There was nothing pretty about the COVID-19 pandemic. The government tried to do the right thing by creating the PPP (paycheck protection program) under the SBA, the Small Business Administration to keep legitimate businesses and organizations from bankruptcy.
As an ethics motivational speaker, ethics consultant and book author, as these 2020 – 2021 government programs were doling out loans, often with loan forgiveness, I saw all of the elements of fraud unfold.
While I publicly stated that I hoped that in the light of national crisis, goodness would prevail, I privately dreaded what could happen when limited oversight would combine with pent-up greed and need and where it could lead. For rationalization is a powerful tool of self-deception, and fraudsters always find a way to justify their actions.
I was, unfortunately, correct in my fears. According to the Department of Labor, about 40,000 investigations (past and current) have been opened. However, the SBA has already identified two million potential cases of fraud; fake charities, dishonest businesses, unscrupulous medical practices, and on and on.
Aid Fraud in Minneapolis
It is against that backdrop of information that I came across an excellent piece from the New York Times (September 20, 20220 by David A. Farenthold) detailing how 48 individuals, representing a largely fake charity called “Feeding Our Future,” that has been charged with pocketing in excess of $240 million.
Said Farenthold:
“The indictments said the defendants had pulled in millions of dollars a week by taking money from federal anti-hunger programs for meals they never served.”
To date, this fraud is said to be “the largest fraud uncovered in any pandemic-relief program.”
To me as an ethics motivational speaker and ethics consultant, the root cause was not at all surprising: a lack of oversite.
In this frenzy of fraud, the 48 crooks in one way or the other, produced a Minnesota snowfall of more than 125 million fake receipts for meals to feed poor children. The outrage anyone should feel is two-fold: the co-conspirators brazenly stole this much money and they diverted funds families who needed the assistance.
The ringleader protests too much
According to the article, the 48 had help from an insider.
“That insider was Aimee Bock, the founder of a nonprofit group, Feeding Our Future, that the State of Minnesota relied on as a watchdog to stop fraud at feeding sites. But Ms. Bock did the opposite.”
The unethical person stood by as she brought into the nonprofit’s fold almost 200 “feeding operations” she knew were fakes.
Unfortunately, when government investigators started to unravel the scam, it was Bock who accused the government of racism, saying they were “discriminating against her group’s largely East African clientele.”
This is always the terrible downside of using hot-button words. Do racism and anti-immigrant bias still exist in America? Absolutely. But to use those sentiments against the government as a shield when rightfully accused, does no more than exacerbate an already terrible crime.
The FBI brought charges against the group:
“Indicted on charges that included wire fraud, bribery involving federal programs and money laundering. Prosecutors said the conspirators laundered money by routing the funds they stole through a web of shell companies.”
Anything but amateurish
The shell companies, after collecting millions in fraud money, diverted the funds to “real estate in the United States, Kenya and Turkey, as well as on cars and luxury goods.”
Naturally, Bock pleaded not guilty, claiming she was unaware of fraud. It will be a hard sell. Those defendants who have not fled the U.S. are undoubtedly seeking to make deals as the evidence mounts against her. One official of Feeding Our Future, closely related to Bock “was accused of taking kickbacks from people involved in the scheme.”
The government had relied on Feeding Our Future, an established organization, to serve as watchdog against fraud. As the investigators have worked, sifting through mountains of evidence, the so-called watchdog “never had an accountant on staff and sometimes struggled with basic governance, even allowing its nonprofit status to expire for a time.”
They knew what they were doing, and what they were doing was unethical. The case is long and convoluted but, in the end, as with the other 40,000 investigations, the rationalizations were consistent: the government has plenty of money – and we’re entitled.
It is difficult to ethically consider the “entitlement.” Those of us who pay taxes (albeit begrudgingly) do so because we understand they go to numerous programs and services. One of those services is to feed the poor; a compassionate proposition from those who have to those who don’t.
In this case, children and their families were deprived because no one cared enough to take ethical responsibility.
LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS!
