Fraudulant accounts and reporting

A client of an accounting practice has a bad debt of £100k, included in an account showing loss of £50k. He urgently requires mortgage, so asks the accountant to show profit in the accounts. The accountant removes the bad debt (company liquidated prior to year end in question), resulting in a profit of £50k. Furthermore creates a fake £100k stock figure, resulting in a profit of £150k.

A £100k dividend (illegal dividend in reality!) is adjusted 8 months after the accounting period, to show the mortgage guy source of income (not before the year end!).

This is clearly misleading, fraudulant, incompetent, unprofessional and degrading the accountancy profession. The partner is sole director and ACCA.

I was involved in preparing final accounts.

what should be done? Report to ACCA? What would happen?

Comments
davidwinch's picture

Information

davidwinch | | Permalink

Shane

From your question I take it that the client was aware of the false 'adjustments' being made to the business accounts and was also aware that these were made for the purpose of obtaining the mortgage.  Also I assume the client's business operates as a limited company.

May I ask a few questions:

  1. Did all this occur in the UK?
  2. Did it occur in Scotland?
  3. Are you yourself a member of any professional accountancy or tax body (or a student working towards membership of one)?
  4. Did you yourself have any role in making the false 'adjustments' to the figures?
  5. Apart from this incident, have there been other occasions on which your boss has acted improperly?
  6. Was the client successful in obtaining a mortgage using the falsely 'adjusted' figures?

David

Accounts and fraud

Shane | | Permalink

Hi David,
Yes client knew everything.
Your responses below:
1. This all occurred in uk.
2. In England.
3. I'm a member of ACCA
4. I was involved in preparing the accounts and emailing to mortgage guy. This was all the instruction I followed from the partner. I hav emails to prove.
5. Yes, basically a client was in the process of making an acquisition, the partner when replying to a solicitors email, copied a competitor, also a client! into the email, apparently both client had the same name.
6. Mortgage is still in process. I've just sent accounts off to the mortgage guy.

To wat level am I responsible? I've done nothing wrong, I've just followed instructions from the partner. The partner says just make sure u have an email from the client saying there were no bad debts and confirming £100k stock, and it will be fine. Partners has meeting with the client in the morning before I start work.
Many thanks

Be Careful

Mallock | | Permalink

I would suggest you do the online Professional Ethics CPD module available on the ACCA website and then engage David so that you can discuss this in private: your qualification and career are important.

davidwinch's picture

Some thoughts

davidwinch | | Permalink

Shane

You are a member of ACCA.  You have prepared accounts which you believe to be false and emailed them to the mortgage broker knowing he intends to use them to obtain a mortgage advance for the client.

I'm sorry but I cannot agree that you have "done nothing wrong".  I accept that you acted on instructions from your boss, but legally and ethically you have crossed a line which you should not have crossed.

Have a look at, for example, s17 Theft Act 1968 or at s2 Fraud Act 2006.  Do these sections describe what you have done?

So be careful about accusing others of wrongdoing.

I am a member of ICAEW rather than ACCA.  I know that ICAEW have a confidential ethics helpline service for members in difficulties such as yourself.  Information received by them is not passed on to ICAEW disciplinary departments or the police.

If the ACCA have something similar I would suggest that you phone them initially for confidential advice. 

However if you make a formal complaint about your boss the first thing ACCA is likely to do is write to your boss with a copy of your complaint and ask him for his comments.  That may not be a viable option for you.

At present although a crime has been committed (more than one, in fact - your boss and the client are likely to be guilty of conspiracy to defraud and possibly other offences) no one has yet obtained any benefit from the crimes.  Therefore no money laundering offence has yet been committed.  That means you are not yet under a statutory obligation to make a report to your firm's MLRO or to SOCA under s330 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.  That obligation will be triggered when the client obtains a mortgage using the false figures.

You are in a difficult position.  Is changing your job an option for you?

David

Fraud

Shane | | Permalink

Hi David,
I've recently accepted a new job, which I'm due to move in august. Surely the partner signed the accounts and he should be responsible. I've passed on the information after his signature.
Thank you

ShirleyM's picture

MLR Officer

ShirleyM | | Permalink

As an employee, wouldn't Shane normally report his concerns to the MLR officer?

It's a bit of a Catch 22 if the MLR officer is the person (or one of the people) that you are reporting! You would also be guilty (maybe) of tipping off!

Is there anything in the rules to allow for this possibility, David?

 

Fraud

Shane | | Permalink

We don't have an MLRO he is the sole practitioner.

davidwinch's picture

MLRO

davidwinch | | Permalink

Shirley

Technically if and when Shane needs to make a report under s330 PoCA 2002 then it is enough if he makes the report to the firm's MLRO.  In the case of a sole practitioner with staff the MLRO will, in all probability, be the sole practitioner himself.  So if Shane made a report to the sole practitioner that would satisfy his legal obligations under s330.  If, for any reason, Shane did not want to report to the firm's MLRO then he could instead report direct to SOCA himself.  That again satisfies his legal obligation under s330.

Either way it doesn't (in law) deal with issues arising under other legislation (such as Theft Act 1968 and Fraud Act 2006).

David

Nuremburg

JeremyNewman | | Permalink

Shane

I think the point David is making is that you have, on the face of it, been complicit in unlawful acts. The "I was just following orders" defence doesn't work. You seem to know something is wrong or you wouldn't have asked.

The statutory references that David has provided are well worth looking at, particularly false accounting. You don't need personally to have benefitted from the wrongoing to have comitted an offence.

davidwinch's picture

Responsibility

davidwinch | | Permalink

Shane

You are a member of ACCA.  You are responsible for what you do.  Your boss is responsible for what he does - including the instructions he issues.  Obviously his responsibility is greater than yours.

But it is not a complete answer for you to say, "He told me to do that".  As a member of ACCA yourself you are supposed to have a brain and an understanding of relevant ethics and law.  You are supposed to behave properly.

I was recently involved in a case in which there was wrongdoing in a business organisation.  For various reasons the police were unable to lay a hand upon the boss.  They did however manage to get hold of his PA / secretary and various senior executives.  Ultimately the PA was acquitted of wrongdoing on the basis that she passed on instructions and messages from the boss without knowing what they meant (because she was unaware of what was going on).  The senior executives were convicted.

The reality is that your best option may be to leave next month and never speak a word of this to anyone.  Treat it as a learning experience - don't drop yourself in the brown stuff like this ever again!

David

Donald2000's picture

False Accounting

Donald2000 | | Permalink

I am totally staggered that this is being debated here. Of course its false accounting. That these people should even be accountants is beyond words.

The documents have been prepared so that by representing the figures in that way the person who prepared the document obtains a pecuniary advantage for self or others.

I think the person concerned in the preparation of those accounts should just go down to the nearest police station and hand themselves in before any more damage is done. Never mind the civilities and proprieties of telling the ACCA confidential crimeline. What is this, kiddies playtime?

 

Donald2000's picture

Shane

Donald2000 | | Permalink

I dont think that for you moving on is the right thing to do. Will you do it again if the circumstances arise?

Would you take this tone if you were asked to judge whether someone was fiddling benefits? No, I did not think so.

What you have done, if I have read it all correctly, is to commit an act which is contrary to the criminal code. In other words, its a wrong thing to do in the face of society. What will you say when the police start to investigate why and when this happened?

 

 

False accounting

Shane | | Permalink

Well, they will pay tax on the inflated profit. However, will enter into an agreement to pay by instalments, come next year, they will right off the bad debt, and reclaim the tax back. Partner keep saying to me, as long as its in writing we dont need to worry.

The company is not audited.

If I dont listen to the boss,I would be seen as not doing what i've been told.

I think i'll be quiet as what David said. I have learnt my lesson! what are your peoples thoughts? I am very honest, and don't like to do things wrong.

People rely on us accountants, but this is how some accountants make our profession look really bad!!

Very Serious

Mallock | | Permalink

I have seen (up close) how seriously the accounting bodies take the falsification of mortgage references and as a consequence someone was removed from membership (in similar circumstances to those you described). If I were you, at the very least, I would be taking some unpaid leave between now and my new job. Do the online CPD, read the ethical standards and prepare yourself for doing the right thing in future.

False accounting

Shane | | Permalink

Many thanks for your advice.

Donald2000's picture

Very serious

Donald2000 | | Permalink

If someone in practice does not know that falsifying accounts is a criminal offence then they just dont deserve to be in that position and no amount of CPD is going to make any difference. I dont think that the person should be in practice, or take up another position. The law is applicable to all.

The sooner we get it straight that we, as a society are not going to tolerate all these nonsenses the better it will be. We cant have individuals deciding what the law can be and how it can be applied.

There you go Shane, now you've got the full force of my opinion.

Top_Cat's picture

Donald

Top_Cat | | Permalink

 

I think you need to get out more and try living in the real world.

People have to earn a living, I assume the OP has a mortgage to pay, maybe kids to keep, so the luxury of just walking away with no job to go to and probably with no reference if he tells his boss why he's leaving, is just not an option open to him.

And the courts DO take account of such things as duress, which this certainly appears to be.

I wonder if there is anyone who hasnt, at some time, bent the truth or done something that is illegal?  When you get up from your desk Donald you ought to be careful, you might trip over that halo. I can't help wondering if you hand yourself in every day for exceeding the speed limit, dropping litter, or the 101 other "offences" that we all commit every day.

 

Donald2000's picture

Top-Cat

Donald2000 | | Permalink

Whilst I appreciate your efforts to be tolerant, you cannot help but notice this country is going through one of the biggest crisis of recent times. What's its all about is people breaking the law and attempts to conceal the truth.

So you will pardon me if I am just a bit sceptical that we have got a better society if people utter falsified documents; the law is the law and is for everyone. Thats the whole principle behind it. However, if you want to abandon the law and what it is for some sort of grey world whereby it does not matter, then that's up to you. Personally, I prefer not to live in a world of half-truths.

Oh and by the way, putting the responsibility on to me by pointing out what you think I might do, just wont wash. Hope that assists you.

Top_Cat's picture

.

Top_Cat | | Permalink

Whilst I appreciate your efforts to be tolerant, you cannot help but notice this country is going through one of the biggest crisis of recent times. What's its all about is people breaking the law and attempts to conceal the truth.

Oh and by the way, putting the responsibility on to me by pointing out what you think I might do, just wont wash. Hope that assists you.

 

Posted by Donald2000 on Thu, 14/07/2011 - 23:19

 

And the biggest law breakers are ?   ............  thats right - those in charge.

Politicians stealing from taxpayers, the head of HMRC fiddling expenses, £billions lost by gross incompetence by civil servants, corrupt police officers, bankers taking bonuses for profits they never made, now we have tax inspectors deliberately defrauding taxpayers to earn themselves a bonus.  Do you really expect people to respect authority when authority is corrupt ? 

As for pointing out what you "might do", are you really telling me that you never break the speed limit, never drop any litter, never take a pen home from work, never park where you shouldnt, never claim a penny on your tax return that you shouldnt, never break any of the thousands of laws, often contradictory, that we are buried under?  The last person who was that good got nailed to a cross.

 

 

 

davidwinch's picture

The 'peers defence'?

davidwinch | | Permalink

Top_Cat

What you have said might be read as supporting what might be called the 'peers defence' - "Everyone else is doing it so it must be alright".

I don't think that was your intention, was it?

David

Donald2000's picture

David

Donald2000 | | Permalink

What he was also implying was that I must be doing it.

I dont think thats a valid argument; in fact I dont think he has an argument. To turn the argument on to someone else is not a valid point.

 

Jon Stow's picture

Naive

Jon Stow | | Permalink

I don't mean to be disrespectful. Clearly the OP has been very naive, and in my experience not all accountants are as worldly as we might like to believe. It is quite amazing sometimes how some fail to smell trouble. Naivety is not a sin though the current MLR would have us think it is.

OP has been manoeuvred into a difficult position by his employer. Clearly his career is now in jeopardy. He is complicit in a criminal offence. He should protect himself by taking the excellent advice of David.

OP should also start be calling his confidential legal help line which he must have through ACCA etc. because he needs legal advice. Just leaving the job doesn’t mean that his past will not catch up with him. He needs to protect his livelihood.

Donald2000's picture

Naivety

Donald2000 | | Permalink

I dont think someone in the position of an accountant should suffer from naivety. Sorry but its just too important. What you are doing is signing off information which enables someone to get a mortgage; its just too important to say that you are going to turn a profit into a loss and then say its up to the client, dont ask questions, its their business.

Lets take another example; you are walking up the road with a friend. You come across an open front door, your friend says lets walk in and take what the person has in their front room. Come on son, it wont hurt anyone; after all they are insured. So what you do is you follow what your friend does. No doubt there will be a cry from people on this blog that they would not do this. There are no grades of dishonesty; there is only honesty and dishonesty.

Right and wrong is something you learn in a primary school; any kid could tell you what honesty and dishonesty is. Just because the high and mighty are all in it together makes not a jot of difference. However, I would add as a rider to this that I think Shane has suffered a genuine shock at what has happened and it could be that as a result of this he will never do this again. If that is the case and I think it is, all I would say is that I wish him well for the future. Regards.

Top_Cat's picture

Donald2000

Top_Cat | | Permalink

 

 

 

I did NOT "imply that you must be doing it".  I merely pointed out that we ALL break the law every day and that your attitude that "the law is the law" & must never be broken was unjust and unreasonable.  

The OP has been placed in a position of having to choose between going along with his employer's instructions, or, risk losing his job with all the consequences of that (loss of home, no reference, etc). Duress is a valid defence.

To use your example - would you refuse to go into the house with your friend if he held a gun to your head?

From the limited information supplied it would appear that the OP has been instructed to accept the client's written assurances regarding bad debts, dividends etc.  This appears to be a case of extreme window dressing by manipulating things to give the required immpression, as opposed to simply using false figures. Unprofessional yes, illegal, maybe.   

Your judgment was extremely harsh and unreasonable.

To give an example, some years ago I was stopped at a set of traffic lights. The lights were on red. A fire engine came hurtling up the road behind me, siren going, blue lights flashing. Due to central reservations etc he could not continue as I was blocking his way. I therefore carefully checked the junction and drove across so that the fire engine could continue. I then received a summons for driving through a red light. In court the camera evidence clearly showed the fire engine, and the driver of the fire engine gave evidence confirming my version of events. The case was dismissed on the basis that although I had technically committed an offence I had done so for good reason and it was reasonable to do so in the circumstances.  I would suggest that when faced with the potential loss of his job, the OPs actions in obeying his bosses instructions and seeking alternative employment fall under the same description.

 

Jon Stow's picture

Naivety 2

Jon Stow | | Permalink

I dont think someone in the position of an accountant should suffer from naivety.

In an ideal world, Donald, we would have a nice pleasantly warm summer rather than wind and rain. People are all different. Some are very gullible, including a few accountants, because that's the way it is. I think most professional exams have ethics questions now, but outside pressures, especially financial ones, can affect a person's judgment.

Shane needs to protect himself, ideally by getting proper professional advice. In an ideal world his former employer and his client should be up before the beak. Certainly if I came upon such a matter in the course of my business I would report the offence as appropriate.

At least Shane has woken up to realise the hole he is in and he needs to get help to dig himself out of it.

Personal Experience

alistair_king | | Permalink

I have resigned from a job when asked to be complicit in incorrect reporting. My experience of this is that good employers are impressed if you have resigned on professional grounds and demonstrate that you value your professional integrity. If they fail to be impressed its because they want you to be complicit in similar behaviour...

My career has gone from strength to strength since this. My current employer has explicitly stated that one of the reasons I am valued is because I state clearly what is wrong and right and show leadership when others want to slide into the grey...

Donald2000's picture

Top Cat

Donald2000 | | Permalink

What I stated about the law being the law is only obvious and elementary ethics. What is also being stated is that no-one is above the law. In that respect, you could argue that ethics is an extremely harsh discipline.

Your example about moving out of the way of a fire engine illustrates the fact that those who summoned you dont know that its an offence to obstruct emergency services. You, having more sense, made that judgment call. Clearly the people who summoned you were of an idiotic disposition.

What I am so encouraged by in this debate is that Shane seems to realise that he has done wrong; that can only be a good sign. And as to the person who encouraged Shane not to question what he was doing, I can only have contempt for that person.

I wish Shane all good fortune in his future career. Kind regards.

 

carnmores's picture

are we now all complicit?

carnmores | | Permalink

aweb is part of our professional lives

glenbogle's picture

attempt at response to this point

glenbogle | | Permalink

 Shane & Donald

it occurs to me that if you are invited to prepare false accounts or to provide false information then your only defence is that the client provided you with a written and signed instructions that clearly stated that you should state these items in that way in any statement that you produced for use by him or his advisers. Obviously such a document would be valuable as you could pass it to the relevant authorities when the matters came to light or Which you as is your professional dutypassed on to your regulatory body for advice and to the relevant authorities so that they might take the appropriate action.

the last time this happened in my experience; I refused to take the line suggestedon the grounds that it was false accounting and I found myself being given one hour to get out of the office of the business concerned and they did not pay me for the work done that month. I recently heard that the same people were involved in dodgy mortgage applications.

it is invidious, not uncommon and horribly unfair when this happens. A person who has trained, studied and sweated blood to obtain a professional qualification is treatedin a worse manner than a prostitute. The person who induces inor instructs someone to commit what is a criminal act is perverting Your entire careerwithout a care for the consequences.they should not be sheltered from criminal charges or from being removed from any professional bodies of which they are members

at a time when it is becoming clear that there is something "rotten in the state of Denmark"in relation to business ethics in this country the question raised in this topic must create a great deal of discomfort across the countryamongst persons who like me are trying to stay honest and do the right thing for our clients despite their obvious wish to gain some advantage by whatever means.

Have I done enough to ensure that I have not allowed something false to be presented on the records as truth? That is the question that I have in my mind at all times when reviewing documents for issue on behalf of clients.

davidwinch's picture

Client's instructions

davidwinch | | Permalink

I think there is a difference between preparing accounts which you cannot be sure are true and preparing accounts which you believe to be false.

In the OP's position a bad debt provision had been made against the sum due from a customer which had gone into liquidation before the year end.  The amount was material.  On seeing the draft accounts the customer instructed that the debt should be treated as good (and apparently not based on any information about the liquidation, but simply as a means of showing a better result).

Also the accountant was instructed to increase the closing stock figure - again falsely to present a better profit figure to present to a potential lender.

This is not an audit client - but clearly the accountant believes both adjustments to be unwarranted and that the adjusted accounts are false and misleading.

In those circumstances showing that the instruction came from the client is not a "defence".

Had it been the case that the client had said, "The liquidation is a technicality - I have been assured that we will be paid in full" and "Stock has been undervalued in the past - the new figure takes account of all production costs including overheads" - and had the accountant believed that - then it would not be wrong of the accountant to make those adjustments, in my view.

But that is not the situation here.

David

Top_Cat's picture

HMRC

Top_Cat | | Permalink

It must be nice to be perfect.  Unfortunately I believe anyone who claims to be perfect is either a fool or a liar.

 

David, your references to the stock alteration are interesting. With that in mind do you believe, like me, that in view of the revalations in court in the last week there should be a police investigation of HMRC.

Quote - Daily Mail  -  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012876/Tax-inspectors-taxed-businessmen-boost-pay-packets-claims-whistleblower.html

"A WHISTLEBLOWING tax inspector has told a tribunal how businessmen were being deliberately over-taxed so his colleagues could boost their pay packets.......................

If the closing stock is increased in one year because of the officer's actions, then the opening stock should also be considered, as well as being increased the following year by the same amount,' he said.

The inquiry officer involved and his manager had conspired NOT to make the consequential adjustment nor to advise the trader or his agent of this,' said Mr Curtis."

 

The Minion's picture

Just on the stock point

The Minion | | Permalink

I seem to remember a few years ago one of the scare stories re PI claims related to a non audit set of accounts for a farmer.

The farmer had continually increased his stock figure to show healthy profits to keep the bank off his back. When finally he ran out of money, the bank called in the loans and the insolvency guys wandered in.

When all came to all he had substantially less stock than the accounts showed, the bank lost out heavily and then sued the accountants and won. The case basically hinged on the duty of care the accountants had to the bank.

The current suggestions of using "Nelson's Eye" here wont work because at some point the debt will fail and the trail will lead back to the sender. Of course the boss will say it is all his fault - NOT.

Keep it clean tell who you need to tell and keep your career.

 

davidwinch's picture

A police investigation of HMRC?

davidwinch | | Permalink

Top_Cat

I wouldn't wish to be rude about the police or about HMRC but I have to say a police investigation of HMRC would be about as much use as asking me if the particle path tracks from the Large Hadron Collider experiments at CERN had been correctly analysed.

David

Top_Cat's picture

-

Top_Cat | | Permalink

My point David is that the testimony and evidence shown to the tribunal seems to show widespread criminal activity within HMRC.

Apart from defrauding taxpayers by knowingly overcharging them, there is also the issue of obtaining bonuses/promotions by deception.  And I dont for one second think this was restricted to just one office.

Perhaps a public enquiry should take place with accountants, tax experts, and forensic accountants (your good self) etc carrying out the enquiry. Certainly the evidence produced is cause to grave concern.

 

Old Greying Accountant's picture

David ...

Old Greying Acc... | | Permalink

... so cynical, on a Friday afternoon too! :o) 

glenbogle's picture

Large Hadron Collider

glenbogle | | Permalink

At least there is a chance that the data there will be properly and critically analysed unlike HMRC's activities in some cases.

carnmores's picture

so a lot of heat

carnmores | | Permalink

and no light ;-)

glenbogle's picture

reply to david

glenbogle | | Permalink

I find sense and as always  wisdom in your comments.

Agree your comments.

 

weaversmiths's picture

Always look after yourself

weaversmiths | | Permalink

Shane, you took all these exams and did all that training - dont let anyone walk all over you.  This will come up later and bite you on the bum.  If it is any help - I did a S330 PoCA 2002 Report on a dodgy builder and his Accountant (who provided the builder with Payslips on one of his limited companies to support a £40,000 loan - both companies were about to go into liquidation at the time but nothing was done until  after the loan was agreed) and what happened? Precisely nothing.  I was persuaded to do  the books for the first  year's accounts on the companies and once we had done them I refused to do any further work  as it was not the sort of work we would normally dream of undertaking.  The Accountant said that I did not know how to operate Sage, what he didn't know was that our man who did the actual bookkeeping used to work as a bookkeeper for the Accountant and knew just how dodgy he is.   I consider I covered myself by reporting the fraud.  The Official Receiver was not interested in the level of fraud in the two years leading up to the liquidation, nor the fraudulent payslips and neither were HMRC - probably £150,000 undeclared profit, possibly more. Neither were they interested in the previous limited company that went down.  Meanwhile the Accountant continues in his dodgy ways as does the builder. No records kept, of course.

Donald - if only we lived in an ideal world where everyone is honest, especially MPs, Councillors, Newspapermen and, most of all, Policemen. 

TheAncientOne (just back from holiday in North Wales)

 

davidwinch's picture

The Ancient One

davidwinch | | Permalink

I appreciate that we do not have all the facts, but if the accountant provided pay slips in relation to pay that was genuinely paid (or credited) to the individual in question then on the face of it there does not appear to be anything wrong in that.

Of course if the accountant also wrote to say that the employer was in rude health and was going to continue paying that salary for ever more then that is a different matter!

But you are right to point out that very many Suspicious Activity Reports submitted by accountants and others result in no follow up investigation or action by the authorities.

David

Top_Cat's picture

Not cynical - practical

Top_Cat | | Permalink

The fact is that no one cares whether refeences are fraudulent or not - untill someone defaults on the repayments. THAT is when banks start to shout and look for someone, anyone, to get their money from.

 

weaversmiths's picture

David

weaversmiths | | Permalink

The Accountant had no records as no records were kept following our first year's record keeping (we still have some of the later paperwork). The Client first asked me to fraudulently produce payslips and I refused so he went to his Accountant who obliged and produced them. I checked with Land Registry that the loan hadn't been taken out on my home property but it was OK  - yes, that is the level of fraud we could have been faced with.  Some people just keep getting away with it.  HMRC/Companies House/ Official Receiver were made aware  about 1 - 2 years ago.  Three companies have now been struck off because of no paperwork submitted to Companies House and the client's car purchases  just get more and more expensive! 

This makes me look back over my varied career of some 55 years and missed opportunities (dishonest and untraceable) that presented themselves at various times.  I presume that these opportunities were there because I was known to be trustworthy.  But, it does make one wonder......................

TheAncientOne

OldAccountant's picture

Ancient One

OldAccountant | | Permalink

It's a good job you resisted temptation. I saw a film about an accountant working for the mob, and the retirement plan really wasn't that good - unless you have always wanted a be a pillar of society, or more accurately, part of the concrete foundations for a concrete pillar.

 

weaversmiths's picture

Retirement plan

weaversmiths | | Permalink

OldAccountant says <...and the retirement plan really wasn't that good - unless you have always wanted a be a pillar of society, or more accurately, part of the concrete foundations for a concrete pillar>

I cannot but  think of Mitchell when I drive  under the  Chiswick flyover and wonder which pillar he is in/under??? (:-).

TheAncientOne

To hang yourself or not ?

The Black Knight | | Permalink

Unfortunately this is probably an all too frequent occurance, which the system supports.

There is no support at all for Shane, and there should be ! as this is what allows this behaviour to continue.

He will not be the first to be bullied into doing something unethical or illegal, and if he had done the correct thing and resigned his post he would not have been entitled to any unemployment benefit either unless he breached firms confidentiality.

Not a nice place to be when you have a wife, mortgage, children and a barclaycard to support.

Shanes only option for survival is leave quietly, just as you would for any other serious money laundering offence.

The experienced offenders obey a simple rule "Don't leave a smoking gun on the file"

Bad experiences can be a very good method of learning, what is done is done.

Add comment
Log in or register to post comments