Gaming @beehaw.org brie @beehaw.org 11 mo. ago

Updates regarding the IndieLand / The Completionist charity fraud allegations

TL;DR: Things look incredibly bad. The completionist has practically admitted to misleading donors, and it seems like he is expecting the IRS will get involved (IGN). It also seems he's threatening legal action for slander (Jobst).

The allegation that the money was not donated seems to be true (up until the AFTD donation in November of 2023) (IGN, AFTD). The Completionist has admitted he "made statements potentially implying donations were made when they had not yet been" (IGN). Karl basically states that it isn't a potential implication, but a direct claim that he made, and is additionally is alleging that the way The Completionist benefits from IndieLand constitutes charity fraud (Jobst).

14 comments

I don't watch much Completionist stuff but he really seemed like he was reading a script written by a lawyer for this "response". As well as, looking increasing angry.
Things look incredibly bad.

I don't think that they do. They still had the money. It's now been donated, and Jirard is distancing himself from the charity and not running them attached to IndieLand anymore; the trust is gone, so it would have been difficult to get people to donate anyway. The only smoking gun I could see they had against him was the money still in the account (at the time). The accusations about the golf tournaments had no numbers attached to them, only that "there must be more money there", and it felt very unfounded and as though Jobst just needed another video out for his baked in sponsor slot. From what I can see, Jirard did exactly what he should have to make amends, and now that a bunch of people have all been encouraged en masse to lodge complaints to the IRS, the rest of the truth will come out of that inevitable audit, because I sure didn't feel like I got it from Jobst's follow-up videos. His and OrdinaryGamers are two channels I'm certainly not interested in watching again. If you're going to do something resembling investigative journalism, then act like it; don't preamble your video telling me how I should feel about something before you've presented your facts.
- He didn’t even manage to donate all the money they claimed to have on their tax filings from over a year ago. There is another entire indie land after that at least.
  
  So no. He hasn’t even donated all the money. His “apology” was also pretty much a non apology. “Sorry if you felt mislead”.
- Karl's drama/exposé videos have always had this kind of antagonistic energy to them. It usually doesn't bother me since the subjects, like Billy Mitchell, have brought the absurdity on themselves. Carrying that same energy into serious claims of fraud feels like a poor decision even if it's the style of video you're used to making. I don't think the money would have been donated without these videos so I'm glad they were made, but the presentation was not as effective as it could've been.
- By that I meant from the perspective that the initial allegations still felt like it could all just be a misunderstanding. Now that it has been donated, it seems to be more a matter of who at Open Hand was actually in the know (since it is possible that Jirard geniunely was being misled himself), and why the money wasn't being donated. The golf tournament stuff definitely feels much more circumstantial since it is based on extrapolation. Overall it does seem like the IRS getting involved is going be the only way definitive evidence of what was actually going on will come out.
  
  I'm reading between the lines of what Jirard said in his recorded calls and his response video when I say this, but I got the sense he and his family wanted that dollar value to be significantly higher so that they could have more control over what it gets spent on. People are more willing to do what you want them to do when you give them $1M than if you give them $1000. Still not a great reason to hold on to it if so, but hardly fraud.
- Agreed with the tone of the videos being off and I don't like both creators.
  
  On the other hand, there is definitely some weird accounting going on at the charity. They are supposed to report all expenses which they didn't. They also didn't provide any banking statement that show the money were there all the time. If the fund is misused and then repaid later, they were still misused.
  
  Also, as I understand it, $600,000 is not all the money. Already last year's tax filings showed more capital than that. The charity also has some money deducted for "costs" that is not broken down, and although I'm an outsider it doesn't seem very cool because the charity hadn't actually been doing anything so I can't imagine donors feeling like costs of that size are warranted.
I would love to see an actual lawyer's take on this. Jirard's response is basically "we mislead everyone and were shitty for not donating before now, but it was perfectly legal for us to hold the money until now, and it was also legal for us to use donations for operating expenses of the foundation/events". While Karl presents a lot of evidence of misleading statements by Jirard, his usage of the encyclopedia brittanica to define charity fraud instead of any actual legal definition, and presentation of evidence as more damning than it actually is (and in a very hostile manner) leads me to view both sides in a negative light. At this point, I have no idea whether either side has any legal grounds for the accusations made toward the other, and I don't see that changing unless someone with actual legal knowledge weighs in
- I agree. I usually like Karl’s content but his tone really did a disservice to this story. He really should have consulted someone that knows USA charity law for this. I don’t think he’s wrong, he just needed more credibility for his video. He’s also Australian, so US law isn’t something I’d expect him to know at all.
  
  I don’t see how the completionist could make these claims about donating to specific cherities without actually donating a single cent until someone noticed. Surely USA charity law isn’t so broken that this is legal?
  
  I mean, it's pretty scummy but "working with" could refer to just being in communications with those charities about what a potential donation would be used for. Given what Jirard has said, I assume he was completely negligent about checking in on any of the foundation's activities, and was probably just handed a paper with the names of "partners" on it for the stream. That said, I feel like the quotes about being a "major" or "main" partner with some specific organizations could get them into trouble, even if it's legal for them to hold the money that long and they pass IRS audits
  
  Laws are only as good as the enforcers are financed. The irs has been underfunded a lot.
A lot of people here are bending over backwards to justify the behavior.

They collected money for charity. Didn't donate any of it for YEARS. Money that could have helped funding research.

I don't know US law, but I know that's just wrong.

You've viewed 14 comments.