It started as a normal Tuesday until Meera from Finance pinged HR with: “Hi, urgent — please review one reimbursement request. It… feels personal.” That’s never a good sign. Turns out, an employee named Rohit had submitted a ₹78,000 bill titled “Client Entertainment – Relationship Building Expense.” HR, curious (and low on entertainment), pulled the invoice. It was for a diamond engagement ring from a jewellery store at a mall nowhere close to any client—unless the client lived next to a food court. When Meera questioned him, Rohit sincerely explained, “But my fiancée is technically a stakeholder in my life, no?” HR had to mute the call because someone snorted tea out of their nose.
The investigation took a fun turn when Rohit doubled down, saying the company should support employees’ “long-term emotional stability,” which, according to him, improves productivity. He even attached a self-made PowerPoint titled ‘ROI of Romance’ with charts that looked like they were generated on MS Paint. The founder, upon hearing it, just said, “At least he tried to show metrics.” HR politely denied the claim, introduced a new line in the reimbursement SOP saying, “No jewellery of any kind,” and quietly updated the training deck because, apparently, this is a real risk now.
Moral / Compliance Takeaway
Always read reimbursement descriptions twice. Sometimes “client entertainment” is actually “wedding preparation.”
Employees will test policy boundaries with Olympic-level creativity.
Add explicit examples in policies — humans need shockingly literal guidance.
Questions
Have you ever seen a hilariously “creative” reimbursement attempt?
Should HR start a museum of rejected claims?
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
7The investigation took a fun turn when Rohit doubled down, saying the company should support employees’ “long-term emotional stability,” which, according to him, improves productivity. He even attached a self-made PowerPoint titled ‘ROI of Romance’ with charts that looked like they were generated on MS Paint. The founder, upon hearing it, just said, “At least he tried to show metrics.” HR politely denied the claim, introduced a new line in the reimbursement SOP saying, “No jewellery of any kind,” and quietly updated the training deck because, apparently, this is a real risk now.
Moral / Compliance Takeaway
Always read reimbursement descriptions twice. Sometimes “client entertainment” is actually “wedding preparation.”
Employees will test policy boundaries with Olympic-level creativity.
Add explicit examples in policies — humans need shockingly literal guidance.
Questions
Have you ever seen a hilariously “creative” reimbursement attempt?
Should HR start a museum of rejected claims?
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This situation is indeed humorous, but it also highlights the importance of clear and comprehensive policies in the workplace. I have come across several creative reimbursement attempts in my career, but this one certainly stands out.
From a legal and compliance standpoint, it's important to have explicit guidelines about what constitutes a valid expense. This should be clearly communicated to all employees to avoid any confusion or misuse. In this case, the company did the right thing by denying the claim and updating the reimbursement policy to explicitly state that jewelry is not a valid expense.
In terms of action steps, the first thing to do in such situations is to review the existing policy and identify any loopholes or areas of ambiguity. Next, update the policy to cover these areas and communicate the changes to all employees. It's also a good idea to provide training on the policy to ensure everyone understands it.
In terms of best practices, it's important to handle such situations with a sense of humor and empathy. While it's crucial to maintain professional boundaries, it's also important to acknowledge the creativity and initiative shown by the employee. In this case, the company could use this incident as a learning opportunity and a way to engage employees in a discussion about policy boundaries and the importance of adhering to them.
As for the idea of starting a museum of rejected claims, while it's a fun idea, it's important to respect the privacy and dignity of employees. Instead, these examples could be anonymized and used as case studies in training sessions to help employees understand the policy better.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From a legal and compliance standpoint, it's important to have explicit guidelines about what constitutes a valid expense. This should be clearly communicated to all employees to avoid any confusion or misuse. In this case, the company did the right thing by denying the claim and updating the reimbursement policy to explicitly state that jewelry is not a valid expense.
In terms of action steps, the first thing to do in such situations is to review the existing policy and identify any loopholes or areas of ambiguity. Next, update the policy to cover these areas and communicate the changes to all employees. It's also a good idea to provide training on the policy to ensure everyone understands it.
In terms of best practices, it's important to handle such situations with a sense of humor and empathy. While it's crucial to maintain professional boundaries, it's also important to acknowledge the creativity and initiative shown by the employee. In this case, the company could use this incident as a learning opportunity and a way to engage employees in a discussion about policy boundaries and the importance of adhering to them.
As for the idea of starting a museum of rejected claims, while it's a fun idea, it's important to respect the privacy and dignity of employees. Instead, these examples could be anonymized and used as case studies in training sessions to help employees understand the policy better.
From India, Gurugram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Employee reference policy.doc