. OP's notice of inaccuracy acts as confirmation that the document was considered to be a draft at that stage. OP naively picked a very easily circumventable way to denote the draft status (via an email) and somehow trusted that this would be respected. Naïve, but not deceitful. The manager still willfully ignored this disclaimer and then rephrased the document as if it were a finalized document. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 4:02 | history | edited | Flater | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 695 characters in body
|
| Sep 18, 2023 at 3:59 | comment | added | Flater | @GBsupportsthemodstrike: You're not wrong but OP did seem to have the genuine belief that the revised document would not be decoupled from their explicit statement of it being inaccurate, as reflected in "The director then chose to forward this to the client, without my "this is not accurate" warning." Was it naïve of them to think that this wouldn't happen? In my opinion, yes; they should have seen this coming. But naiveté, when genuine, is not willful fraud. | |
| Sep 18, 2023 at 0:22 | comment | added | G_B | Passing on information that one knows to be untrue, in the expectation that the reader will believe it to be true, is not a "white lie". It's still knowingly aiding and abetting dishonesty which may have harmful consequences to the client. | |
| Sep 17, 2023 at 23:34 | history | answered | Flater | CC BY-SA 4.0 |