I suspect our argument depends on the position of Chad and whether or not you believe him to be a victim or a blind fool and the behaviour of Dee.

If Chad was deliberately deceived then I would argue he occupies the same position as the lady in Kabul. He is making a choice that could be argued to be unwise. If Chad did not make any enquiries then I would argue he is deferring responsibility. Deferring responsibility does not permit fraud.

The woman in Kabul could also be considered a dolt because only dolts go out in a public place when the Government opposes their position on things. She did not engage in the systemic oppression but she did engage in the act of rebellion.

It is a matter of how you look at it and which lens you choose to focus your argument.