>>As a current or former chipper, he has GOT to be aware that these chips could be used to rip off chippers, and he took no steps to prevent it. Even if he didn't commit fraud, he provided tools for others to commit fraud, and (IMHO) he knowingly provided the tools.

So I think what you are saying is that lack of intent is a defense (Farmer lacks intent) but a you want to hold the chip collector to a recklessness or negligence standard (negligence being the failure to excecise reasonable care and recklessness being the disregard of known risks).

You might have a valid argument, except that the code of ethics by permitting the sale of these items with disclosure pretty effectively narrows it down to intentional rather than reckless or negligent acts.

And the road that your standard leads us down can be pretty scary. For example we all see how many sellers on Ebay misuse the term Rare, and if a chip is marked as a limited edition it very well may seem to facially support such a claim even though we know that a limited edition of 5000 is not rare. Should it be considered wrong to sell such a chip, disclosing that in fact it is not rare. Consider the fact that some one else down the line might misrepresent it.

Touching on your argument is the sense that somehow one person should be responsible for the acts of another. There are some times when this might be appropriate under a conspiracy or accessorial theory. I would have no problem disciplining a member for acting in conspiracy to violate the code or for acting as an accessory to violating the code. However both of these also require intent. So if we had a member who altered chips and provided (with disclosure) them to another person for the porpuse of passing them off . . . that is sufficient to establish wrong doing on the part of both parties. As I understand it, there is no evidence (yet established) in this case supporting such a position