Opinion On Legality Of "Divine Investiture" Example?

[rongo]

An example I have used to illustrate "divine investiture of authority" is this:

Years ago, I used to work as an office manager for a member of my ward. I ordered and maintained inventory, interviewed and hired/fired people, did payroll, paid bills and maintained licenses, etc. The boss was rarely in the office (a major consideration for hiring me ---- he wanted someone competent he could trust to enable him to not have to come in very often). I usually generated checks off of the computer, but sometimes I had to do a handwritten check out of a ledger-style binder of checks. He showed me how to write his signature and instructed me to sign his name to checks that needed to be done (he trusted my judgment and competency, and he was available via phone or email if I had any questions or concerns).

When using this as an example of DIoA in a combined 5th Sunday meeting (he and I are two separate people, yet when acting in his behalf, my signature *was* his signature because he authorized and recognized it as such), a member of my ward who is a police officer told me afterwards that this was actually illegal and constituted forgery. I disagreed with him on grounds that it would only be illegal if he filed charges, but wasn't because he recognized the signature as his own. We continue to "agree to disagree" about this, and needle each other about this (he's in our high priest group leadership).

I have never asked an attorney; I just have an academic interest in it. What do all of you think about this (in your unprofessional opinions)? Illegal, or not? Improper? Unwise? It did fascinate me how much trust this took, because I had full and complete access to his business accounts and had the capability of completely wiping everything out and absconding (he often had me move money through different accounts around the country, and some people were paid by simply transferring money electronically into their accounts. Doing the same into my account would have been simple, other than the fact that I would have been dead in the water. And the fact that I had no interest in embezzling . . . ) Which is probably why he wanted his bishop to be the office manager . . .

For those of you who are attorneys, can you give a definitive word on this?

I'm just gearing up for January's "Godhead" theme in youth Sunday School. I'm thinking about using this as a visual example/object lesson (with checks).

Thanks!

[rayhale]

Well I feel it unwise for the both of you. As you said, you could have stolen money for years, and your boss wouldn’t have known. On the other hand your boss could have, and even probably still could, one day burn you by saying that he never authorized you to sign his name.

[cinepro]

I don't know if it is legal or not, but it is definitely stupid.

There is already a process to give someone the power to write checks, and teaching them to sign someone else's name isn't it.

You were also exposing both yourselves to serious liability. If your boss ever had a change of heart, or even a lapse of memory, it wouldn't matter what kind of arrangement you had worked out. All he would have to do is show that you had signed checks using his name and you'd be toast. And as rayhale pointed out, your boss was exposing the business to a serious danger of fraud and theft.

The fact that it worked out isn't because you were using the principle of "Divine Investure", but because you were both extremely lucky.

[thesometimesaint]

Several years before my mom died I became her for financial and medical decisions. I protected her interests and she felt safe with my decisions. So it can work out.

[rongo]

Well I feel it unwise for the both of you. As you said, you could have stolen money for years, and your boss wouldn’t have known. On the other hand your boss could have, and even probably still could, one day burn you by saying that he never authorized you to sign his name.

He closely monitored his finances, and would have known if I did anything "strange." He also audited my payroll transactions every week, because he had a complicated formula for figuring out commissions to his salesmen, and there were frequent adjustments to my calculations, despite my best efforts to follow his formula (which he acknowledged would have confused a rocket scientist).

[rongo]

The fact that it worked out isn't because you were using the principle of "Divine Investure", but because you were both extremely lucky.

Analogies and comparisons are only good "as far as they go." As far as it goes (and no further), doesn't this display the principle of "investiture of authority" (akin to power of attorney)?

While unwise in the eyes of the world, isn't the fact that we trusted each other this much (again, to the contrary of all worldly considerations) instructive? Isn't part of the unity of the Godhead the fact that each member is so unified that there is no difference between what one does and what the others would do?

Does anyone think our arrangement was actually illegal, or was it just "definitely stupid," as you say? Just curious.

Thanks!

[ERayR]

I think this is a good analogy to divine investiture. He invested you (verbally) to speak and act for him so in all practical ways you were him as far as the business was concerned.

Now to critique you method. It was a dangerous way (for you) to handle it. Much better would have been to give you a power of attorney and put you on the checking account as a signor.

[cinepro]

It should also be pointed out that the theory of "Divine Investure" was first expressed in 1916 as a way to resolve questions about the relationship between members of the Godhead. The principle itself doesn't appear in the scriptures; it only applies as a way to explain instances in which the scriptures clearly state that one member of the Godhead is speaking, but our doctrine demands that it actually be another. While it's possible that "Divine Investure" is a legitimate theory, I don't know if we've spent enough time thinking about whether our other doctrinal assumptions might need to be adjusted instead.

This leads to another question about rongo's situation. Suppose the owner of the business passed away and his heirs were reviewing the business operations and found the checks that had been created by rongo with the owner's signature? If they disagreed with the nature of the checks, what defense would rongo have if they took exception to his having signed as the owner? That could be a very bad situation.

Edited January 1, 2013 by cinepro

[DavidB]

Whether or not you signing someone else's name is forgery; the principle still stands.

I beleive it is accepted that the God Heads Will is unified, so Chirst may "sign" for God or rather the God Head.

[Freedom]

The proper process is to give you signing authority. It is illegal in my jurisdiction to forge anothers signature and it is recless to allow someone to forge anothers signature. Is something were to go wrong, the one with the signature will be held fully liable and if a third person were to forge their signature, they would not be able to press charges if it could be established that at least on other person was instructed to forge the signature.

It takes a short visit to the financial institution to add multiple signatories to an account. Trust accounts are different - with certain type of trust accounts, depending on local legislation, only company directors can be signatories. it would depend on whether you are running a pooled account, non-profit association account, reserve fund, or gaming fund among others.

If multiple signatories are added, it is best to require dual signatures to withdraw funds such as signing a cheque.

It is also possible that local legislation would allow an electronic signature but my experience has taught me that this is as dangerous as allowing others to forge your signature.

[rpn]

Practically, many organizations do this with a signature stamp. I would not agree to sign someone else's name. And if I did sign someone else's name, I would get his signed authorization on a log therefore PRIOR to doing the signing or immediately thereafter acknowledging prior verbal permission.

Edited January 2, 2013 by rpn

[rongo]

Counsel and advice about signing checks for someone, even when authorized and "ordered to," are duly noted. I'm glad there were no problems, and that there was enough trust and trustworthiness in place for there not to be any future problems. But, the level of caution unanimously expressed here is impressive. I didn't see any issues with it at the time, and obviously neither did the owner.

Interestingly, this makes me think of the Church's two signature check system. Our ward has five signatories on the account: the bishopric, ward clerk, and finance clerk. At times, it was difficult to get a second signature due to work schedules, people being out of town, etc. and it was tempting to get verbal permission to wign someone's name when there was a time constraint. I'm glad I never did this, a) because it didn't feel right, and b) because it is crucial for the integrity of this check and balance not to have any corners cut. Our stake patriarch served as a mission president in Venezuela, and he and his wife have served other missions. One of them was in Mexico, where his sole job was auditing finances around the country. He told me that there were several excommunications of bishops and branch presidents who couldn't resist embezzling money by circumventing the policy controls. These controls are such that perpetrators *will* be found and caught, but there's only protection when they are strictly followed.

Edited January 2, 2013 by rongo

[blackstrap]

When doing home renos , I have had people offer to give me their credit card and say for me to just sign their name so that I can purchase large ticket items without their presence. I never do it. Too many whatifs.

[rongo]

Yeah, that would be too risky, for sure.

[Calm]

When doing home renos , I have had people offer to give me their credit card and say for me to just sign their name so that I can purchase large ticket items without their presence. I never do it. Too many whatifs.

Yes, it is one thing for the Father to trust the Son to do right by his name, most others are a bit more iffy. Edited January 2, 2013 by calmoriah

[mathonihah]

Opinion On Legality Of "Divine Investiture" Example?

Definitely illegal!—I mean the "Divine Investiture," not the "Example!"

[Kenngo1969]

I am not a lawyer, and this post does not constitute legal advice. Anyone needing such advice should contact a licensed attorney. With that out of the way ... ... I'm not sure where you're located, but if you're in Utah (or if you were in Utah when this gentleman employed you), you can tell your police officer/High Priest Group brother that the touchstone of forgery in Utah is a purpose to defraud, or to knowingly facilitate a fraud to be perpetrated by anyone. I was unable, in my cursory search, to find a definition for fraud in Utah law. However, the dictionary at Dictionary.com defines "fraud" as follows: "1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain." Provided Utah law essentially follows this definition, if there is no unfair or unlawful gain, there is no fraud. If there is no intent to defraud or to facilitate a fraud, there is no forgery. In the example you gave, since your boss authorized you to do what you did (advisability being different than legality ) there does not appear to be a purpose to defraud or to knowingly facilitate a fraud. Since there was no purpose to defraud or to knowingly facilitate a fraud there was no forgery. (see Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-501(2), available on line at the following address, last accessed today: http://www.le.utah.g...6_06_050100.htm.

Edited January 2, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[ERayR]

I am not a lawyer, and this post does not constitute legal advice. Anyone needing such advice should contact a licensed attorney. With that out of the way ... ... I'm not sure where you're located, but if you're in Utah (or if you were in Utah when this gentleman employed you), you can tell your police officer/High Priest Group brother that the touchstone of forgery in Utah is a purpose to defraud, or to knowingly facilitate a fraud to be perpetrated by anyone. I was unable, in my cursory search, to find a definition for fraud in Utah law. However, the dictionary at Dictionary.com defines "fraud" as follows: "1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain." Provided Utah law essentially follows this definition, if there is no unfair or unlawful gain, there is no fraud. If there is no intent to defraud or to facilitate a fraud, there is no forgery. In the example you gave, since your boss authorized you to do what you did (advisability being different than legality ) there does not appear to be a purpose to defraud or to knowingly facilitate a fraud. Since there was no purpose to defraud or to knowingly facilitate a fraud there was no forgery. (see Utah Code Ann. § 76-6-501(2), available on line at the following address, last accessed today: http://www.le.utah.g...6_06_050100.htm.

All well and good but all it takes to generate a lot of grief is for one person to make an accusation.

[Kenngo1969]

All well and good but all it takes to generate a lot of grief is for one person to make an accusation.

Which is why, although I've never seen this practice employed in signing a check, the best practice in signing someone else's name when one is authorized to do so would be for Rongo to sign his own name, thus: "[signed] Rongo, for [Rongo's boss]."

Edited January 2, 2013 by Kenngo1969

[Freedom]

I do not even know the password for my wife's bank card for automatic banking by machine. These machines take pictures and if she reports fraud, and it turns out that I used her card on occasion that is proof enough for the bank that she has allowed others access to her personal banking information and her claim would be dismissed. Even if you have a joint bank account, do not share your information with anybody. If you share pass codes for bank machines with your spouse, go to the bank and change them.

[cinepro]

Another option is to have the owner pre-sign a few checks. It's not much better, but it at least gets around the issue of "fraud" even if the checks are misused.

[Freedom]

Another option is to have the owner pre-sign a few checks. It's not much better, but it at least gets around the issue of "fraud" even if the checks are misused.

It actually does not help. If there is fraud and it can be established that there were pre-signed cheques then the owner has no recourse. The solution is quite simple, add the employee as a signor at the bank. 30 minutes of paper work is less costly than fraud or theft.

[cinepro]

It actually does not help. If there is fraud and it can be established that there were pre-signed cheques then the owner has no recourse. The solution is quite simple, add the employee as a signor at the bank. 30 minutes of paper work is less costly than fraud or theft.

What I mean is that given the choice between "I trust you so please sign my name on some checks" and "I trust you so here are a few blank checks that I have signed", the latter is preferable because it avoids the step of signing someone else's name. Obviously there is a great risk for theft in both scenarios.

Edited January 2, 2013 by cinepro

[Freedom]

What I mean is that given the choice between "I trust you so please sign my name on some checks" and "I trust you so here are a few blank checks that I have signed", the latter is preferable because it avoids the step of signing someone else's name. Obviously there is a great risk for theft in both scenarios.

I understood your point, but both options are equally dangerous even if the legal ramifications may differ.

[The Nehor]

Until God goes to a notary and gives Jesus and some angels power of attorney I think we can all agree that any use of divine investiture is fraud. Who wants to deliver the supoena?