A NASDAQ executive pleaded guilty to securities fraud, recently. Given the performance of the past few years on Wall Street, this in and of itself is not news. What is news is that this same executive had a history of drug abuse and criminal fraud. In this case he defrauded investors our of approximately three quarters of a million bucks, which even this day, in the era of billions and trillions, still adds up to real money.
NASDAQ,of course,claims they conducted a background check on Donald Johnson. But as writer Joelle Scott puts so succinctly in Forbes, “But then this brings us to the fundamental difference between a background check (a real one) and a check-the-box-let’s-just-make-sure-he-didn’t-kill-anyone search. It’s the difference between cloud computing and DOS; an iPod and a Walkman; Toro sushi and Bumble Bee canned tuna…you get the picture.”
Especially when the employment candidate’s name is Donald Johnson. A common name that requires additional research. Not to be confused with the accomplished actor of the same name or the million other Donald Johnson’s who populate this earth. Due diligence is the word of the day. Especially when the guy is working for NASDAQ or any financial institution where he has access to other people’s money and the ability to defraud them.
Prior to his working for NASDAQ, Johnson admitted to drug abuse while working as a nurse in Virginia. He falsified records to steal drugs. Okay, so if you know that the person worked in healthcare, prudence would warrant a healthcare sanctions search, with the FACIS search being the first priority. Following up with the related health and other regulatory agencies would maybe be a good idea, considering the candidate’s position.
Scott writes this is one of many candidates who lied about education, employment, criminal records, experience, any number of things. Yes, indeed. And all vagaries about the direction of the economy notwithstanding, the one thing I can assure you is there will be more candidates lying on their resumes. In fact, we have seen an upsurge in falsifying claims about college degrees. We have a wall of bogus diplomas, some of which are pretty shabby and some are impressive replicas and yet one more example of why G-d created Photo Shop. Of course in some cases, on the diploma, the President of the University and other officiating bodies didn’t have tenure there until ten year after the candidate graduated. But what the heck.
Anyway, it’s a good article and quite sensible, outlining once again that those who do not conduct or are haphazard abut their background checks are not being cost effective. In fact, they are very foolish.
