> And, almost always, most would have made more money and had a more profitable career if they had simply stopped stealing and starting working honestly.
> I mean, figure it out. An embezzler has to not only do his or her job well so that no one is looking over his or her shoulder but has to do their job so well that they can steal for months or years and it won’t show up.
Performance and pay aren't 1:1, and sometimes quite far from it. That imbalance or perceived imbalance could certainly drive some to embezzle. Bit of a just world fallacy there.
The best engineer I ever worked with had 3 full time W-2 jobs remote in the US.
It was really unfortunate when all 3 companies found out at the same time and he was fired from all 3. Not unfortunate that he was fired, but unfortunate that his talent went to waste.
He was brilliant. But also a con artist.
Edit: I was his direct manager, and when I say he "was brilliant" I mean that he was extremely smart, extremely good at thinking about architecture, all the characteristics of a great engineer, etc. But he simply didn't have the time to execute because he was secretly splitting his time between 3 companies. So he was fired for low productivity, even though he had all of the skills needed to be extraordinarily productive.
In the defense and aerospace industry I've known - and continue to know - a number of engineers and specialists who do this. Leadership will often turn a blind eye, because the particular skill is so specialized, they'd need to give up a product line (or the whole business) if they terminate the guy. But, this being a very sick industry, they can't actually pay the guy more, so you get these terrible arrangements.
I worked with a guy who had multiple jobs like that, was supposed to be on call 24/7 for the job that he had in common with me. One day he finally answered the wrong phone with the wrong company name when his boss was out of town and some director tried to contact him in an emergency.
He was highly skilled, but also was not well liked by his peers. He knew how to suck up to no end, deflect blame for his own mistakes, and how to get out of work (presumably so he could do his other jobs) and get it dumped on others.
He was hated by his peers and it was no surprise (to anyone who worked with him as a peer one on one) when he got caught.
It was a similar situation where his skills were excellent when tried, but he chose to put them to use put to use to shaft other coworkers and honestly not do much at all / work elsewhere.
I ran into him later and as usual he was all about the excuses and about how he felt the folks at the company were bad people and so on, but it was like everything with him, a little truism that he bent to mean that he should get his no matter what the cost to anyone.
Did he did what you asked him to do? And was that about creating/delivering something specific? Or did you pay him for sitting on a chair for 8+ hours thinking exclusively for you? If one hires an X and he gets the X job done, then why would it matter if he works in 200 other jobs?
I see this edit added later:
>But he simply didn't have the time to execute because he was secretly splitting his time between 3 companies. So he was fired for low productivity, even though he had all of the skills needed to be extraordinarily productive.
That would be a legit reason to fire them!
Or it could be a post-facto rationalization ("he worked elsewhere too, so he couldn't have been productive"). Parent already said he was fired when they found out he working at another 2 places, which is different from the new story that they saw "low productivity".
Wait -- being fired for low productivity wouldn't require his multiple jobs being discovered. But you say he was fired when the companies found out. So they (or rather... you, his direct manager?) didn't notice his low productivity until they noticed he was working three jobs? Or perhaps you noticed but weren't sure what to do about it until you discovered the extra jobs?
(Incidentally, I don't approve of working multiple jobs simultaneous like this without your employers knowing, I think it's unethical. But also... let's be real, many supervisors and companies don't in fact seem to notice or fire people with low productivity, and productivity varies wildly between people who aren't secretly working extra jobs too)
When I read the stories I question the payoff matrix a bit - it seems like most have 2-3 $150K/year jobs, but if you're really good at one job and aggressively switch to the highest-payoff opportunities, you can easily make into the millions per year. But it makes a lot of sense for people that are stuck at the bottom of the company ranks and want to generate more transactions for themselves that actually result in more dollars.
You say he was fired for productivity, but you also say he was fired when his employers found out he was working for all 3. It seems to me that the real reason wasn't his productivity, because he would have been fired for that without waiting for his employers to find out about his multiple jobs.
So strange. Was firing him really the best decision for you? Given the challenges of finding and onboarding top-tier talent (this guy was brilliant, the best you ever worked with), couldn't your company have worked something out? There are a million arrangements possible -- agreeing to him working one (but not two) additional jobs (going from 33 to 50% of his time is a 50% increase for you), giving him a raise or some equity component, switching to some sort of contracting/1099 arrangement, allow him to be a "thought leader" on architecture and big-picture but not a day-to-day coder, whatever.
The decision to just fire this brilliant guy without considering other options seems so short-sighted and sub-optimal (for the company).
There's nothing illegal about this, although Hacker News for some reason has the peculiar belief that there is.
Any contract purporting to prevent an employee from earning money elsewhere is an illegal restraint of trade. Indeed the company would be the criminal if they tried to write this into their employment agreements.
FWIW, the stories on this Web site appear to be fictional. I just read the lengthy https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/story-13-adverse-pos... which is about a retired machinist engaging in boat jousts on Shaw Lake in Golden Gate Park. There's no trace of a real person named Benjamin McIsserson, and no Shaw Lake in Golden Gate Park. (It's probably a stand-in for Spreckels Lake, which was built for model boats but which has never hosted combat between them.)
>There's no trace of a real person named Benjamin McIsserson
I don't think this has any bearing on the whether the story itself is fictitious or not. I imagine all of the real names have been substituted in all of the stories, to prevent any unnecessary conflict/drama/liability/etc.
Mostly relatively dry discussions, but they do seem a lot better structured than the average blog post, and (thankfully) not AI garbage. He is a good writer.
The story OP posted is tagged with "War Stories", and these do seem to be far more literary, with first-person perspective and novel-like dialogue.
I suspect the same writer really has written all of these. It may be the actual person credited, Lee Stimmel, but it impossible to know if it's a ghostwriter without other samples of Stimmel's writing. But I don't think the technical details of the law would be well captured by a ghostwriter. There is a distinct change of style between both kinds of articles, but to me it feels like the same person writing.
Reading this story and doing some googling sadly makes me pretty confident that this linked one (about boat jousts) is fake. The ending details an explosion and there is no news article of that anywhere in the specified time period (which he says is a few months before the invasion of Iraq). Would love to be wrong though.
Fictional, or simply "Names Changed"? An awful lot of public stories are done pseudononymously and with the names changed for the simple fact that it's harder to prove libel if it's not talking about real people. And in this kind of legal story, you can bet that the persons involved are going to be quick to sue for libel. The linked article lends creedence to this, it introduces the businessman/embezzler as "Eddie Chan (not his real name)"
I've been reading through these (number 15 is long, but worth it), and I'm pretty sure all of the "Phelps" stories are fiction, with a cast of interlinked characters. The others are... maybe, maybe not, but told straight. I'm glad to have found this site.
I mean, the site is apparently a real law firm in San Francisco, so even if it's fictional (the names definitely should be!), the stories are probably based on real events.
Unless one of the partners has a side hobby of writing fiction on stories about law!
The stories are fascinating though, spent a couple hours reading some of those.
This story meshes with every incident of long term fraud or embezzlement I've seen in my business life (I've had to deal with four, so it is annecdata):
1. The fraudster is really, really nice and often has a disarming appearance. Often it's pretty or handsome. The one that got the most, an book keeper who got $143,000 via petty cash looked like everyone's Grandma.
2. The money is always spent quickly and on things that were not obvious to others at work. Vacations, gifts for family members, luxury items... One guy spent it all on guitars and amplifiers.
3. When caught, the fraudster/embezzler admits it readily and cooperates with everyone... The reason every one gave was right out of a Michael Chrichton book, "The Great Train Robbery":
Judge: Now, on the matter of motive, we ask you: Why did you conceive, plan and execute this dastardly and scandalous crime?
>Since what Eddie didn’t understand is that people are not only in business for the money. Oh, it’s important, but it’s never just the money in my experience. It’s a dozen other things, the joy of creating something from nothing, the excitement of success, the comradeship one gets from working in a team that is good and effective, etc, etc. Business may be competitive, but there are rules and it is not war. To Eddie, business was not only war, but war with the only rules being do not get caught if you can and make all the money you can. And trust no one.
Same with most of those "good guys" businessmen he constasts him with - who wouldn't hesitate to exploit, take advantage of, backstab, pull shady or even illegal shit on competitors, cut margin by selling shit, and of course, fire employees whenever they want to look good on paper and not give a fuck about it.
Like Zuck did to the Winklevoss twins and Saverin, and the billions of people the platform mind fucks with its algorithm to sell ads and collect data.
I think the author is confusing "well-spoken" for "nice."
Eddie can speak poetically in court. Cool. But he thinks that fact alone makes him better than other people. “Your courts are not used to hearing an honest statement, are they?” You're a professional con artist, bud, don't go patting yourself on the back for "honesty."
"Necessities of life are the proper destination of grim jobs with little men working at little desks." This guy is a stereotype of a Smug Rich Villain. If a movie character talked like that, you'd think it was a little over-the-top.
> I think the author is confusing "well-spoken" for "nice."
There is at least some overlap with the meaning of "nice", though, as in "nice guy", where it refers to a kind of person who is not genuinely courteous or kind for the sake of another's good (the benefit for them being spiritual reward), but someone who does it with an ulterior motive, to get something (typically unspoken, as it is underhanded) in return. The "nice guy" is likewise a conman, because his whole dishonest performance is to ingratiate himself with someone, as if doing so entitles him to something in return (think of the "nice guy" who tries to please women in order to receive attention, affection, or sexual favors, and then either pouts and whines, or becomes nasty, either overtly or in passive aggressive ways, when he doesn't receive them).
Being "nice" is not the same as being "good". We should always be good, never nice.
Reminds me of the time I spent HOURS preparing to cheat for a history map test in middle school, didn't pass, and realized later how much easier actually studying for the test would have been.
I had a slightly better experience. For the thrill of it, I spent hours preparing for a couple of test papers making a number of little cheat sheets in tiny handwriting. At the end of the exercise I found I didn't need the cheat sheets - the stuff had gone right into memory and I did quite well in the tests.
This was basically my studying strategy throughout my schooling, by preparing perfectly viable cheatsheets. Got everyone suspiciously staring, seeing the sheets on my desk as I reviewed them, only for me to visibly throw them out or put them away right before the exam started.
> I had another client about the same time, an elderly business man disliked by almost all that knew him, a truly unpleasant individual who never praised anyone, made more money than anyone I knew and could be cast as Scrooge except for his enjoyment of fishing which was all that he truly cared about other than money. But honest…he often would give more to the other side in the bargain than they asked because it was better business tactics to have a vendor who was making good money with you than not.
> “Eddie’s just more honest than a lot of the business men I know... They grab a nickel here and lose a dollar in the long run.”
I have seen this so many times, over and over. People burning bridges over relatively small amounts of money, discounting the longterm relationship, and most disastrous of all, ignoring that everyone has their own network and whisper to everyone what "really happened". You get a reputation as an asshole and then you wonder why everyone else seems like they don't treat you fairly.
The article makes a point that for people capable of embezzling, the embezzling is less lucrative long term than what they could have done legally with their abilities.
I think in general there's immense power in the narratives people tell themselves. "I am too good/smart to be a straight-forward worker" can then land you in a significantly worse scenario than you can actually attain as a "straight-forward worker."
But it's not like the ego is doing those ROI calculations.
> Then what difference does it make if someone you don’t trust is involved? You don’t trust anyone anyway. If your systems work, they work.
This is where "Eddie's" argument falls through imo. Never assume your system works perfectly. Use every piece of supplementary information you have. Including knowledge of whether someone is willing and able to break the system.
I always thought the gentleman thief was a fictional character. Assuming this is more or less real (the detailed dialogue is a bit concerning) it’s fascinating.
> I spent it on sweet, stupid things that make life an appropriate journey. Little things with some elegance attached. Things only worth buying because they have little value in the long run. Like life, itself.
Feel like I can oddly relate to this quote; not sure what that says about me, hah.
This reminds me of "All The Queen's Horses"[1], where a woman embezzled $53 million through careful accounting. I seem to recall it was mentioned how the perpetrator was described as nice and generous by her friends.
Plain old narcissism. This was the charm-heavy love bombing phase. The contempt, the passive aggression, the "your money is on its way", and perhaps the outright rages would have come later.
The real point of the interview was the reassure the narcissist that he was still smarter, still more significant, and still more of an operator than the lawyer who convicted him.
At the very least he got his prosecutor to turn up, which must have been a small consolation thrill.
I don't think I really understand the takeaway of this article... the case wasn't really made ever that Eddie, let alone most grifters, are particularly nice. If anything, I think the takeaway is that grifters will always grift, because it's in their nature to find cracks in society they can use to their advantage. It's not about right or wrong, it's about seeing the world in a different way than most people do.
And, since we're on HN, I think it's fascinating that many of us have the same mentality, except with computers/systems rather than people/money. (One of YC's application questions is how you hacked a system to your advantage.)
That being said, I did find the dialogue to be quite beautiful. "I spent it on sweet, stupid things that make life an appropriate journey. Little things with some elegance attached."
I'd generalize this to psychopaths; it's called superficial charm for a reason. They can be quite nice to talk to but they don't have any concept of loyalty and so will betray you without a second thought as soon as its advantageous. The smarter ones do very well in large organizations.
"The people back in the studio on TV after this - they were talking about it like - who risks their half-a-million-dollar-a-year job for $70,000?"
"Scott says he was kind of overworked and unhappy with his job, so everything felt a little less important. Maybe that had something to do with it. But he says crossing over that line was somehow just not as hard as it should have been."
What's not mentioned is that just about anyone can be an embezzler given the opportunity. I remember reading that most embezzlers start small. They have the trust of a company or person and know that they can take a few bucks without anyone knowing. It starts small at first and grows to levels where they get caught.
I knew a guy who was a cashier. The company he worked for decided to save a few bucks and got rid of the person who cashed him out each night and verified his transactions. He decided that he could steal a few bucks since no one would know. He started small and increased a bit. It was never a lot but he did it regularly. He continued and eventually, he got caught. What's interesting is that it wouldn't have happened had he not had the easy opportunity of take the cash.
[+] [-] marricks|1 year ago|reply
> I mean, figure it out. An embezzler has to not only do his or her job well so that no one is looking over his or her shoulder but has to do their job so well that they can steal for months or years and it won’t show up.
Performance and pay aren't 1:1, and sometimes quite far from it. That imbalance or perceived imbalance could certainly drive some to embezzle. Bit of a just world fallacy there.
[+] [-] cj|1 year ago|reply
It was really unfortunate when all 3 companies found out at the same time and he was fired from all 3. Not unfortunate that he was fired, but unfortunate that his talent went to waste.
He was brilliant. But also a con artist.
Edit: I was his direct manager, and when I say he "was brilliant" I mean that he was extremely smart, extremely good at thinking about architecture, all the characteristics of a great engineer, etc. But he simply didn't have the time to execute because he was secretly splitting his time between 3 companies. So he was fired for low productivity, even though he had all of the skills needed to be extraordinarily productive.
[+] [-] MilStdJunkie|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] duxup|1 year ago|reply
He was highly skilled, but also was not well liked by his peers. He knew how to suck up to no end, deflect blame for his own mistakes, and how to get out of work (presumably so he could do his other jobs) and get it dumped on others.
He was hated by his peers and it was no surprise (to anyone who worked with him as a peer one on one) when he got caught.
It was a similar situation where his skills were excellent when tried, but he chose to put them to use put to use to shaft other coworkers and honestly not do much at all / work elsewhere.
I ran into him later and as usual he was all about the excuses and about how he felt the folks at the company were bad people and so on, but it was like everything with him, a little truism that he bent to mean that he should get his no matter what the cost to anyone.
[+] [-] coldtea|1 year ago|reply
I see this edit added later:
>But he simply didn't have the time to execute because he was secretly splitting his time between 3 companies. So he was fired for low productivity, even though he had all of the skills needed to be extraordinarily productive.
That would be a legit reason to fire them!
Or it could be a post-facto rationalization ("he worked elsewhere too, so he couldn't have been productive"). Parent already said he was fired when they found out he working at another 2 places, which is different from the new story that they saw "low productivity".
[+] [-] kevmo314|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jrochkind1|1 year ago|reply
(Incidentally, I don't approve of working multiple jobs simultaneous like this without your employers knowing, I think it's unethical. But also... let's be real, many supervisors and companies don't in fact seem to notice or fire people with low productivity, and productivity varies wildly between people who aren't secretly working extra jobs too)
[+] [-] throwawaysleep|1 year ago|reply
> even though he had all of the skills needed to be extraordinarily productive.
Why should he want to be productive? Does your company reward such a thing proportionally?
I still think he is ahead of where he would otherwise be.
[+] [-] nostrademons|1 year ago|reply
https://old.reddit.com/r/overemployed/
When I read the stories I question the payoff matrix a bit - it seems like most have 2-3 $150K/year jobs, but if you're really good at one job and aggressively switch to the highest-payoff opportunities, you can easily make into the millions per year. But it makes a lot of sense for people that are stuck at the bottom of the company ranks and want to generate more transactions for themselves that actually result in more dollars.
[+] [-] fallingknife|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rjbwork|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] listenallyall|1 year ago|reply
The decision to just fire this brilliant guy without considering other options seems so short-sighted and sub-optimal (for the company).
[+] [-] e40|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] karma_pharmer|1 year ago|reply
Any contract purporting to prevent an employee from earning money elsewhere is an illegal restraint of trade. Indeed the company would be the criminal if they tried to write this into their employment agreements.
[+] [-] hnfong|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] BryantD|1 year ago|reply
So take it with a grain of salt.
[+] [-] ziddoap|1 year ago|reply
I don't think this has any bearing on the whether the story itself is fictitious or not. I imagine all of the real names have been substituted in all of the stories, to prevent any unnecessary conflict/drama/liability/etc.
[+] [-] neilk|1 year ago|reply
https://www.baydesignassociates.com/article/website-redesign...
Mostly relatively dry discussions, but they do seem a lot better structured than the average blog post, and (thankfully) not AI garbage. He is a good writer.
The story OP posted is tagged with "War Stories", and these do seem to be far more literary, with first-person perspective and novel-like dialogue.
https://www.stimmel-law.com/en/articles/category/lessons-com...
I suspect the same writer really has written all of these. It may be the actual person credited, Lee Stimmel, but it impossible to know if it's a ghostwriter without other samples of Stimmel's writing. But I don't think the technical details of the law would be well captured by a ghostwriter. There is a distinct change of style between both kinds of articles, but to me it feels like the same person writing.
[+] [-] metalcrow|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] GauntletWizard|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] lelandfe|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] eszed|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] hnfong|1 year ago|reply
I mean, the site is apparently a real law firm in San Francisco, so even if it's fictional (the names definitely should be!), the stories are probably based on real events.
Unless one of the partners has a side hobby of writing fiction on stories about law!
The stories are fascinating though, spent a couple hours reading some of those.
[+] [-] zem|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] robmerki|1 year ago|reply
As far as I can tell, these type of fraudsters are deeply wounded narcissistic people who were utterly twisted by their caregivers as children.
[+] [-] ametrau|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] indymike|1 year ago|reply
1. The fraudster is really, really nice and often has a disarming appearance. Often it's pretty or handsome. The one that got the most, an book keeper who got $143,000 via petty cash looked like everyone's Grandma.
2. The money is always spent quickly and on things that were not obvious to others at work. Vacations, gifts for family members, luxury items... One guy spent it all on guitars and amplifiers.
3. When caught, the fraudster/embezzler admits it readily and cooperates with everyone... The reason every one gave was right out of a Michael Chrichton book, "The Great Train Robbery":
Judge: Now, on the matter of motive, we ask you: Why did you conceive, plan and execute this dastardly and scandalous crime?
Edward Pierce: I wanted the money.
[+] [-] coldtea|1 year ago|reply
Same with most of those "good guys" businessmen he constasts him with - who wouldn't hesitate to exploit, take advantage of, backstab, pull shady or even illegal shit on competitors, cut margin by selling shit, and of course, fire employees whenever they want to look good on paper and not give a fuck about it.
Like Zuck did to the Winklevoss twins and Saverin, and the billions of people the platform mind fucks with its algorithm to sell ads and collect data.
Or like Bill Gates and the Microsoft he run.
Or like Larry Elisson.
Or like Musk.
Or like Bezos.
Or the WeWork guy.
Or the Uber guys.
The list goes on.
[+] [-] jon_adler|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] PhasmaFelis|1 year ago|reply
Eddie can speak poetically in court. Cool. But he thinks that fact alone makes him better than other people. “Your courts are not used to hearing an honest statement, are they?” You're a professional con artist, bud, don't go patting yourself on the back for "honesty."
"Necessities of life are the proper destination of grim jobs with little men working at little desks." This guy is a stereotype of a Smug Rich Villain. If a movie character talked like that, you'd think it was a little over-the-top.
[+] [-] cardiffspaceman|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] lo_zamoyski|1 year ago|reply
There is at least some overlap with the meaning of "nice", though, as in "nice guy", where it refers to a kind of person who is not genuinely courteous or kind for the sake of another's good (the benefit for them being spiritual reward), but someone who does it with an ulterior motive, to get something (typically unspoken, as it is underhanded) in return. The "nice guy" is likewise a conman, because his whole dishonest performance is to ingratiate himself with someone, as if doing so entitles him to something in return (think of the "nice guy" who tries to please women in order to receive attention, affection, or sexual favors, and then either pouts and whines, or becomes nasty, either overtly or in passive aggressive ways, when he doesn't receive them).
Being "nice" is not the same as being "good". We should always be good, never nice.
[+] [-] EcommerceFlow|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kinleyd|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] dotnet00|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] monero-xmr|1 year ago|reply
> “Eddie’s just more honest than a lot of the business men I know... They grab a nickel here and lose a dollar in the long run.”
I have seen this so many times, over and over. People burning bridges over relatively small amounts of money, discounting the longterm relationship, and most disastrous of all, ignoring that everyone has their own network and whisper to everyone what "really happened". You get a reputation as an asshole and then you wonder why everyone else seems like they don't treat you fairly.
[+] [-] xyzelement|1 year ago|reply
I think in general there's immense power in the narratives people tell themselves. "I am too good/smart to be a straight-forward worker" can then land you in a significantly worse scenario than you can actually attain as a "straight-forward worker."
But it's not like the ego is doing those ROI calculations.
[+] [-] n4r9|1 year ago|reply
This is where "Eddie's" argument falls through imo. Never assume your system works perfectly. Use every piece of supplementary information you have. Including knowledge of whether someone is willing and able to break the system.
[+] [-] neilk|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] hprotagonist|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] bombcar|1 year ago|reply
Once you realize just how firmly you're on the side of Moist and how identical Gilt is, then you can meditate for awhile on the world.
[+] [-] munk-a|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jonnycomputer|1 year ago|reply
Reminds me of special someone y'all know caught snoozing in a court room this afternoon.
[+] [-] dvt|1 year ago|reply
Feel like I can oddly relate to this quote; not sure what that says about me, hah.
[+] [-] omoikane|1 year ago|reply
[1] https://www.allthequeenshorsesfilm.com/
[+] [-] TheOtherHobbes|1 year ago|reply
The real point of the interview was the reassure the narcissist that he was still smarter, still more significant, and still more of an operator than the lawyer who convicted him.
At the very least he got his prosecutor to turn up, which must have been a small consolation thrill.
[+] [-] gkoberger|1 year ago|reply
And, since we're on HN, I think it's fascinating that many of us have the same mentality, except with computers/systems rather than people/money. (One of YC's application questions is how you hacked a system to your advantage.)
That being said, I did find the dialogue to be quite beautiful. "I spent it on sweet, stupid things that make life an appropriate journey. Little things with some elegance attached."
[+] [-] silverquiet|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] etruong42|1 year ago|reply
"Scott says he was kind of overworked and unhappy with his job, so everything felt a little less important. Maybe that had something to do with it. But he says crossing over that line was somehow just not as hard as it should have been."
- Planet Money, Episode 671: An Insider Trader Tells All https://www.npr.org/transcripts/460689797
[+] [-] WheelsAtLarge|1 year ago|reply
I knew a guy who was a cashier. The company he worked for decided to save a few bucks and got rid of the person who cashed him out each night and verified his transactions. He decided that he could steal a few bucks since no one would know. He started small and increased a bit. It was never a lot but he did it regularly. He continued and eventually, he got caught. What's interesting is that it wouldn't have happened had he not had the easy opportunity of take the cash.