Can Accomplices to Fraud Will Themselves to Innocence, and Thereby Dodge Counter-Fraud Machines?

This brief paper explores the consequences of agnosticism with respect to whether a given human agent B is guilty of fraud. We find that if a human A is agnostic with respect to whether a human fraudster B is guilty of fraud, A, on the only formal definition of fraud that we are aware of, is her/himself provably not guilty of fraud. This means that a counter-fraud machine D based on an implemented version of this definition will classify A as innocent. Hence, if A by simply an act of will can bring it about that A is agnostic, A will evade D