Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Crime Programming The Almighty Buck The Courts News

Madoff's Programmers Indicted 147

Posted by Soulskill
from the just-an-off-by-one-billion-bug-i-swear dept.
jason8 writes with news that two programmers who worked at Bernie Madoff's investment firm have now been indicted on charges of 'conspiracy, falsifying records of a broker-dealer and falsifying records of an investment adviser,' for their role in hiding the firm's activities (PDF) from the SEC and external accountants. Quoting Reuters: "O'Hara and Perez, employed at the firm from 1990 and 1991, respectively, were primarily responsible for developing and maintaining computer programs in the investment advisory unit at the center of the fraud. Many of the programs were run on an IBM server known as 'House 17,' according to court documents. Prosecutors said the men took hush money to help keep the fraud going and designed codes to make up fake trade blotters and phantom records. US prosecutors said the two men worked under the supervision of Madoff and his top aide, Frank DiPascali, to deceive the US Securities and Exchange Commission and a European accounting firm. DiPascali is cooperating with prosecutors, who said his information led to the arrests of the programmers and the now defunct firm's outside accountant."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Madoff's Programmers Indicted

Comments Filter:
  • So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hatta (162192) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @09:46AM (#31549474) Journal

    Wake me up when someone at AIG gets indicted.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      So, it's off to federal "pound me in the ass" prison for those guys...

      • Probably. Unless they happen to be rich, which I doubt, after all, tech people are not exactly the best paid in financial businesses...

        • These guys almost left Madoff's operation, who then paid them a boatload of money to stay.
          • He probably made them an offer they couldn't refuse.

          • Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Gorobei (127755) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @12:44PM (#31550520)

            Programmers often claim to be professional workers rather than technicians. This is pretty much a case study: do you walk because you are being asked to behave unethically, or do you rationalize the problem and accept the $200K/year (or whatever?)

            Last week I was meeting with our business head, and he asked me if and why my team was able to execute a pretty complex plan. I said yes, of course, and the only reason I gave was that everyone on the team was honest: they would each work hard, and would update us rapidly on their real progress and problems. Got it sold in under a minute, no PERT charts needed. Just professionals planning to get a job done - if even one person on the team might behave like the programmers involved in Madoff's operation, I wouldn't have been able to promise anything.

          • by mdda (462765)

            Actually, from what I dimly recall, they were on ~$100k, and demand a raise to ~$150k when they realized that what they were doing wasn't legit. They should have asked for a lot more (or quit, of course).

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jhd (7165)

      Dont forget Goldman, Citi, Fanny, Freddy, BofA, CountryWide, etc....

      They all new what they were doing.

      • Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Hatta (162192) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @11:56AM (#31550174) Journal

        You are of course correct. Also, Lehman Bros. Especially Lehman Bros. Their failure was the straw that broke the camels back. And yes, they knew what they were doing. They were so clever about what they were doing that they came up with ways to hide liability that no one ever thought of before. String em all up I say.

    • COUGH The reason we gave them the money was to save them from collapse and save our economy from the problems that would create. They are paying it back. ENDCOUGH
      • by shentino (1139071)

        I say that a bank that can hold the economy hostage like that is too big.

        Too big to fail means too big period.

        Either we need a more robust economy that can survive a flopout, or we need tougher regulation on the banks.

    • by sgt_doom (655561)

      Thank the gods, they've finally found the two guys responsible for the global economic meltdown ----

      OR NOT!!! Perhaps it was Bradley Birkenfeld, the UBS banker who attempted to out all those mega-rich American tax cheats to the US Treasury???? (Already in jail -- for 40 months for attempting to be a whistleblower - about the only real crime today in the USA). Say, whatever became of Robert Rubin, Maurice Greenberg, Hank Paulson, Alan Greenspan and the rest of those supercriminals?????

  • That if they're actually guilty of helping pull this stuff off then fuck them but then I'm reminded if they get convicted that's probably actually going to happen to them.
  • by Agamous Child (538344) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @09:49AM (#31549494) Homepage Journal
    If your boss asks you to break the law, the argument "I was just following orders!" doesn't hold up according to the authorities, especially when your boss decides to "cooperate with them" and throw you under the bus. Always question the motives and the legality of a system you design, and if your boss asks you to break the law, tell them that you won't do it, and if they persist, explain that you are going to contact authorities immediately.
    • Re: (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I took the high road. I've been unemployed for three years since. I wish I had just done the fucking job and then my kids would have money in the college fund, my wife and I would have some savings, and I wouldn't stress about paying the mortgage each month. I did contact the authorities, and they couldn't care less about my situation. (found a huge hole where the exec mgmt had been moving money off the books, and either taking kickbacks, or using it to pay for "business expenses" they would rather not

      • In Thank You for Smoking the lobbyist called that the 'Yuppie Nuremberg Defense'

        Sorry for the Godwin. But I agree, it seems the roles of who is cooperating are reversed here from what I'd expect.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by tpstigers (1075021)
        Success in our culture is often measured by money. Unfortunately, money and morals don't usually go together. So we generally have to make a choice - do I want to be rich, or would I rather be able to teach my kids the difference between right and wrong? Personally, I think you made the right choice.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ClosedSource (238333)

        I know it doesn't put food on the table but you did good. Sometimes the satisfaction you get from doing the right thing is all you get for your efforts.

        Let's hope there really is Karma.

    • The problem is that somebody who's orchestrating a billion-dollar scheme likely uses more subtle techniques to manipulate people into acquiescence than pointedly asking "will you break the law for me?" And if they do ask openly, you can be sure they've got some leverage: they'll either bribe or blackmail you. So, in this case, the moral really is: don't take bribes.
      • by gbjbaanb (229885) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @10:36AM (#31549734)

        but is it a bribe, or a bonus?

        I mean, if I worked at a financial org, and they asked me to write some wierd code that created dummy trade records, I may think 'eh?' and ask whether it was correct or not, but they'd then tell me its all legal, above board and just another one of those stupid regulatory rules that seem to make no sense to mere programmers... and I'd shrug, say "well, ok then" and do it. then they give me a huge bonus and I think "great, working for financial services is wonderful - they always pay large bonuses"

        I mean, imagine if you worked on a popular OS and my boss told me to put a back-door in, saying the NSA required it of us. what would you do? :)

        • Is it just me or does it seem like the most important details are always left out of these articles? The report clearly raises the question about how much these guys were paid and how willingly they aided their superiors. It also seems an inexplicable role reversal of the big fish cooperating to catch the little fish. Why is this type of info always left out of articles? I gather it's possible that some info was unavailable, but I feel like the journalists who write these articles don't even bother fol
          • It also seems an inexplicable role reversal of the big fish cooperating to catch the little fish.

            In a drug bust, they bust the little guy to get the middleman, and pressure the middleman to get the big kahuna. In this case, they started at the top, and so every link in the chain leads further down instead of up. Oh, also, the big guys have better lawyers. These IT guys sure don't look innocent to me, but you can be sure that they're being sold out by bigger fish who want to stay out of the fire.

          • I agree. There ought to be a law that says the small fish can't be punished more than the big fish. There are plenty of cases where a criminal involved their girlfriend in a crime and then turned state's evidence against her while she "stood by her man". It sucks.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by K. S. Kyosuke (729550)

          I mean, if I worked at a financial org, and they asked me to write some wierd code that created dummy trade records, I may think 'eh?' and ask whether it was correct or not

          "Hey, Jim, we need you to write setup code for some test cases."

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Migala77 (1179151)

          but is it a bribe, or a bonus?

          The 'please don't tell the SEC about this'-condition might have given them a hint about that.

          I mean, imagine if you worked on a popular OS and my boss told me to put a back-door in, saying the NSA required it of us. what would you do? :)

          Check with the NSA? Ask which law authorizes the NSA to do that?

        • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

          by Vasheron (1750022)

          I mean, imagine if you worked on a popular OS and my boss told me to put a back-door in, saying the NSA required it of us. what would you do? :)

          I would contact the RCMP and CSIS immediately!

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by selven (1556643)

          I mean, imagine if you worked on a popular OS and my boss told me to put a back-door in, saying the NSA required it of us. what would you do? :)

          Put a back-door in the back-door. What else is there to do?

          • by Bake (2609)

            "Yo dawg!, I heard you liked back-doors so I put a back-door in the back-door. What else is there to do?"

            There, FTFY

        • by russotto (537200)

          I mean, if I worked at a financial org, and they asked me to write some wierd code that created dummy trade records, I may think 'eh?' and ask whether it was correct or not, but they'd then tell me its all legal, above board and just another one of those stupid regulatory rules that seem to make no sense to mere programmers... and I'd shrug, say "well, ok then" and do it. then they give me a huge bonus and I think "great, working for financial services is wonderful - they always pay large bonuses"

          Being the

        • by Gorobei (127755) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @01:55PM (#31551084)

          I mean, if I worked at a financial org, and they asked me to write some wierd code that created dummy trade records, I may think 'eh?' and ask whether it was correct or not, but they'd then tell me its all legal, above board and just another one of those stupid regulatory rules that seem to make no sense to mere programmers... and I'd shrug, say "well, ok then" and do it.

          That's exactly why big financial institutions make their programmers spend 1hr+/week going through on-line training courses with dull topics like chinese walls, information leakage, money-laundering, ethics, non-public information, etc. The topic hardly matters, the point that is trying to be explained is "if it seems wrong, don't do it. Escalate to your management or the compliance department." A good firm takes this stuff seriously: I've seen several examples of a junior associate reporting pressure to do something questionable, three levels of managers and lawyers zoom in, 24 hours later, it is announced that a senior person has left the firm.

          • by gknoy (899301)

            Except, when you escalate it to your (crooked) superiors, and their (crooked) lawyers, and they tell you that it's all A-OK and perhaps even required for XYZ compliance, how would you know they were wrong? You can still refuse to do it, but it's quite possible they'd convince you, depending on how obfuscated the crookedness was.

        • If that's the way it should work, what about all those guys at Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley. Hell, Citigroup is full of 'em....
        • by rdnetto (955205)

          Get it in writing, so if the shit hits the fan you can cover your ass.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DoofusOfDeath (636671)

      If your boss asks you to break the law, the argument "I was just following orders!" doesn't hold up according to the authorities, especially when your boss decides to "cooperate with them" and throw you under the bus.

      This is only sometimes true. If you tortured people for the CIA under orders, the Obama administration says it won't prosecute you. Although that's not exactly the same, because their argument is that it's okay because the CIA lawyers said it was.

    • As far as I can see from the opening post, the question whether these people were programmers or not doesn't come into it at all.

      If we are to believe the indictment quoted in the opening post, those people were guilty of the following:

      BLMIS's As part of a concerted effort overseen by MADOFF and his employee, FRANK DIPASCALI, JR., to deceive both the SEC and the European accounting firm, O'HARA and PEREZ developed and maintained computer programs that generated numerous false and fraudulent records. O'HARA

      • As far as I understand, the law simply asks if you (or any ordinary person in your place) could reasonably have known that you were helping with fraud. If you were, you're guilty.

        Actually, shouldn't that be: if there is no reasonable doubt that they knew they were abetting fraud, then they're guilty? Or did they do away with the whole "presumption of innocence" thing when I wasn't looking?

      • by Compaqt (1758360)
        But if someone (like Madoff) is making hundreds of millions of dollars, how much do you think the life of 2 nerds is worth?
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      "if your boss asks you to break the law, tell them that you won't do it, and if they persist, explain that you are going to contact authorities immediately."

      IMO, That is the worst advice I have ever heard, why on earth would you tell someone you were going to turn them in? What a great way to put yourself and your family in danger. Wouldn't it be better to just resign and report it anonymously? _Telling_ your boss (or anyone) that your going to turn them in serves no purpose and is just pure stupidity.

    • If your boss asks you to break the law, the argument "I was just following orders!" doesn't hold up...

      Unless its water boarding, or tapping phones without a warrant.

  • by ewg (158266) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @09:58AM (#31549548)

    Insert "scheme" joke here. Or "chroot jail", "execution protection", "dropping privileges",...

  • by timeOday (582209) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @10:02AM (#31549560)
    ...to know how much "hush money" they actually received? Madoff made billions from this. I'll bet anything these guys were paid less than the average Goldman Sachs annual bonus.

    I hope I would say "no" to something like this. As engineers and software developers, we generally feel obliged to do what we are told.

    • by Sponge Bath (413667) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @10:34AM (#31549722)

      ...to know how much "hush money" they actually received?

      They got to wear Hawaiian shirts on casual Friday.

      • by JamesP (688957)

        ...to know how much "hush money" they actually received?

        They got to wear Hawaiian shirts on casual Friday.

        Yeah, and maybe they got to install that linux thing on their computers that they've been asking for.

    • by cbs4385 (929248)
      There are plenty of systems I work on and develop for wherein I depend on the domain knowledge of others to help me along. I normally learn just enough of the systems to get the requested functionality to work. They tell me how to do things legally (as the time constraints don't permit me enough time to research all the statutes, nor am I a lawyer to trust my parsing of the requisite statutes). I can easily envision a scenario wherein the coders did break the law, but didn't know that the specific situat
      • by karnal (22275)

        Actually, instead of just being the man who designed the slim jim - in this car analogy, there would be two sets of people:

        1. Programmers / person who created AND GAVE the slim jim to #2
        2. DiPascali / person who broke into the car.

    • by Animats (122034) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @12:03PM (#31550220) Homepage

      Here are the payoff details, from the SEC press release [sec.gov]. They were paid off, but not very well.

      The SEC alleges that O'Hara and Perez had a crisis of conscience in 2006 and tried to cover their tracks by attempting to delete approximately 218 of the 225 special programs from the House 17 computer. But they did not delete the monthly backup tapes. O'Hara and Perez then cashed out hundreds of thousands of dollars each from their personal BMIS accounts before confronting Madoff and refusing to generate any more fabricated books and records.

      According to O'Hara's handwritten notes from the encounter, one of them told Madoff, "I won't lie any longer. Next time, I say 'ask Frank,'" meaning that Madoff should rely on DiPascali alone to create the false data and reports.

      The SEC's complaint alleges that Madoff responded by telling DiPascali to offer O'Hara and Perez as much money as necessary to keep quiet and not expose the misrepresentations. O'Hara and Perez considered the offer and demanded a salary increase of nearly 25 percent along with one-time bonuses in late 2006 of more than $60,000 each. They stated to DiPascali at the time that they did not ask for more because a greater amount might appear too suspicious. DiPascali then managed to convince O'Hara and Perez to modify computer programs so that he and other 17th floor employees could create the necessary reports themselves.

    • As an engineer you should do what is right and not illegal. The engineer is the one who makes ideas manifest in the real world, and as such you should know that if it's illegal you're head will be on the chopping block. Up until that point where it's created it's just an illegal idea.

      • by Compaqt (1758360)

        But software developers are not domain experts in the financial industry, which has gotten more and more arcane over the years, from derivatives to credit-default swaps, mortgage-backed securities, on so forth.

        Look at it this way:

        1. If you're a programmer working on a medical device (to be used in a hospital), are you responsible for the amount of radiation given off, or is your M.D. supervisor responsible who told you the legally permissible dose?

        2. If you're working on a medical records application, are y

    • "As engineers and software developers, we generally feel obliged to do what we are told."

      Shut your mouth! You are going to ruin it for the rest of us!

    • Madoff made billions from this.

      There is no indication of this. His collection of properties and luxeries were quite modest for a renowned legendary career trader on Wall Street who co-founded NASDAQ.

      As for the programmers, they lived in average midde class homes. They asked for a bonus of $60,000 but were fed up with what they were being asked to do, which was to rig up some information for auditors. I've looked at this in some detail (they were AS/400 programmers

  • No details (Score:4, Informative)

    by UnknowingFool (672806) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @10:07AM (#31549584)
    Reading the article and the indictment no details are given that the men knew it was a fraud other than the allegations. Also no details are given about "hush" money.
    • Re:No details (Score:5, Insightful)

      by canajin56 (660655) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @10:21AM (#31549660)
      Also, the courts are granting one of the masterminds leniency in exchange for prosecuting their underlings? Isn't that the opposite of how it works? Reducing the sentence of a drug kingpin in exchange for testimony against 2 of his street dealers, really?
      • by Animats (122034) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @10:56AM (#31549824) Homepage

        Also, the courts are granting one of the masterminds leniency in exchange for prosecuting their underlings? Isn't that the opposite of how it works? Reducing the sentence of a drug kingpin in exchange for testimony against 2 of his street dealers, really?

        Justice Department policy is that the first one to come forward and turn in the others gets leniency. [justice.gov] Those guys could have turned in Madoff, even after Madoff's arrest, until Madoff confessed. But the one "that is second in the door -- even if by only a matter of days or hours, as has been the case on a number of occasions -- will not be eligible for leniency." If your company is crooked, it's very important to know this.

        Madoff himself, of course, is Prisoner #61727-054, at Butner Federal Correctional Institution (medium security).

      • You cut deals simply in order expand your ability to prosecute. In a criminal hierarchy you're often interested in "cutting off the head," who is probably the guy guilty of the most charges anyway, but in this case that was Bernie Madoff (whom they've already got) and it isn't exactly clear that his "top aide" was more instrumental to the deceit than the programmers. In any case, if they weren't willing to cut a deal themselves, well, I guess their "prisoner's dilemma" playing strategy was not optimal.
      • Also, the courts are granting one of the masterminds leniency in exchange for prosecuting their underlings? Isn't that the opposite of how it works? Reducing the sentence of a drug kingpin in exchange for testimony against 2 of his street dealers, really?

        If the kingpin gets caught before the street dealers, why not?

      • by bloodhawk (813939)
        It isn't the opposite at all. There are plenty of known drug kingpins and crime figures that have significantly reduced their sentences by ratting out all their underlings. He who rats first gets all the cheese.
      • This was a crime executed with... a computer ZOMG!!! The "kingpin" was just a naive, technically illiterate bureaucrat. These two masterminds were the true terrorists. Who knows what other crimes they might attempt if this patriotic whistle blower didn't do the right thing.

      • Also, the courts are granting one of the masterminds leniency in exchange for prosecuting their underlings? Isn't that the opposite of how it works? Reducing the sentence of a drug kingpin in exchange for testimony against 2 of his street dealers, really?

        You are looking at the small picutre of the individual instance, where, yeah, maybe it doesn't make sense.

        Part of the big picture, though, is this: if you do this, then the small fry have more motivation to preemptively turn in the top dog, because they kno

    • Re:No details (Score:5, Informative)

      by Danimoth (852665) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @10:24AM (#31549666)
      Generally, trade reports are generated from you know, trades. Typically, for the reason of the article, these systems don't allow the users to generate reports even for testing purposes. Rather, they would submit a trade in a test stock such as ZVZZT or ZXZZT. These would generate a trade, which would show on the reports, but not have any clearing associated with them. While it is possible to "dummy" in trade reports, even a rudimentary glance at the corresponding blotter would throw up red flags as there would be no clearing associated with the trades, and they would have no presence on the tape. I know the auditors were crooked, but this is an aspect of the scam that the SEC should have been all over. A system which would make it appear as if there was clearing (at least on the paper that Madoff was generating) without that clearing actually being there is something that should shout "FRAUD" to anyone involved in the project.
      • by dr_dank (472072)

        While it is possible to "dummy" in trade reports, even a rudimentary glance at the corresponding blotter would throw up red flags as there would be no clearing associated with the trades, and they would have no presence on the tape. I know the auditors were crooked, but this is an aspect of the scam that the SEC should have been all over.

        A fake blotter report would take care of this. An auditor following the trade from the initial booking to settlement would be satisfied from seeing these reports. There's z

    • Maybe, but you have to grant that it was a McCool article.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      They would have to know what they were doing was fraudulent, since the software they wrote generated false trade records. A real electronic trade connects to the trade exchange systems, which feeds back a confirmation code that the transaction took place. Since no actual trade took place, no there was no confirmation code. The software they wrote simply made it appear that the trade legimitately took place.

    • by Renraku (518261)

      Not all hush money is created equally. Most people wouldn't even know that it was hush money if they were receiving it. Most likely, he hired some programmers and told them that they would be paid above what they're worth, in exchange for secrecy and trust.

  • "Hey I was just following the spec!! Honestly I didn't know it's all hex to me!"

  • by lucm (889690) on Saturday March 20, 2010 @10:50AM (#31549800)

    Big Tobacco health data. Big Pharma test data. Big Oil environmental data. Enron accounting or trading data. Retails sales zappers.

    There is no way all this data "tweaking" can be done without involving IT people: DBA's, programmers, techies.

    Right now, at this very moment, some of these Digital Era Henchmen are reading Slashdot on iPhones or 32 inch monitors purchased with blood money. And chances are that some of these people are making snide comments about Microsoft or Darl McBride's ethics. Tsk tsk.

    • by MacDork (560499)

      Big Tobacco health data. Big Pharma test data. Big Oil environmental data. Enron accounting or trading data. Retails sales zappers.

      Don't forget about CRU's Harry. [pajamasmedia.com]

    • by Pichu0102 (916292)

      To be fair, once they find out, it's usually a thing where if they tell, it's blacklisting for life from any company, if you don't conveniently "disappear". Just look at the news.
      So not continuing to follow orders could put you on the streets, homeless forever, or worse. No matter what you do at that point, your life is already in jeopardy, perhaps physically.

    • by Velex (120469)

      on iPhones or 32 inch monitors purchased with blood money.

      Money's money. Let me know where to get in on that. All I do is cook meaningless data right now because our data-entry system is so riddled with bugs and agents don't care to report errors. Where do I apply to cook meaningful data? I'd sure like to be able to afford a car one of these days. Capitalism in action.

    • by ikarous (1230832)

      Big Tobacco health data. Big Pharma test data. Big Oil environmental data. Enron accounting or trading data. Retails sales zappers.

      There is no way all this data "tweaking" can be done without involving IT people: DBA's, programmers, techies.

      Right now, at this very moment, some of these Digital Era Henchmen are reading Slashdot on iPhones or 32 inch monitors purchased with blood money. And chances are that some of these people are making snide comments about Microsoft or Darl McBride's ethics. Tsk tsk.

      Or maybe you're one of them, and the above comment is just a clever way to direct attention away from yourself. But what if, with this comment, I'm trying to achieve the same thing?

      I... I just don't know anymore.

  • About Time! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 20, 2010 @11:27AM (#31549982)

    It's about time some simple programmers got held accountable for their deeds.

    I can live with programmers and bad testing, bad code, bad QA, but I can NOT accept EVIL code.

    Just following orders does not cut it. These people knew what they were doing, there is no hiding it.

    Want to be called a "software engineer"? Live by the engineers code of ethics, be judged by the engineers standards, and accept the same punishment. Otherwise, it's just being a simple programmer.

  • I would think that after 19 or 20 years, respectively, that the statute of limitations for mere fraud would have kicked in.

    • by Caraig (186934) *

      There are all sorts of caveats to the statute of limitations. It's not as bulletproof as it is made out to be. Obviously, Class A felonies are exempt from the statute, but there are likely other caveats and exemptions.

      In this case, however, it appears that the programmers were hired *since* 1990 and 1991, and have continued to work with Bernie and the Boffers till at least 2006.

      If that is not the case, it's possible that the court decided that they aided and abetted a criminal action which continued on to

    • by Corbets (169101)

      I would think that someone capable of finding his way to Slashdot should be able to RTFA correctly... ... wait, never mind.

      Given that this is Slashdot, allow me to clarify it for you: they have been working for him (one since 1990, the other since 1991) until as recently as the last 4 years.

  • no ethics (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    While working on a contact for company A, which was servicing company B, I was asked to commit fraud to the tune of maybe 300k by falsifying data in the deliverable to Company B. I refused. It is scary to think about the absolute lack of ethics I have seen...before I walked off site in this instance I had a manager yelling at me to just do it. They found someone else to do it, eventually got caught and it was a pretty ugly fiasco, but my company was not involved. Company B was huge and could have owned

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Working...