Missing from both the cited news item and the discussion is: As an engineer, you are required to maintain a duty of care that overrides employer/client relatio

Missing from both the cited news item and the discussion is: As an engineer, you are required to maintain a duty of care that overrides employer/client relationships. As in, even if the boss says "seal it" on an inadequate bridge design, you are legally required to refuse. Key thing is, that seal is required, so (at least in theory) the boss is stuck, since nobody else with a seal will seal it either. Now stuff happens, ultimately the penalty is dismissal from the ranks of the PEng (and likely civil lawsuits), but an engineering license is a matter of entrusting the recipient to create a cost effective solution that does not compromise the safety of third parties. In economic language, this 'internalizes' the cost of failing to build things that will be safe to third parties (eg., the users of the bridge). As near as I can tell, the individual never had that accreditation, so the issue isn't about 'paying tribute', it's about false advertising.