Roger Linstrom is a financial advisor with Perón & Co. and is well respected in his community. A local children’s charity has asked him to speak at one of their fundraisers. The director of the charity made it clear to Linstrom that, although only about 65% of the money donated goes directly to help the children, he would appreciate it if Linstrom said that the percentage is “about 90%”. If Linstrom complies with the director’s request, Linstrom will most likely have:
A. violated Standard I(D) Misconduct.
B. not violated Standard I(D) because the charity work is not related to
his profession as a financial advisor.
C. not violated Standard I(D) because both “about 90%” and “directly
helping the children” are vague and open to interpretation.
If Linstrom makes the statement that the amount is about 90% when he knows it to be 65% – especially with the intent to increase donations of money – his statement if fraudulent, and may well be illegal. Such actions compromise his integrity, which is a violation of Standard I(D).
Note that the fraud does not have to be related to his profession.