5 ms·

This is just the extreme end of "fake it till you make it" hustle culture that's also extremely prevalent in startup culture. Presumably this guy thought "I'll

This is just the extreme end of "fake it till you make it" hustle culture that's also extremely prevalent in startup culture. Presumably this guy thought "I'll hire a bunch of people for free then we'll get contracts then I'll have the money to pay them (assuming I don't run off with the money)". Somewhat related, one of the things that made me stop freelancing online when I was a teenager was the number of people who upon job completion would ask me to wait until they had the money to pay, or try to get out of paying entirely.

hammock 5y ago
People are jumping to conclusions that this was some sort of criminal enterprise. The article makes no claims of criminal activity. There are clearly fibs - none though that are particularly unique in the design agency world. Perhaps there is some actual criminal fraud here, but the case is not laid out specifically. The fact is all these "jobfished" people signed up willingly for a job that was purely commission-based, and had the agency actually been able to attract a paying client in the first six months, who is to say Ali wouldn't have made good on his promises to hire people on salary, etc.? I know I'm going to be downvoted for this comment, but I wanted to lay out a contrarian point of view that doesn't just immediately jump on the bandwagon of the current Anna Sorokin/Tinder Swindler zeitgeist.
- MattGaiser 5y ago
  Luring people to work for you under false pretenses should be considered criminal fraud. They gave up other jobs and opportunities for this one. It directly impacted their economic security. If you put fake executives into an investment document with fake work samples and fake client claims, that would definitely be considered criminal fraud.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  It's more complicated than just "did he commit crime" (which he did, in terms of employment - you can't pay people £0 for full time work in the UK). His actions were fraudulent in terms of faking so many aspects of the company and his own profile, and he misled people by guaranteeing an income at the end of the probation. He was both criminal and manipulative but I'm sure in his mind he was just working on his grindset or whatever excuse internet hustlers use for ripping people off these days.
- CPLX 5y ago
  It almost certainly meets the test for fraud. In the UK that’s defined as making a dishonest representation for your own advantage or to cause another a loss. Hard to see how this doesn’t squarely fit that description.
  - hammock 5y ago
    Why, then, do you think the word "fraud" appears nowhere in the article?
    - beaconstudios 5y ago
      Journalists will, as a rule, not make explicit accusations that could bring libel/defamation suits.
      - hammock 5y ago
        Isn't this reasoning what the word "alleged" is for? Also not found in the article.
        beaconstudios 5y ago
        Not if allegations have not yet been raised. You seem very hung up on the wording of this article. Is fraud not a crime unless it's called out by a journalist?
      - webmaven 5y ago
        > Journalists will, as a rule, not make explicit accusations that could bring libel/defamation suits. Especially in the UK: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...
    - ceres 5y ago
      Because the BBC is a media company not a law firm or court of law. Maybe because he hasn't been charged ...yet. In any case you shouldn't decide the innocence or guilt of someone based on a news article.
- TigeriusKirk 5y ago
  The problem here is there is no difference to the victim. They were promised money the hiring party did not have and did not deliver. From the worker's viewpoint, they've been cheated of their wages regardless of intent.
  - hammock 5y ago
    What money were they promised? The article I read said they were hired on commission and zero clients were won.
    - lolinder 5y ago
      a) As others have already told you and the article calls out, you can't hire someone for $0 under UK law, even if you offer commission. b) The employees were all told they would get a salary and many were told they would get sponsored for a visa. Ali did not have the means to follow through with those promises.
- awb 5y ago
  > There are clearly fibs - none though that are particularly unique in the design agency world I ran a legit design agency and none of this is common. And it goes well beyond a fib. * Stealing portfolio samples (copyright infringement / IP theft & fraud) * Creating fake employee profiles and potentially impersonating these fake employees (fraud) * Hiring people on a $0 base salary (illegal hiring practice) At best he didn’t know he was breaking the law, at the worst he was.
- ellen364 5y ago
  The company probably broke minimum wage law. And might owe employer’s national insurance contributions to HMRC (the tax office). That might sound strange because the employees weren’t paid. But if the company was legally obliged to pay minimum wage, I’d guess they were also legally obliged to pay employer taxes. Having said that, the article noted that HMRC’s minimum wage enforcement team have already been involved and recovered just £29.70. Hopefully they’re still working on it. Edit: An employment tribunal ruled that three employees are collectively owed £19,000, so minimum wage is somewhat being enforced. But the company doesn’t have any money to pay them. It’s a mess.
- notahacker 5y ago
  > The fact is all these "jobfished" people signed up willingly for a job that was purely commission-based, and had the agency actually been able to attract a paying client in the first six months, who is to say Ali wouldn't have made good on his promises to hire people on salary, etc.? Who's to say Sorokin or the Tinder Swindler wouldn't have paid their victims back if only they'd ended up with enough money to do it? In this case someone recruited people he didn't have a chance of paying (or getting visas for even if the money came in) to work long hours for nothing for a business based entirely on lies (not just fake projects on the website, but a fake cofounder messaging staff!), and has absolutely no regrets over it. As others have pointed out, it's pretty difficult to have that many people working on trying to generate creative agency business for you and not end up with even the tiniest amount of invoiceable work unless you're actively disinterested in getting business closed. That's a little different in scope from your average "we'll pay you after our fundraise" startup 'job' offering, even if the outcome is usually the same. Devil's advocacy can be taken too far.
subpixel 5y ago
I had a company try to get net 60 terms _for a deposit_. That was the last time we spoke.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  That rather defeats the purpose of a deposit!
- toss1 5y ago
  Fine, we'll start the project in ~64 days (i.e., the first workday after the payment clears). But yeah, nope. If they're that slimy up front, they've already told you they are clients you do not want.
mmaunder 5y ago
Agreed re the cultural phenomenon. I think one of the things that makes people vulnerable to this is that it’s hard to “ask for the sale” and by extension, to ask for payment ahead of time, or even on time, when you’re starting out. Most of us have this inner sense of “How dare I?” ask for money. Even when it’s earned and perfectly honest or in direct payment for your directly contributed labor. This is what makes raising money hard and it’s what makes sales hard. And it is what allows people like this to take advantage of those who work hard without paying them for a surprisingly long time.
api 5y ago
Why isn't this a crime? Isn't it the wage theft equivalent of check kiting?
- lazide 5y ago
  It probably is a crime, and maybe it will get looked into due to this article. It is weird the article is being so circumspect about it.
  - smcin 5y ago
    No it's not weird the article is so circumspect, it's the difference between British and US journalism. a) If an accused was to be charged, media allegations could be used by them at trial. b) The UK is the most libel-friendly jurisdiction on the planet. (Look how the widespread allegations about Jimmy Savile since the 1970s didn't get reported till he died). c) Since Ali reportedly didn't gain from his operation, he seems unlikely to be able to be charged with anything higher than (allegedly) avoiding paying minimum wage, employee taxes, violations of companies laws, reckless trading. (Whether he intentionally caused his alleged victims to lose anything could be extremely hard to prove, what if he really believed his own spiel.) d) The UK Serious Fraud Office is extremely unlikely to touch this one, since there wasn't any real money involved, let alone major sums. But even if they were to, they have a track record of debacles, such as the 2021 reversal of the corruption verdict for Ziad Akle. e) Then a possible scenario is the peson about whom allegations were reported sues for libel.
- beaconstudios 5y ago
  This is a crime. The only real question is whether Ali will get prosecuted - which, given that he defrauded employees rather than investors, I rather doubt.

hammock 5y ago

People are jumping to conclusions that this was some sort of criminal enterprise. The article makes no claims of criminal activity. There are clearly fibs - none though that are particularly unique in the design agency world. Perhaps there is some actual criminal fraud here, but the case is not laid out specifically. The fact is all these "jobfished" people signed up willingly for a job that was purely commission-based, and had the agency actually been able to attract a paying client in the first six months, who is to say Ali wouldn't have made good on his promises to hire people on salary, etc.? I know I'm going to be downvoted for this comment, but I wanted to lay out a contrarian point of view that doesn't just immediately jump on the bandwagon of the current Anna Sorokin/Tinder Swindler zeitgeist.

MattGaiser 5y ago
Luring people to work for you under false pretenses should be considered criminal fraud. They gave up other jobs and opportunities for this one. It directly impacted their economic security. If you put fake executives into an investment document with fake work samples and fake client claims, that would definitely be considered criminal fraud.
beaconstudios 5y ago
It's more complicated than just "did he commit crime" (which he did, in terms of employment - you can't pay people £0 for full time work in the UK). His actions were fraudulent in terms of faking so many aspects of the company and his own profile, and he misled people by guaranteeing an income at the end of the probation. He was both criminal and manipulative but I'm sure in his mind he was just working on his grindset or whatever excuse internet hustlers use for ripping people off these days.
CPLX 5y ago
It almost certainly meets the test for fraud. In the UK that’s defined as making a dishonest representation for your own advantage or to cause another a loss. Hard to see how this doesn’t squarely fit that description.
- hammock 5y ago
  Why, then, do you think the word "fraud" appears nowhere in the article?
  - beaconstudios 5y ago
    Journalists will, as a rule, not make explicit accusations that could bring libel/defamation suits.
    - hammock 5y ago
      Isn't this reasoning what the word "alleged" is for? Also not found in the article.
      - beaconstudios 5y ago
        Not if allegations have not yet been raised. You seem very hung up on the wording of this article. Is fraud not a crime unless it's called out by a journalist?
    - webmaven 5y ago
      > Journalists will, as a rule, not make explicit accusations that could bring libel/defamation suits. Especially in the UK: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/on-libel-and-the-law-u-s-and-u-k-go-separate-ways https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/03/21/394273902/...
  - ceres 5y ago
    Because the BBC is a media company not a law firm or court of law. Maybe because he hasn't been charged ...yet. In any case you shouldn't decide the innocence or guilt of someone based on a news article.
TigeriusKirk 5y ago
The problem here is there is no difference to the victim. They were promised money the hiring party did not have and did not deliver. From the worker's viewpoint, they've been cheated of their wages regardless of intent.
- hammock 5y ago
  What money were they promised? The article I read said they were hired on commission and zero clients were won.
  - lolinder 5y ago
    a) As others have already told you and the article calls out, you can't hire someone for $0 under UK law, even if you offer commission. b) The employees were all told they would get a salary and many were told they would get sponsored for a visa. Ali did not have the means to follow through with those promises.
awb 5y ago
> There are clearly fibs - none though that are particularly unique in the design agency world I ran a legit design agency and none of this is common. And it goes well beyond a fib. * Stealing portfolio samples (copyright infringement / IP theft & fraud) * Creating fake employee profiles and potentially impersonating these fake employees (fraud) * Hiring people on a $0 base salary (illegal hiring practice) At best he didn’t know he was breaking the law, at the worst he was.
ellen364 5y ago
The company probably broke minimum wage law. And might owe employer’s national insurance contributions to HMRC (the tax office). That might sound strange because the employees weren’t paid. But if the company was legally obliged to pay minimum wage, I’d guess they were also legally obliged to pay employer taxes. Having said that, the article noted that HMRC’s minimum wage enforcement team have already been involved and recovered just £29.70. Hopefully they’re still working on it. Edit: An employment tribunal ruled that three employees are collectively owed £19,000, so minimum wage is somewhat being enforced. But the company doesn’t have any money to pay them. It’s a mess.
notahacker 5y ago
> The fact is all these "jobfished" people signed up willingly for a job that was purely commission-based, and had the agency actually been able to attract a paying client in the first six months, who is to say Ali wouldn't have made good on his promises to hire people on salary, etc.? Who's to say Sorokin or the Tinder Swindler wouldn't have paid their victims back if only they'd ended up with enough money to do it? In this case someone recruited people he didn't have a chance of paying (or getting visas for even if the money came in) to work long hours for nothing for a business based entirely on lies (not just fake projects on the website, but a fake cofounder messaging staff!), and has absolutely no regrets over it. As others have pointed out, it's pretty difficult to have that many people working on trying to generate creative agency business for you and not end up with even the tiniest amount of invoiceable work unless you're actively disinterested in getting business closed. That's a little different in scope from your average "we'll pay you after our fundraise" startup 'job' offering, even if the outcome is usually the same. Devil's advocacy can be taken too far.

subpixel 5y ago

I had a company try to get net 60 terms _for a deposit_. That was the last time we spoke.

beaconstudios 5y ago
That rather defeats the purpose of a deposit!
toss1 5y ago
Fine, we'll start the project in ~64 days (i.e., the first workday after the payment clears). But yeah, nope. If they're that slimy up front, they've already told you they are clients you do not want.

mmaunder 5y ago

Agreed re the cultural phenomenon. I think one of the things that makes people vulnerable to this is that it’s hard to “ask for the sale” and by extension, to ask for payment ahead of time, or even on time, when you’re starting out. Most of us have this inner sense of “How dare I?” ask for money. Even when it’s earned and perfectly honest or in direct payment for your directly contributed labor. This is what makes raising money hard and it’s what makes sales hard. And it is what allows people like this to take advantage of those who work hard without paying them for a surprisingly long time.

api 5y ago

Why isn't this a crime? Isn't it the wage theft equivalent of check kiting?

lazide 5y ago
It probably is a crime, and maybe it will get looked into due to this article. It is weird the article is being so circumspect about it.
- smcin 5y ago
  No it's not weird the article is so circumspect, it's the difference between British and US journalism. a) If an accused was to be charged, media allegations could be used by them at trial. b) The UK is the most libel-friendly jurisdiction on the planet. (Look how the widespread allegations about Jimmy Savile since the 1970s didn't get reported till he died). c) Since Ali reportedly didn't gain from his operation, he seems unlikely to be able to be charged with anything higher than (allegedly) avoiding paying minimum wage, employee taxes, violations of companies laws, reckless trading. (Whether he intentionally caused his alleged victims to lose anything could be extremely hard to prove, what if he really believed his own spiel.) d) The UK Serious Fraud Office is extremely unlikely to touch this one, since there wasn't any real money involved, let alone major sums. But even if they were to, they have a track record of debacles, such as the 2021 reversal of the corruption verdict for Ziad Akle. e) Then a possible scenario is the peson about whom allegations were reported sues for libel.
beaconstudios 5y ago
This is a crime. The only real question is whether Ali will get prosecuted - which, given that he defrauded employees rather than investors, I rather doubt.