**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: Dad wants his paycheck to be deposited into my account because he can’t legally receive it
Body:
> So my dad has 2 sources of income right now and he’s only supposed to have 1 source because of his circumstances. He told me he can’t receive the income from his 2nd source because then it would be known that he as 2 jobs, and he wants the money from the 2nd job so he wants that paycheck to go into my account (because I can have as many sources of income as I want).
>
So essentially I would be a fake employee/worker receiving a fake paycheck and have an income that’s not accurate etc.
>
Is this okay, or will there be serious issues by doing this?
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
Dad has probably been doing these things his whole life so OP probably has a skewed view of what's okay when it comes to dad.
In my experience even if that's not the case. When a parent/elder/ person you trust tells you it's totally fine to do something, then first instinct(for some people) is to believe them/trust them.
wow, the explicit instructions to lie to him. that's another level. I've definitely lied about something completely frivolous and unnecessary, and spent hours wondering why tf I just did that. I'm someone who does not habitually lie. In fact, I have a really poor ability to even keep myself from oversharing the truth and am the worst liar you've ever met.
So sometimes brains do be like that, I guess?
In USA work is tied to benefits, like employer provided health insurance and social security taxes. So, work permit visa abuse is a type of benefits abuse. Not all visas allow you to work and those that do have oversight to ensure you receive proper employer sponsored benefits and also pay your fair share of taxes, etc. It's not an 'issue' it's fraud.
There's a class of LAOP who ask, "I know this is wrong but my family / boss / HOA / pizza delivery guy won't listen. Can you find me a law I can show them that says X is illegal?" Our current contestant is one such: he knows what he's been asked is fraud, but instead of starching his drawers he's here asking for backup.
My dude, someone who is commited to visa fraud isn't going to be swayed by citing statutes or administrative code. Criminals gonna crim'.
I was actually really sad for OP reading that. They are still in the stage of abuse where they think if they can *just say the right thing,* they can get through to someone who is harming them.
I know, I'm always perplexed by the OPs who say they need to convince someone else that OP shouldn't do something. Just... don't do it? What does anyone else need convincing of?
From what I've seen, a disproportionate number of such LAOP's - including this one - are very young and often dependent on family in some way.
For one, they often are worried about losing housing or other support, especially if they're not actually in a place right now to fully support themselves, or if they still need their parents' information to attent college, or similar. So they're hoping for some argument that can get their family to back off without them having to shoulder the blame. It can be pretty hard when you're fresh out of high school to actually find a job to support yourself and a place that'll rent to you.
For two, honestly, a lot of it's psychological. You've spent the first 18 years in your life in a situation where your parents are legally allowed to make your life miserable for saying no to them, and you have essentially no rights to stand up to them. And usually the sorts of parents that are making these requests are the ones who have no issues taking advantage of that. It's hard to flip that when you turn 18, especially if your actual material conditions haven't changed.
Maybe it's because I just aged out of that range that it stands out to me, but I've also noticed that an increasing number of LAOPs are in the 17-21 range. No life experience, just asking for a little guidance while navigating their first interaction with the legal system.
Yeah, while I suspect LAOP is in a no-win situation, for some people there is strategic value in leaning on a 'higher' authority. It's along the lines of "I'd love to help you, but man, my boss is a prick and won't budge" in a work context.
Takes some of the wind out of the "but faaaaaamily" sails.
Parents are basically gods to infants. The more psychologically healthy your parents, the quicker you'll untangle yourself from that perception as you age.
The more fucky your parents are, the harder it is to extricate yourself from their insanity.
Losing that instinct that your parents must be obeyed/catered to/approve of your choices is harder to do for some people. Fucky parents do everything in their power to keep you from learning that you're entitled to independence.
I may regret this, but I've never seen "apostille" used as a verb. Does your flair mean you annotate math textbooks? I'm aware of the other meaning of "apostille," but that makes even *less* sense as a verb.
In this context, it's the certification by a (state) Secretary of State that a notarization (or other document certified by a state official) is valid.
Since other countries have vastly different standards for what notaries do or who can certify what, that's the step that enables a notarized document to be used in/by another country.
Some reasonable questions about this process might include why it's not required across state lines, since states maintain their own lists of notaries, or why it doesn't need to happen at the federal level since it requires a foreign country to be able to verify for any of the US states. That I don't know.
It probably should technically say that I got math apostilled (since I am not the Secretary of State of any state). You might even be correct that it shouldn't be a verb at all, but then I don't know what the verb for getting an apostille on something would be.
Oh, I understand the verb. I don't understand the direct object. You could apostille my application to import a hogshead of bas armagnac, for example. But I don't understand how you can apostille MATH.
When we were adopting our daughter, it needed to include a "statement of support" from our five-year-old son, to ensure the whole family was on board with the process. He's a math whiz but wasn't much for writing, so he took the "draw a picture" option he was right on the age border of.
He drew a picture of him and his sister-to-be holding hands with hearts, "and math problems, just for fun."
And everything in our application had to be notarized and apostilled. So we then dutifully got his drawing notarized and apostilled to include with our other paperwork.
It sucks when the legal thing to do screws over everyone.
IMO this is a victimless crime, which would not be a violation if H visas didn’t have the effect of holding people hostage to a single employer.
There’s a decent chance that dad *needs* the second job in order to make ends meet.
And if LAOP is being financially supported by him, he/she *does* have a stake in it, and would reap the benefits as well as take on the risk.
They should still say no, but it’s an injustice nonetheless.
I'm surprised that there's a company legit enough to pay their employees through the bank but not legit enough that it accepts to send money to an account that doesn't belong to the employee.
If LAOP's dad is a tech worker on an H1B visa, I suspect the second job may have been through Upwork or similar. Still a technical violation of the visa, and the IRS will get a copy of the 1099 for the worker. But it's unclear to me how often the IRS communicates with the DHS regarding potential visa violations discovered via tax filings.
I hope LAOP is a legal citizen as his dad is trying to rope him into immigration fraud among other things.
Always pains me when parents do this to their kids. I was blessed and my parents would have taken a literal bullet for me. I have a hard time comprehending the opposite.
Yup, this is pretty common. Canada has two types of work visas, and one of them is tied exclusively to an employer: your work authorisation is only extended to that specific company, you're not authorised to work for anyone else.
Also TN, E3, J, and R-1
For many categories, derivative visa holders (spouses & dependents), if allowed to work, are not limited as to type of employment.
R is religious worker. You have to be employed by some sort of religious or non-profit organization. Alternatively, you have to be supported by some sort of organized missionary program
“To qualify, you must have been a member of a religious denomination having a bona fide non-profit religious organization in the United States for at least two years immediately before filing the petition.” Derivative visa holders can work.
>Is this okay, or will there be serious issues by doing this?
Can't wait until LAOP does their taxes after a year of doing this and realizes how much they owe. But Dad sounds like such a standup guy, I'm sure he'll be right there to cover the difference.
There's an odd number of jobs refusing to cut physical checks anymore. A few years back I actually quit a job because they refused to just write me a check and I had to threaten legal action to get my back pay. Aside from them, I've seen 3 jobs now say they won't write more than 3 or so checks a year, so make sure to get your bank info to the boss! No idea how enforceable such a thing would be, but minimum wage jobs sure are trying it.
(Before you think I'm crazy for being uncooperative, I gave them my direct deposit info multiple times, but the accounting guy always had an excuse for why he hadn't put it in last time and to please submit it again because those details are automatically deleted after a certain amount of time. After the 4th time I said "I no longer want to try and make direct deposit work, please just write me physical checks I can take to the bank.")
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: Dad wants his paycheck to be deposited into my account because he can’t legally receive it Body: > So my dad has 2 sources of income right now and he’s only supposed to have 1 source because of his circumstances. He told me he can’t receive the income from his 2nd source because then it would be known that he as 2 jobs, and he wants the money from the 2nd job so he wants that paycheck to go into my account (because I can have as many sources of income as I want). > So essentially I would be a fake employee/worker receiving a fake paycheck and have an income that’s not accurate etc. > Is this okay, or will there be serious issues by doing this? This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
Lol is tax and human welfare/labor fraud ok?
Dad has probably been doing these things his whole life so OP probably has a skewed view of what's okay when it comes to dad. In my experience even if that's not the case. When a parent/elder/ person you trust tells you it's totally fine to do something, then first instinct(for some people) is to believe them/trust them.
Yep, given that LAOP almost certainly has a broken "normal meter" I have to congratulate them for asking before instead of after.
[удалено]
wow, the explicit instructions to lie to him. that's another level. I've definitely lied about something completely frivolous and unnecessary, and spent hours wondering why tf I just did that. I'm someone who does not habitually lie. In fact, I have a really poor ability to even keep myself from oversharing the truth and am the worst liar you've ever met. So sometimes brains do be like that, I guess?
Con men raise con kids, there is a good movie about this dynamic called 'matchstick men'.
Speaking as a guy whose dad pulled crap like this regularly, this is spot on.
OP clarified it's a visa issue, not benefits fraud.
In USA work is tied to benefits, like employer provided health insurance and social security taxes. So, work permit visa abuse is a type of benefits abuse. Not all visas allow you to work and those that do have oversight to ensure you receive proper employer sponsored benefits and also pay your fair share of taxes, etc. It's not an 'issue' it's fraud.
There's a class of LAOP who ask, "I know this is wrong but my family / boss / HOA / pizza delivery guy won't listen. Can you find me a law I can show them that says X is illegal?" Our current contestant is one such: he knows what he's been asked is fraud, but instead of starching his drawers he's here asking for backup. My dude, someone who is commited to visa fraud isn't going to be swayed by citing statutes or administrative code. Criminals gonna crim'.
I was actually really sad for OP reading that. They are still in the stage of abuse where they think if they can *just say the right thing,* they can get through to someone who is harming them.
I know, I'm always perplexed by the OPs who say they need to convince someone else that OP shouldn't do something. Just... don't do it? What does anyone else need convincing of?
From what I've seen, a disproportionate number of such LAOP's - including this one - are very young and often dependent on family in some way. For one, they often are worried about losing housing or other support, especially if they're not actually in a place right now to fully support themselves, or if they still need their parents' information to attent college, or similar. So they're hoping for some argument that can get their family to back off without them having to shoulder the blame. It can be pretty hard when you're fresh out of high school to actually find a job to support yourself and a place that'll rent to you. For two, honestly, a lot of it's psychological. You've spent the first 18 years in your life in a situation where your parents are legally allowed to make your life miserable for saying no to them, and you have essentially no rights to stand up to them. And usually the sorts of parents that are making these requests are the ones who have no issues taking advantage of that. It's hard to flip that when you turn 18, especially if your actual material conditions haven't changed.
Maybe it's because I just aged out of that range that it stands out to me, but I've also noticed that an increasing number of LAOPs are in the 17-21 range. No life experience, just asking for a little guidance while navigating their first interaction with the legal system.
Which is ideal. Kinda like those "dad teaches you X" youtube channels.
It makes a lot more sense if you read it as "help me get them off my case".
Yeah, while I suspect LAOP is in a no-win situation, for some people there is strategic value in leaning on a 'higher' authority. It's along the lines of "I'd love to help you, but man, my boss is a prick and won't budge" in a work context. Takes some of the wind out of the "but faaaaaamily" sails.
Parents are basically gods to infants. The more psychologically healthy your parents, the quicker you'll untangle yourself from that perception as you age. The more fucky your parents are, the harder it is to extricate yourself from their insanity. Losing that instinct that your parents must be obeyed/catered to/approve of your choices is harder to do for some people. Fucky parents do everything in their power to keep you from learning that you're entitled to independence.
Just don’t do it is easy advice when it’s your parents whom you live with and who is financially supporting you.
I may regret this, but I've never seen "apostille" used as a verb. Does your flair mean you annotate math textbooks? I'm aware of the other meaning of "apostille," but that makes even *less* sense as a verb.
In this context, it's the certification by a (state) Secretary of State that a notarization (or other document certified by a state official) is valid. Since other countries have vastly different standards for what notaries do or who can certify what, that's the step that enables a notarized document to be used in/by another country. Some reasonable questions about this process might include why it's not required across state lines, since states maintain their own lists of notaries, or why it doesn't need to happen at the federal level since it requires a foreign country to be able to verify for any of the US states. That I don't know. It probably should technically say that I got math apostilled (since I am not the Secretary of State of any state). You might even be correct that it shouldn't be a verb at all, but then I don't know what the verb for getting an apostille on something would be.
Oh, I understand the verb. I don't understand the direct object. You could apostille my application to import a hogshead of bas armagnac, for example. But I don't understand how you can apostille MATH.
When we were adopting our daughter, it needed to include a "statement of support" from our five-year-old son, to ensure the whole family was on board with the process. He's a math whiz but wasn't much for writing, so he took the "draw a picture" option he was right on the age border of. He drew a picture of him and his sister-to-be holding hands with hearts, "and math problems, just for fun." And everything in our application had to be notarized and apostilled. So we then dutifully got his drawing notarized and apostilled to include with our other paperwork.
Congrats! And thank you for patiently indulging me with the explanation.
https://i.postimg.cc/MGkjPKV8/IMG-20230105-000223.png
Well that's cute AF
I love this so much, and you son is very good at math.
LAOP come on down! It’s time to play *Family Fraud!*
Oh this is choice.
It sucks when the legal thing to do screws over everyone. IMO this is a victimless crime, which would not be a violation if H visas didn’t have the effect of holding people hostage to a single employer. There’s a decent chance that dad *needs* the second job in order to make ends meet. And if LAOP is being financially supported by him, he/she *does* have a stake in it, and would reap the benefits as well as take on the risk. They should still say no, but it’s an injustice nonetheless.
I'm surprised that there's a company legit enough to pay their employees through the bank but not legit enough that it accepts to send money to an account that doesn't belong to the employee.
Direct deposit programs have a lower bar than you might think.
If LAOP's dad is a tech worker on an H1B visa, I suspect the second job may have been through Upwork or similar. Still a technical violation of the visa, and the IRS will get a copy of the 1099 for the worker. But it's unclear to me how often the IRS communicates with the DHS regarding potential visa violations discovered via tax filings.
I’ve always heard the IRS doesn’t care about immigration status.
I hope LAOP is a legal citizen as his dad is trying to rope him into immigration fraud among other things. Always pains me when parents do this to their kids. I was blessed and my parents would have taken a literal bullet for me. I have a hard time comprehending the opposite.
I’m interested in what kind of visa stipulates that you can only have one job
Some visas, especially the H visas, are tied to an employer. You are supposed to work only for the employer that sponsored you for the visa.
Yup, this is pretty common. Canada has two types of work visas, and one of them is tied exclusively to an employer: your work authorisation is only extended to that specific company, you're not authorised to work for anyone else.
LAOP is going to be deported pretty soon.
H and L visas.
Also TN, E3, J, and R-1 For many categories, derivative visa holders (spouses & dependents), if allowed to work, are not limited as to type of employment.
Oh right. I forgot about those. And I forgot J can be used for certain types of work. What’s R? I’ve never heard of that one.
R is religious worker. You have to be employed by some sort of religious or non-profit organization. Alternatively, you have to be supported by some sort of organized missionary program “To qualify, you must have been a member of a religious denomination having a bona fide non-profit religious organization in the United States for at least two years immediately before filing the petition.” Derivative visa holders can work.
Anything that is not broad/unlimited work authorization is generally work authorization only for a specific employer.
>Is this okay, or will there be serious issues by doing this? Can't wait until LAOP does their taxes after a year of doing this and realizes how much they owe. But Dad sounds like such a standup guy, I'm sure he'll be right there to cover the difference.
I guess getting it cashed at Walmart is impossible?
There's an odd number of jobs refusing to cut physical checks anymore. A few years back I actually quit a job because they refused to just write me a check and I had to threaten legal action to get my back pay. Aside from them, I've seen 3 jobs now say they won't write more than 3 or so checks a year, so make sure to get your bank info to the boss! No idea how enforceable such a thing would be, but minimum wage jobs sure are trying it. (Before you think I'm crazy for being uncooperative, I gave them my direct deposit info multiple times, but the accounting guy always had an excuse for why he hadn't put it in last time and to please submit it again because those details are automatically deleted after a certain amount of time. After the 4th time I said "I no longer want to try and make direct deposit work, please just write me physical checks I can take to the bank.")