[Ethical Dilemma] What would you do?

[Anduck]

The OP makes it sound like the work is already in the hands of scammers and they can re-post the thread themselves.

There's a reason they wanted 'user' to post and keep the thread. The deal included this for that reason. Now how much % of the payment is for for posting & keeping the thread?

[1713980241]

1713980241

[marlboroza]

Also I feel that all of the "donate to charity" options are unethical simply on principle: either the user is entitled to keep the money, or he is not. If he is not entitled to keep the money, he is not entitled to donate it, either. Donating the money serves no purpose except to make stealing from a scammer seem less unconscionable than it is.

That is correct. User should either keep the money or return it.

Perhaps user should make a video call with fake team before returning money to wrong person. If team fail to show their published face(s) during video call, user is not obligated to return money to new random person

[suchmoon]

If team fail to show their published face(s) during video call

I see what you did there.

I still think that's not a good reason to keep the money. As far as I can see there was no obligation for either party to be truthful about their identity and I doubt the contractor could show a face matching their avatar either

[eddie13]

Also I feel that all of the "donate to charity" options are unethical simply on principle: either the user is entitled to keep the money, or he is not. If he is not entitled to keep the money, he is not entitled to donate it, either. Donating the money serves no purpose except to make stealing from a scammer seem less unconscionable than it is.

That is correct. User should either keep the money or return it.

If the user is entitled to keep the money then couldn't he keep it and then donate it if he wanted to?


This is sounding to me like we are hypothetically talking about a proven scammer, not just alleged, and these funds were sent in the commission of a scam, and the contractor user did do the work but basically had to pull it due to finding out it was a scam.

Actually this whole thread is bullshit because we don't have any of the facts and this is all just hypothetical without even the clearest hypothetical events to go by.

None of the opinions in this thread should be applied to any specific situation until all of the facts of the actual situation are laid out for all to see..

[tmfp]

[4] There's no solution that will satisfy everyone..

You got it right there, most of the replies have their own logic/ethical reasoning.
I found myself in a similar situation a long time ago, working for people with very dubious ethics and practices, and terminated the contract early, keeping what I had earned and been paid for.
What to do with an overpayment like in this case didn't come up, although if there had have been I would have returned the balance to them solely for personal safety reasons, as those particular Project1 people were gangsters.
I started paying more attention to actual contracts and proper due diligence after that.

[marlboroza]

I still think that's not a good reason to keep the money. As far as I can see there was no obligation for either party to be truthful about their identity and I doubt the contractor could show a face matching their avatar either

Yeah, I know User should return whole amount if they didn't start working on thread, or return partial amount and keep the rest of money if they start working on thread but stopped because of fake things.
My vote goes to "partially return, keep the rest".

Question: In case of partial return, who will decide how much is partial? And how?

[MadZ]

I would probably just return it unless you are 100% sure your contact with the project isn’t someone like you they just hired to do some marketing. Given you yourself believed they were legitimate at first, you could be screwing someone who naively believed the same.

[Lauda]

I voted for "Refund partially, keep the rest" assuming that the project hasn't actually scammed anyone yet. Two wrongs don't make it right so the person should take the appropriate compensation for the work that's been done and return the rest.

Also assuming that there was no "early termination penalty" or anything like that in the agreement.

This. Also I feel that all of the "donate to charity" options are unethical simply on principle: either the user is entitled to keep the money, or he is not. If he is not entitled to keep the money, he is not entitled to donate it, either. Donating the money serves no purpose except to make stealing from a scammer seem less unconscionable than it is.

Fair points. I guess the first thing to do is to wait and see how the project owner(s) respond to this; in the meantime hopefully there will be an option that has reached clear majority support (this could set a precedence for future cases although I'm hoping that people avoid them with the disclaimer that was proposed).

Actually this whole thread is bullshit because we don't have any of the facts and this is all just hypothetical without even the clearest hypothetical events to go by.

None of the opinions in this thread should be applied to any specific situation until all of the facts of the actual situation are laid out for all to see..
-snip-

It is not. I hereby ask you to refrain from making this type of comment or you will be added to the local rule list. The situation was described almost 1:1 the way it happened just without revealing any names  (and/or specifics - those which aren't really relevant/wouldn't change anything).

-snip-
Question: In case of partial return, who will decide how much is partial? And how?

If that is the preferred outcome, that will be the next issue to tackle.

[asche]

Full Refund.

Wouldn't take money from scammers not knowing how they got it themselves.
There are other good projects to make a buck from.

Also scamming the scammer is not something I see as morally ok. Only version would be if it was written in the contract (if there is a written contract) mentionning what happens with the money in that case (charity for instance or similar would be the ideal option).

[Steamtyme]

Sorry if I missed this.

-Was there in fact a contract. If so was there any defining points regarding payment, that they may have ignored in making a lump sum payment: Was it lump sum? was there a breakdown  in portions relating to maintaining and creating. I ask as you mentioned the norm is to do something weekly.

- What does the legal jurisdiction the contractor lives in have to say. This would be more important than our opinions, I think anyways. I say this as criminals can still sue or have you charged with theft, depending on the country.


Personally, I would take my appropriate cut for the work that was performed. If this has not been stated clearly in the contract I would side with the contractor deciding what their time was worth. This should be done inline with what they would quote a new client requesting the same service at the time they agreed to this job. The rest I would refund. I say this mostly due to legal liability (if it exists for them), secondly it's still IMO taking what's not yours regardless of how shitty they may be.

[HCP]

Ethical Dilemma's very rarely have a "correct" answer... and the varying opinions here are testament to that. Personally, my "values" fall in the "keep what you are owed/is fair for work done and return the rest" category.

I see it as being somewhat similar to selling a widget for $5 and someone pays you $50 by mistake. Keep the $5, refund the $45. Easy, right? However, suppose you found out (before refunding) that the person who accidentally paid you $50, was in fact a known scammer. Then what do you do?

IMO, keeping a "fair" amount for work done is reasonable. Keeping anything else would make you no better than the scammers themselves. Similarly, donating to charity might make you feel good and might be seem as a form of justice to some... but this is arguably the same thing as keeping the money for yourself and spending it on <insert stuff here>. You are doing things with money that you don't really have a claim to.

Has there been any discussion with "The Project" regarding payment for work done and repayment of extra funds?

[DarkStar_]

There should be a "Keep partially, donate the rest (to charity)." option. I wouldn't be against someone taking a share for the work they did do, and donating the rest.

You think it is okay to steal from an alleged scammer? That doesn’t sound right.

Unless a third party can lay a claim to the money, any excess funds belongs to the person who procured the work. Even in this case, without a court order, giving money to a third party is legally dubious.

A refund should be given for work not completed, however there is an argument that a full refund should be given, depending on the terms agreeed to.

"I wouldn't be against" doesn't mean that I fully support doing it. I think it should be a poll option though, as it was the most commonly suggested option when Lutpin was escrowing the Ebitz campaign and Ebitz turned out to be a scam.

[bill gator]

You think it is okay to steal from an alleged scammer?

That's a big part of the ethical dilemma. When an illegal drug-distributor is caught all of the funds on-hand are seized; this is a terrible analogy for the situation, but if the community (as the authority) were largely in agreement that these funds were being used explicitly for illegitimate acts then it would seem appropriate that the funds be seized. Is that flawed reasoning?

[suchmoon]

That's a big part of the ethical dilemma. When an illegal drug-distributor is caught all of the funds on-hand are seized; this is a terrible analogy for the situation, but if the community (as the authority) were largely in agreement that these funds were being used explicitly for illegitimate acts then it would seem appropriate that the funds be seized. Is that flawed reasoning?

This is not a convicted drug dealer though and even those laws vary significantly around the world.

This would be more like a suspected bank robber trying to buy a ski mask and the store refusing to give him change from a $100. You either refuse to do business at all, or do business like you would with any other customer, and/or call the cops if you have a reason to.

[TalkStar]

I think it will be honest to keep partially and donate rest of the fund to charity. Basically its legal for me to keep my wage because its not my fault to having a scam project and after confirmation of scam i will not feel so good to return the fund to scamers again i think

Refunding  to scamers again will not be a good idea from my side. There is no chance there that who got scammed will get back their fund.

[xtraelv]

The money was for services and the person was unaware of it being a scam prior to accepting.

You don't know how the money was obtained in the first place.

I think it would be fair for the user to keep the funds they were paid and put the rest in a cold wallet until requested for a refund.

I may also later be claimed if it was obtained through a previous scam.

If you give it to charity then you may still be liable to pay it back. If you hold it and don't spend it then it is available for later claim.

[Quickseller]

There should be a "Keep partially, donate the rest (to charity)." option. I wouldn't be against someone taking a share for the work they did do, and donating the rest.

You think it is okay to steal from an alleged scammer? That doesn’t sound right.

Unless a third party can lay a claim to the money, any excess funds belongs to the person who procured the work. Even in this case, without a court order, giving money to a third party is legally dubious.

A refund should be given for work not completed, however there is an argument that a full refund should be given, depending on the terms agreeed to.

"I wouldn't be against" doesn't mean that I fully support doing it. I think it should be a poll option though, as it was the most commonly suggested option when Lutpin was escrowing the Ebitz campaign and Ebitz turned out to be a scam.

I would be strongly against doing that. As others have mentioned, stealing from a scammer is still stealing, and donating to charity doesn't change the fact that money was stolen.

I am shocked to see how little detail some of these escrow contracts for signature campaigns (and others) have. I remember seeing this escrow contract, and believing it has an appropriate amount of detail as to what all parties should expect so everyone will be on the same page depending on various outcomes and/or a dispute (this thread has a portion of the escrow contract regarding a potential dispute). Ideally, any (escrow) contract should detail what happens if work cannot be performed for any reason.

A problem with "giving the money to charity" is there is always the possibility the "scammer" will be able to later provide proof of innocence (or something to give doubt to their guilt) after the money is given away.

 A bigger problem is that you said you will do one thing, and end up doing something else.

You think it is okay to steal from an alleged scammer?

That's a big part of the ethical dilemma. When an illegal drug-distributor is caught all of the funds on-hand are seized; this is a terrible analogy for the situation, but if the community (as the authority) were largely in agreement that these funds were being used explicitly for illegitimate acts then it would seem appropriate that the funds be seized. Is that flawed reasoning?

Forfeiture laws and practices are horribly unethical, and IMO are likely to get stricken down in the fairly near future.

Also, you are incorrect as funds that can be directly tied to the crime are seized, which does not apply to the case described in the OP. Also, from what I can tell based on the description in the OP, the team in question has not actually scammed anyone yet, as it sounds like they are likely planning on scamming -- it would be appropriate to not work for this person, and to warn others of the likely scam attempt, however it does not sound like they obtained any money illicitly.

I don't think it matters who money is stolen from. Stealing is stealing no matter what.

[actmyname]

I don't think it matters who money is stolen from. Stealing is stealing no matter what.

Interesting Kantian philosophy.

[Gunthar]

I voted send everything to a burn address: it will clean up the max possible of your ethical conscience. Your responsibility to not investigate with an ethical sight BEFORE to accept the job: any part of money you are going to keep/send/transfer/refund, will only leave inside yourself a conscious,unsolved,partial,guilty sentiment to have been (unaware) part of a scam.
I'm very curious what will be your final decision tho.
Love u kitty

[TheNewAnon135246]

Either burn it or donate it to charity. Keeping the funds might results into you becoming an accessary in case of a criminal investigation. Another option might be refunding it to people who fell for the scam but it would be a pain in the butt to make sure everyone gets an equal slice.