zlacker

>...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.

I think most high-level executives are competent enough to create legal incentives and disincentives to their organization which typically are legal. The "lie, cheat, and steal" narrative is about functional outcomes and not so much about explicit follow through.

Executives are in positions they can craft goals and to some degree pass responsibility of details of those goals off to others. I can set unrealistic targets that are only attainable by cutting corners and be sure to make it clear I'll drop people who don't meet those targets or reward people who do. I can leave in-depth questioning about the approach (the potentially dirty details) to create a layer of plausible deniability.

It's as if I hire a driver to take me from point A to point B. That distance may be impossible to cover without violating an array of traffic laws. My goal as the passenger though is to traverse the space safely at some price. I don't really care about how it's done, I'll leave that to the driver. I can create pressure on a driver and/or apply selection bias to choosing a driver willing to take on my impossible request. At no point did I say: violate traffic laws, speed, etc. but I know that's what's going to happen to attain my goal. I never incriminate myself by making the goal generalized and as a passenger, I take on no legal risks for my driver violating traffic laws. Suddenly, using a crafted goal, careful selection, and money, I've created a situation for something illegal to happen. Should I be at fault? What if I even added to criteria of transporting me from A to B not to violate traffic laws but I give a wink wink, shove a little more money (incentive) at the problem, or turn the cheek when it occurs so I don't witness it. Am I still not at fault?

A caricature of this behavior in my opinion is Donald Trump who operates completely in the grey areas wherever possible, pushing or promoting questionable behavior but avoiding the provable cases where he's responsible. From my interaction with various executives over the years, this strategy isn't unique. It's certainly not everyone but impossible environments and requests are made on the daily. It happens from the highest levels and gets passed down and down.