1) This is taken from a complaint in a class action lawsuit. Class action lawyers are very similar to patent trolls whereby they can spin almost any story they want. And journalists go for clicks, so they amplify the sensationalism. It doesn't mean this is one of those, but a class action complaint should not just blindly be trusted.
2) There is a strong theme of "of course execs lie cheat steal at every turn" and I also think this narrative should be questioned. Ethics aside, the level of compliance in a public company is insanely high. Execs are already rich. To risk jailtime, which fraud can lead to, you'd need to see something more existential than slightly increasing margins on used van sales.
I felt inclined to comment as I've been on the other end of articles like this, and it is astounding the level of mind reading people have done into my intent and actions on things that were factually just not true at all. I also truly would find it very difficult to commit a broad organizational fraud even if I wanted to and my company is only 500 people.
If I had to make a prediction, the case is less black and white than it appears, and if there was fraud, it was probably committed at a non-executive level by the person whose P&L was directly tied to these resales. Or, it was done independently by the much smaller leasing company where this was more existential to them. It is highly unlikely to be a Fed Ex executive-level conspiracy.
I'm sure there are a few counter examples, such as say the VW emissions scandal, but I would counter these were the exceptions that proved the rule and in general when the C-level was involved was much higher stakes.
This seems incredibly naive. You'd have to be willfully ignorant to think that a) rich people won't break the law to make a tiny bit more money, and b) fraud committed by large corporations often results in jail time.
I agree with you that this article isn't worth very much, but that's only because lawsuits in general shouldn't be trusted without corroborating evidence, not because a rich executive would never do this.
I personally see nothing naive in the parent post. It brings arguments based on knowledge how organization works and appeals to a game theory (stakes do not match). I'm not saying the reasoning is necessarily valid, but it is not naive.
The only part of the parent comment I do not approve from a methodology standpoint is an appeal to "exception that proves the rule". Exceptions do not prove rules, they disprove them.
I almost never see this phrase used correctly however.
"Street parking is always allowed"
"Not always! Three years ago there was a marathon that went through this street and you weren't allowed to park here that morning."
This exception is so specific and obscure that it "proves" (in a casual conversational sense) that "you can always park here" is a good rule. Not all exceptions prove the rule: if the exception is "except on weekends and holidays and overnight", that's so significant and obvious that it actually disproves the rule.