@Tarantado wrote:

As I stated earlier, would it still be unethical if the 2 separate shops that share the same expenses provided lump sum fees instead of separating reimbursements and fees? Still fraudulent in your view?

@1cent wrote:

@Tarantado wrote:

As I stated earlier, would it still be unethical if the 2 separate shops that share the same expenses provided lump sum fees instead of separating reimbursements and fees? Still fraudulent in your view?

Of course not. If you are not claiming individual expense items, there is no deception to get a bigger payout. You can negotiate for a higher payout and no expense reimbursement. I have done this often with mystery shopping companies.

@Tarantado wrote:

@1cent wrote:

@Tarantado wrote:

As I stated earlier, would it still be unethical if the 2 separate shops that share the same expenses provided lump sum fees instead of separating reimbursements and fees? Still fraudulent in your view?

Of course not. If you are not claiming individual expense items, there is no deception to get a bigger payout. You can negotiate for a higher payout and no expense reimbursement. I have done this often with mystery shopping companies.

Same Proof of Visit’s. Still fraud, in principle?

@1cent wrote:

What do you even mean? Same proof of visit? It all comes down to the specifics of the shop. If a company wants a receipt for proof of visit but they are not reimbursing the expense, then it's not fraudulent. It's confirmation that you were at a given place. But if you are reimbursed for an expense, it is unethical to claim the expense twice. It is only an expense once.

If you are doing multiple shops at one merchant, you do run into potential conflicts. That's a different topic.

@Tarantado wrote:

What do I mean? There are companies like 360 Intel that pay by the fee with purchase guidelines. How is that fee structure ANY different from other companies that separate the fee and reimbursement? How is double dipping with a fee structure where they lump it to include your expenses, such as my example edited after you initially quoted?

The relevant example from many years ago was when Bud Light had a shop requiring me to order a beer. That shop required a beer purchase and gave me a lump sum fee to cover the beer expense and I was expected to pocket whatever was left. But I double dipped with a Buffalo Wild Wings shop at the same location, same meal, same beer and same receipt. The BWW’s shop paid a fee and reimbursement. How does the fee structure suddenly change your view, since double dipping on expenses with lump sum fees are okay to you, apparently?

@1cent wrote:

Quite simply, the difference is when submitting a receipt as an expense is increasing your payout. If it's all lumped in, then you are using the receipt to prove something else. Without knowing more details, it's not possible to know for certain. But in the sense of being reimbursed twice for an expense you incurred once, it's not the same thing.

@Tarantado wrote:

@1cent wrote:

Quite simply, the difference is when submitting a receipt as an expense is increasing your payout. If it's all lumped in, then you are using the receipt to prove something else. Without knowing more details, it's not possible to know for certain. But in the sense of being reimbursed twice for an expense you incurred once, it's not the same thing.

I must dense then. The receipt serves proof of my visit but ALSO that I purchased the required items for each of the Bud Light and BWW projects....

@1cent wrote:

I was thinking the same thing. Again, the relevant difference is if you are increasing your pay by claiming an expense more than once. The beer company was paying you the same whether your expense was $2 or $6 or whatever. They were not reimbursing you for the expense. They wanted proof that you were at the right place. You were not submitting a receipt as an expense. The expense was paid for by BWW.

Maybe I am wrong because I am not familiar with the specifics of the shop.

@Tarantado wrote:

The beer company also wanted proof that I made the correct purchase, where the expense was embedded into my fee. I don’t understand how you’re okay with my shops with Bud Light and BWW, but if Bud Light changed the fee structure to a fee plus reimbursement, I’m suddenly committing “something like fraud” and am dishonest.

@1cent wrote:

@Tarantado wrote:

The beer company also wanted proof that I made the correct purchase, where the expense was embedded into my fee. I don’t understand how you’re okay with my shops with Bud Light and BWW, but if Bud Light changed the fee structure to a fee plus reimbursement, I’m suddenly committing “something like fraud” and am dishonest.

It all comes down to understanding the words "expense" and "reimbursement."

@1cent wrote:

@Capurato wrote:

Ethics and fraud are two different things.

They are not unrelated things. If you are accustomed to unethical behavior, you might easily cross the line. At that link, the lawyer stated that it probably is fraud as well. The cautious language when someone says that you might be doing something wrong is to be kind.

If I have to explain the basic value of business ethics to you, it’s kind of a lost cause.

@Tarantado wrote:

@1cent wrote:

@Tarantado wrote:

The beer company also wanted proof that I made the correct purchase, where the expense was embedded into my fee. I don’t understand how you’re okay with my shops with Bud Light and BWW, but if Bud Light changed the fee structure to a fee plus reimbursement, I’m suddenly committing “something like fraud” and am dishonest.

It all comes down to understanding the words "expense" and "reimbursement."

So was I committing an act of fraud or being dishonest getting reimbursed $60 by American Express via a credit card offer and $15 via Rakuten, an online rebate site, on my Marriott shop that was reimbursed by another Mystery Shopping Company?