employment background checks.

GOODBYEMR.BOND

hi

I have received a conditional offer of employment with a bank.

It's conditional as they have some background checks to do. They interested in the last 5 years of employment. In June of 2013 (just inside the last 5 years) I got a final written warning for falsifying and artificially improving my performance by using my own personal user account. I only ever got one warning for it and I never got another. I continued on in my job for over a year afterwards.

I'm worried as one of the questions asked in the background checks is 'have you had any disciplinaries/warnings for misconduct, etc? in the last 5 years.' I'm tempted to give a general mention of it and hope it won't matter that much but not sure. They will be using an external third party company to check candidates out.

Should I say nothing or say something general about it? What do you think?

Thanks

EverythingGood

GOODBYEMR.BOND wrote: »

hi

I have received a conditional offer of employment with a bank.

It's conditional as they have some background checks to do. They interested in the last 5 years of employment. In June of 2013 (just inside the last 5 years) I got a final written warning for falsifying and artificially improving my performance by using my own personal user account. I only ever got one warning for it and I never got another. I continued on in my job for over a year afterwards.

I'm worried as one of the questions asked in the background checks is 'have you had any disciplinaries/warnings for misconduct, etc? in the last 5 years.' I'm tempted to give a general mention of it and hope it won't matter that much but not sure. They will be using an external third party company to check candidates out.

Should I say nothing or say something general about it? What do you think?

Thanks

Say nothing. They only want to confirm your dates of employment are real , they won't look for anything else. I've been through the process recently.

OMM 0000

Are they doing "background checks" or doing the usual checking references thing?
I am going to assume you are a different person now, so there's no real point mentioning the warning to them.

_Brian

My advice is don’t mention it.

Bringing it up will likely discount you from the job offer.

Leave it off and it may not be mentioned and so it’s done with.

You really have nothing to gain and everything loose by bringing this up at this stage.

Yes if they ask about disciplines it may be mentioned, but you can’t head that off now and either way you’ll know if it’s going to be an ongoing thing or not.

skallywag

I agree with the advice that you have nothing to gain by mentioning this.

If they are using a third party and the check is more box ticking than informal then you may quite possibly be fine. If it was the case of someone from the new company having an informal chat with a previous supervisor then you could be in a spot of bother.

GOODBYEMR.BOND

thanks for the advice and apologies for posting in the wrong forum. I'm a newbie and still finding my way.

Etc

As above don't mention it, the 3rd party company will only ask your company to confirm dates of employment. I went through the process last year.

heyitsfranklin

A former employer of mine ran a background check on me per their standard hiring process. They used a 3rd party company called HireRight.

The employment verification process consisted of verifying the start and end dates of each position, my title, and the reason for termination. That's it... if there is a discrepancy between the information you provided and the information they dug up, you will be contacted to clarify it. You will also be contacted if they're unable to get in touch with one of your former employers so that you can provide some sort proof that you worked there (e-mails, offer letter, termination/resignation letter, paystubs).

Don't mention the warning you received... you'll be fine. Best of luck!

Glass fused light

GOODBYEMR.BOND wrote: »

hi

I have received a conditional offer of employment with a bank.

It's conditional as they have some background checks to do. They interested in the last 5 years of employment. In June of 2013 (just inside the last 5 years) I got a final written warning for falsifying and artificially improving my performance by using my own personal user account. I only ever got one warning for it and I never got another. I continued on in my job for over a year afterwards.

I'm worried as one of the questions asked in the background checks is 'have you had any disciplinaries/warnings for misconduct, etc? in the last 5 years.' I'm tempted to give a general mention of it and hope it won't matter that much but not sure. They will be using an external third party company to check candidates out.

Should I say nothing or say something general about it? What do you think?

Thanks

You commited a fraud, and want to work in a bank, and want to lie on your application form.
If what you did was widely known in your prior job, you risk being reported by a a former work colleague and could be sacked for gross misconduct at any time. If you progress you may end up repeating the lie and in some cases your lying could by signing a form could be committing an offence.

_Brian

Glass fused light wrote: »

You commited a fraud, and want to work in a bank, and want to lie on your application form.
If what you did was widely known in your prior job, you risk being reported by a a former work colleague and could be sacked for gross misconduct at any time. If you progress you may end up repeating the lie and in some cases your lying could by signing a form could be committing an offence.

Gross misconduct how ??

Op is worried it will be discovered by new employers when chasing down references.
Op doesn’t say they lied to get the current position offer

If op wasn’t asked then there is no responsibility to offer information that’s not requested if it’s not going to support your application for a job.

Surely everyone is entitled to a second chance or would you consign op to breaking rocks for the rest of their natural life.

If they do get a job in a bank I’d seriously doubt they will be the biggest offender working there either.

Glass fused light

_Brian wrote: »

Gross misconduct how ??

Question:
I'm worried as one of the questions asked in the background checks is 'have you had any disciplinaries/warnings for misconduct, etc?
Answer:
I got a final written warning for falsifying and artificially improving my performance by using my own personal user account.

The OP was asked to fill in a background check form. If the OP omits or lies about the question they are lying to get the job.

In each case a bank is obligated to take the character of the applicant into account, and evaluate the misconduct for materiality in the context of its regulatory obligations under fitness and probity. Knowly recruiting someone who created a fraudulent document is problem because the bank can't allow this person into a position of trust or into a control function. So it's likely that the OP's job offer would be withdrawn.

https://www.iodireland.ie/sites/default/files/documents/Fitness%20and%20Probity%20Standards%202014.pdf

Page 8
2.2 In order to comply with section 2.1, a person is required to be:
a) competent and capable;
b) honest, ethical and to act with integrity; and
c) financially sound.
Page 12
(g) the person has, in any jurisdiction:
i) been convicted of an offence either of money laundering or terrorist financing (or their equivalents);
ii) been convicted of an offence which could be relevant to that person’s ability to perform the relevant function; or
iii) had a finding, judgment or order made against him/her involving fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty or breach of trust or where the person is subject to any current proceedings for fraud, misrepresentation, dishonesty or breach of trust.

As far as I am aware Section (g iii) has no time limit.

I don't think that the OP should not be given a second chance. But Ireland is a very small place. The OP should consider the long term implications for career progression, and look for a job in another industry.

_Brian

Glass fused light wrote: »

Question:
I'm worried as one of the questions asked in the background checks is 'have you had any disciplinaries/warnings for misconduct, etc?
Answer:
I got a final written warning for falsifying and artificially improving my performance by using my own personal user account.

The OP was asked to fill in a background check form. If the OP omits or lies about the question they are lying to get the job.

In each case a bank is obligated to take the character of the applicant into account, and evaluate the misconduct for materiality in the context of its regulatory obligations under fitness and probity. Knowly recruiting someone who created a fraudulent document is problem because the bank can't allow this person into a position of trust or into a control function. So it's likely that the OP's job offer would be withdrawn.

https://www.iodireland.ie/sites/default/files/documents/Fitness%20and%20Probity%20Standards%202014.pdf

As far as I am aware Section (g iii) has no time limit.

I don't think that the OP should not be given a second chance. But Ireland is a very small place. The OP should consider the long term implications for career progression, and look for a job in another industry.

Yep.
Missed that, it is indeed anrisk as you pointed out.

GOODBYEMR.BOND

So in your opinion, i'm better to come clean and fess up? Don't you think someone can learn a lesson and have the chance to put it right?

skallywag

GOODBYEMR.BOND wrote: »

So in your opinion, i'm better to come clean and fess up? Don't you think someone can learn a lesson and have the chance to put it right?

I'm never in favour of crucifying someone for a past mistake, but I would certainly not recommend that you come clean with this particular one as it's almost certainly going to count you out. The only advice that I can give you is to stay quiet and cross your fingers. Sorry I cannot be more helpful, but I can genuinely say that I would never hire someone into my own team with such a background, and I do not know many others who would.

Jim2007

GOODBYEMR.BOND wrote: »

I'm worried as one of the questions asked in the background checks is 'have you had any disciplinaries/warnings for misconduct, etc? in the last 5 years.' I'm tempted to give a general mention of it and hope it won't matter that much but not sure. They will be using an external third party company to check candidates out.

Should I say nothing or say something general about it? What do you think?

Thanks

But it is not a question of saying nothing, is it? It is going to be a deliberate act on your side - you are going to have to answer the question posed. And that means answering No, which is clearly not the case.

It is going to depend on how thorough the third part company is and none of us on here despite all the opinions can tell you how that will pan out in the end. And of course if it comes up later, then it is grounds for dismissal as well.

All I can tell you is that based on reports I have received in the past, some just confirm start and end dates, where as other have included notes of conversations they had with contacts in the former employment companies etc... But generally I can say that having worked in several banks over the years they tend to be very carefully about such things.

GOODBYEMR.BOND

GOODBYEMR.BOND wrote: »

hi

I have received a conditional offer of employment with a bank.

It's conditional as they have some background checks to do. They interested in the last 5 years of employment. In June of 2013 (just inside the last 5 years) I got a final written warning for falsifying and artificially improving my performance by using my own personal user account. I only ever got one warning for it and I never got another. I continued on in my job for over a year afterwards.

I'm worried as one of the questions asked in the background checks is 'have you had any disciplinaries/warnings for misconduct, etc? in the last 5 years.' I'm tempted to give a general mention of it and hope it won't matter that much but not sure. They will be using an external third party company to check candidates out.

Should I say nothing or say something general about it? What do you think?

Thanks Jim. I'm leaning towards honesty is the best policy on this one &saying something. If they withdraw the offer as a result well, it just wasn't to be. It's too big a risk saying nothing and getting sacked later on.

Glass fused light

I think that's the best option.
Not to being harsh about what you did but using your own ID is fodder for office gossip and not too serious so a "funny what was he thinking" memory which is likely to stick around in-house long after you are gone.

BattleCorp

Convictions can become spent after a certain amount of time. Is there something similar with warnings on a personnel file? Do warnings expire?

For the record, I wouldn't mention any previous warnings, but that's just me.

Glass fused light

BattleCorp wrote: »

Convictions can become spent after a certain amount of time. Is there something similar with warnings on a personnel file? Do warnings expire?

For the record, I wouldn't mention any previous warnings, but that's just me.

He is looking to work in a regulated industry.

Some of the positions he could be employed in would require approval from the Central Bank and this would require the applicant to disclose cv information and explain cv gaps going back to when they started employment.
And the applicant is requested to disclose personal information to determine their good (or not) character. post 12 by has the link for what they look at and a disciplinary would fall under the finding disclosure requirement.
It's normaly an offence to sign and submit documentation which is not true (<failure to disclose).
The CB do check by calling or writing to the organisations involved. The record of the fraud would be in HR but also with Risk/compliance or just in the 'company memory'. The information request is phrased in an open question so the CB can get the most information possible.

iMO the bigger risk is from an ex-colleague gossiping to a current colleague,and being reported to HR. Most roles in the banks are designed in a two step process, one person doing the other approving. The person working with the OP would not want to risk their professional reputation by being caught on a fraud investigation.

GOODBYEMR.BOND

I think I'm still going with the honesty response on this one. I don't want to give too much info incase I'm identified but what happened involved me artificially improving my personal performance using my own account. There was no embezzlement, no theft. It was giving my performance a boost. I'm not in any way trying to justify it. It was wrong, stupid and I've more than learned my lesson.

BattleCorp

GOODBYEMR.BOND wrote: »

I think I'm still going with the honesty response on this one. I don't want to give too much info incase I'm identified but what happened involved me artificially improving my personal performance using my own account. There was no embezzlement, no theft. It was giving my performance a boost. I'm not in any way trying to justify it. It was wrong, stupid and I've more than learned my lesson.

What you do is your business but if I was in a similar position, I wouldn't mention it.

I would be of the opinion that if I mentioned it, I wouldn't get the job.

AmberGold

Went thru it two years ago with some outfit called Sterling Backcheck.

Make sure your dates align with your CV, I wouldn't be mentioning anything that might be on record in my HR file. 99.9% of companies don't want to get into this type of thing either when giving references.

deletthis

Many companies have a "Confirmation Only" policy where they confirm dates & roles but wont give subjective opinions/internal records etc. It's risky, but if you want the job I'd lean on not saying anything. Yes it's a regulated industry but if you don't get this one, safe to say you won't be working in the industry again anyway so what's to lose?

diggerdigger

Glass fused light wrote: »

https://www.iodireland.ie/sites/default/files/documents/Fitness%20and%20Probity%20Standards%202014.pdf

As far as I am aware Section (g iii) has no time limit.

I don't think that the OP should not be given a second chance. But Ireland is a very small place. The OP should consider the long term implications for career progression, and look for a job in another industry.

Where did the OP say that he was offered a role in a bank that is subject to FPS or Central Bank approval? That is specifically for certain control functions in regulated entities.

redved

There is nothing to be gained by mentioning this, you are almost certainly going to scupper your chances with the job. Also it is on the cusp of 5 years ago so in 5 years and one day become no longer relevant

Glass fused light

diggerdigger wrote: »

Where did the OP say that he was offered a role in a bank that is subject to FPS or Central Bank approval? That is specifically for certain control functions in regulated entities.

I may be wrong but i got the impression that he is still quite young. I hope that he is just starting off and that what he did was a foolish mistake by someone young enough not to realise the seriousness of what he did. Ultimately manipulation a personal performance rating is for financial gain, by gaining job stability, bonus or pay rise etc. In the banking industry the biggest bank losses have come from frauds/acts of deception and the biggest scandals eg Anglo have come from top employees gaming the system for personal financial gain.
If he is old enough to have known better, he should not be working in the industry anyway.

The background check application form was, i suspect, designed around the CD requirement, and his act unfortunately falls the time limit of their request for data. A lie of omission on this is IMO gross misconduct, and sackable as both acts would be for financial gain.

IMO he needs to look at long term career progression within his career field and the likely reaction of a colleague if they become aware of his past.

A other option as redved points out is to delay and reapply after the 5 year mark has passed.

diggerdigger

Glass fused light wrote: »

I may be wrong but i got the impression that he is still quite young. I hope that he is just starting off and that what he did was a foolish mistake by someone young enough not to realise the seriousness of what he did. Ultimately manipulation a personal performance rating is for financial gain, by gaining job stability, bonus or pay rise etc. In the banking industry the biggest bank losses have come from frauds/acts of deception and the biggest scandals eg Anglo have come from top employees gaming the system for personal financial gain.
If he is old enough to have known better, he should not be working in the industry anyway.

The background check application form was, i suspect, designed around the CD requirement, and his act unfortunately falls the time limit of their request for data. A lie of omission on this is IMO gross misconduct, and sackable as both acts would be for financial gain.

IMO he needs to look at long term career progression within his career field and the likely reaction of a colleague if they become aware of his past.

A other option as redved points out is to delay and reapply after the 5 year mark has passed.

I hope OP realises how stupid they were and that their actions can have long lasting consequences. But lets not overblow the situation.

The original offence was not gross misconduct, or deemed sackable, warranting a written warning. Now the lie of omission about the written warning is gross misconduct?

A written warning would not be considered active after a maximum 12 months (typically 3-6 months) and should have been removed from OP's file by HR and could not be used as a basis for any dismissal activity. The letter should specify its validity period. Nobody outside of his manager and HR should have know about the warning, unless OP disclosed it himself. It was just a warning. It was not a conviction for fraud.

I don't believe the original employer can even disclose that information (even if they incorrectly retained that information on the OP's file) to the potential new employer. At worst, they can decline to answer. And most likely they will give the stock statement of service.

It is unlikely that this is a Central bank FPS approval for a CF or PCF role, as the OP would be unlikely to be posting for advice on boards.ie if they were getting such senior roles. FPS does not apply to everyone who happens to work in a bank.

There are far bigger lies told on CV's and in interviews by every candidate for every job, every day, but if they delay responding 2 days its June, and then they are magically fit to take this role.

Glass fused light

Look the written warning is a finding that is why the CB added this word and not limited the question to looking for a criminal charges or an actual conviction.
It's a character assessment. The first event is a single act, the second is a pattern of dishonest behavior. The bank can not ignore this if discovered. The CB requirements set the bar of what is expect in the HR recruitment process. While one event can be explained, after the second do the bank want to spend the resources needed to safegard themselves against a now known risk.

Reputational risk is a consideration, IMO for a bank there is economic benefit in just sack the OP on the spot and pay out if required, its in line with a clear company policy supporting whistle blowing and a zero tolerance of fraudulent activities. I would refuse point blank to work with someone I knew had committed a fraud, the risk to me and my career is just not worth having to rely on someone in my workflow who tampered with an official record.

The op is giving their employer permission to disclose data held in regards to his employment. His current employer would have to carefully consider their liability if failing to disclose the finding. If the employer was also regulated failure to disclose could be breaching their regulatory obligation, and it could have implications for whoever signed the reply. The investigation and finding is not (or at least should not be) deleted from the OP's hr file. The "sentence" may be served but the origin reason should be retained to protect the company.

The 5 years is arbitrary, and if the op held off he could have filled in the application without a problem. That he is posting is a strong indication that he recognised the need to be honest in his dealing going forward even if it is at the expense of loosing the oppertunity.

diggerdigger

Glass fused light wrote: »

Look the written warning is a finding that is why the CB added this word and not limited the question to looking for a criminal charges or an actual conviction.

2 points, the link you posted to is the Fitness and Probity Standards. Unless the OP is very senior in specific roles, FPS do not apply.

Even if FPS did apply, A HR administered warning letter in an internal disciplinary process is most certainly not a finding in the context of FPS, which refers to findings by regulatory authorities, clearing houses, exchanges, professional bodies, government bodies and agencies. And it is specifically findings by those bodies in the execution of their statutory duties. So even if OP worked for one of these bodies as an employee and got a warning from them, it would not be a finding in the context of FPS.

Glass fused light wrote: »

I would refuse point blank to work with someone I knew had committed a fraud, the risk to me and my career is just not worth having to rely on someone in my workflow who tampered with an official record.

It was a warning. it wasn't a fraud, which is a specific offence, requires charges and a court case. You're being a little melodramatic. If someone refused to work with an individual because they had a warning letter from a former employer for a non sackable offence, it could be considered vexatious, and even bullying.

Glass fused light wrote: »

The op is giving their employer permission to disclose data held in regards to his employment. His current employer would have to carefully consider their liability if failing to disclose the finding. If the employer was also regulated failure to disclose could be breaching their regulatory obligation, and it could have implications for whoever signed the reply. The investigation and finding is not (or at least should not be) deleted from the OP's hr file. The "sentence" may be served but the origin reason should be retained to protect the company.

Where does OP say he granted employer permission to disclose? what regulation is on the entity to disclose anything about its employees? In fact, there are quite a few regulations preventing them from disclosing information about employees. That is why most organisations will only give statement of service.

Glass fused light wrote: »

The 5 years is arbitrary, and if the op held off he could have filled in the application without a problem. That he is posting is a strong indication that he recognised the need to be honest in his dealing going forward even if it is at the expense of loosing the oppertunity.

He has a conditional offer, he just needs to respond to the request for information once 5 years have passed. There is no need to re-apply, or lose the opportunity.