Question

A trusted employee of Wilderness Tours was caught in the act of

     embezzling funds. He confessed to earlier embezzlements, but

     retracted the confession on the advice of his attorney. Over the

     course of the most recent quarter, it has been determined that

     $20,000 was embezzled.

    

     Wilderness Tours has suffered adverse publicity in the recent past

     because of serious injury to five tourists that occurred during a

     two-week "Winter Wilds Adventure" tour. The company has therefore

     decided to avoid publicity and has agreed to drop all charges

     against the embezzling employee. In return, the employee has agreed

     to a notation of "Terminated——Not to be Rehired" to be appended to

     his personnel file.

    

     Required:      1. Who are the stakeholders in the decision not to prosecute?

     2. Was it ethical for the company to decide not to prosecute?

        Explain.

Answer 1

1. The stakeholders comprise

• The misappropriating employee

• The other employees

• Company management

• Other companies who might employ the misappropriating employee

2. The company was definitely within its legal privileges not to put on trial the misappropriating employee.    However, the judgment not to put on trial may not be moral.

First, it does not serve public righteousness. The misappropriating employee could find a job elsewhere, and harm someone else monetarily.

Second, to the degree that other employees know of the act and of the judgment, morale may be impaired. The judgment is also not the best one for the employee. Having never been forced to face the costs of his deceitful acts, he is not discouraged from (and may even feel invigorated to) obligate alike acts in the future. The one dispute that would back the evidence that the judgment was ethical is that the public revelation would cause impairment greater than that caused by keeping quiet. Even this dispute lacks force, because it indicates a absence of ethical bravery.