5 ms·

What I was trying to say is that since courts would laugh at these organization, and rightly so, for not doing their due diligence, these would-be offenders mig

What I was trying to say is that since courts would laugh at these organization, and rightly so, for not doing their due diligence, these would-be offenders might actually proceed to pull the stunt, and try their luck landing the job. Also, I fail to see how this can be prosecuted when there's no identity theft or forgery i.e. real crimes involved in this act. It can be all boiled down to being just another case of an under-qualified candidate holding a role without proper or adequate credentials due to flawed hiring procedures, or more frankly the incompetence of the decision makers inside the organization.

lazide 4y ago
It's somewhat difficult to do without committing those crimes in some way. Most states have laws with similar types of clauses, as Fraud is generally illegal, and the core elements of fraud are generally recognized as lying about a material fact for financial gain. In this case, they were impersonating someone else. For them to get to the point of getting paid, they'd likely have to provide identity documents (including a SSN, some form of photo ID, etc.) if the company was doing their paperwork correctly. Even contractors have to cough up a SSN, and that is enough to trigger federal identity fraud charges. If they provided real credentials and their real name, but had someone else sit in who pretended to be them to do the interviews, it gets trickier - it would still likely to be some variant of conspiracy to commit. Conspiracy at the federal level generally only requires a concrete action by a conspirator in furtherance of a crime, which with only a little squinting would likely apply here to anyone involved (including the fake interviewee). I present to you 18 USC 1028, the federal identity fraud code. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028], which provides penalties up to 5 years for a first and non-violent/non-drug related offense, or 20 years (for a second offense or other nastier qualifications). A felony, either way. It includes transferring said documents electronically. My 'favorite' section is 7, which explicitly states that SSN, DOB, etc. count, as well. Conspiracy would likely be under 18 USC 1346 & 1349 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1346 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1346] [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1349 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1349], which makes it a crime to 'deprive another of the intangible right of honest services', or conspire with another to do so. Either way, as I said elsewhere, I doubt anyone would be particularly interested in such prosecution unless it was very high profile for some reason. It's hard to get anyone sympathetic about a large company getting scammed by someone this way. Most companies also don't like having a reputation or PR as being scammable. So companies should be very interested in covering their asses here. That said, it IS also a federal (and likely state) level felony, so folks SHOULD also rightly be scared to attempt it. If the right parties were motivated, it could easily result in many years in federal prison. And it's hard to say when someone will want to make an example out of something like this.
- FerociousTimes 4y ago
  Can you cite any cases where US authorities prosecuted such applicants for lying on their resumes? I doubt that it really happened since as you may have hinted, no prosecutors are interested in pursuing these cases for lack of sympathy as you put it, which I can't verify, or failure of winning the case which I suspect to be the chief motive here since misrepresenting facts or exaggerating events on your resume is not a crime.
  - lazide 4y ago
    And now the button appears. See reply right above you. And you're wrong - lying about MATERIAL facts, events, or qualifications to get a job is a crime. Lying that you had a dog when you were a kid (when it's not relevant), for instance? No problem. That's not likely to be a material fact. If you're interviewing to be a host of a kids show about dogs? A problem. Just not one most people are willing to make a case over. There also is the court precedent about 'mere fluffery' or 'puffery' not adding up to a lie, which would need to get worked out somehow. See [https://contractslawinaction.law.miami.edu/?page_id=171 https://contractslawinaction.law.miami.edu/?page_id=171] There is a line, for instance, between exaggeration and lying, that not everyone would agree where it sits.
- lazide 4y ago
  Since I can't reply to the sub-respondent, but can apparently reply to myself. I forgot the link to USC 1341 (Frauds and Swindles), which is just a great read on it's own. Regarding their request for an example - Here is an example of a successful prosecution of someone for fraud (and tax evasion) for material lies about qualifications and job histories. [https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2020/02/former-health-care-executive-duped-ann-arbor-firm-with-false-resume-feds-say.html?outputType=amp https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2020/02/former-health-c...] 20 years for mail fraud, 5 years for tax evasion. She was clearly going above and beyond on this front.

lazide 4y ago

It's somewhat difficult to do without committing those crimes in some way. Most states have laws with similar types of clauses, as Fraud is generally illegal, and the core elements of fraud are generally recognized as lying about a material fact for financial gain. In this case, they were impersonating someone else. For them to get to the point of getting paid, they'd likely have to provide identity documents (including a SSN, some form of photo ID, etc.) if the company was doing their paperwork correctly. Even contractors have to cough up a SSN, and that is enough to trigger federal identity fraud charges. If they provided real credentials and their real name, but had someone else sit in who pretended to be them to do the interviews, it gets trickier - it would still likely to be some variant of conspiracy to commit. Conspiracy at the federal level generally only requires a concrete action by a conspirator in furtherance of a crime, which with only a little squinting would likely apply here to anyone involved (including the fake interviewee). I present to you 18 USC 1028, the federal identity fraud code. [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1028], which provides penalties up to 5 years for a first and non-violent/non-drug related offense, or 20 years (for a second offense or other nastier qualifications). A felony, either way. It includes transferring said documents electronically. My 'favorite' section is 7, which explicitly states that SSN, DOB, etc. count, as well. Conspiracy would likely be under 18 USC 1346 & 1349 [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1346 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1346] [https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1349 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1349], which makes it a crime to 'deprive another of the intangible right of honest services', or conspire with another to do so. Either way, as I said elsewhere, I doubt anyone would be particularly interested in such prosecution unless it was very high profile for some reason. It's hard to get anyone sympathetic about a large company getting scammed by someone this way. Most companies also don't like having a reputation or PR as being scammable. So companies should be very interested in covering their asses here. That said, it IS also a federal (and likely state) level felony, so folks SHOULD also rightly be scared to attempt it. If the right parties were motivated, it could easily result in many years in federal prison. And it's hard to say when someone will want to make an example out of something like this.

FerociousTimes 4y ago
Can you cite any cases where US authorities prosecuted such applicants for lying on their resumes? I doubt that it really happened since as you may have hinted, no prosecutors are interested in pursuing these cases for lack of sympathy as you put it, which I can't verify, or failure of winning the case which I suspect to be the chief motive here since misrepresenting facts or exaggerating events on your resume is not a crime.
- lazide 4y ago
  And now the button appears. See reply right above you. And you're wrong - lying about MATERIAL facts, events, or qualifications to get a job is a crime. Lying that you had a dog when you were a kid (when it's not relevant), for instance? No problem. That's not likely to be a material fact. If you're interviewing to be a host of a kids show about dogs? A problem. Just not one most people are willing to make a case over. There also is the court precedent about 'mere fluffery' or 'puffery' not adding up to a lie, which would need to get worked out somehow. See [https://contractslawinaction.law.miami.edu/?page_id=171 https://contractslawinaction.law.miami.edu/?page_id=171] There is a line, for instance, between exaggeration and lying, that not everyone would agree where it sits.
lazide 4y ago
Since I can't reply to the sub-respondent, but can apparently reply to myself. I forgot the link to USC 1341 (Frauds and Swindles), which is just a great read on it's own. Regarding their request for an example - Here is an example of a successful prosecution of someone for fraud (and tax evasion) for material lies about qualifications and job histories. [https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2020/02/former-health-care-executive-duped-ann-arbor-firm-with-false-resume-feds-say.html?outputType=amp https://www.mlive.com/news/ann-arbor/2020/02/former-health-c...] 20 years for mail fraud, 5 years for tax evasion. She was clearly going above and beyond on this front.