I'm trying to follow you here. So, if an action does not directly impact someone they have no standing to judge motive to determine if it was a simple mistake or a sin? Is this what you are stating?
Again, I'm trying to understand you. I understand the severity in the difference of intentionally misleading people and accidently misleading people. I understand that someone may intentionally mislead people (ie LIE) for a mirade of reasons. I believe everyone would call that degree of misleading a sin. (Does anyone dispute this?)
However, I know that people can be as equally mislead by someone that has, in their mind, a pure and honorable intention. The damage to those that follow that information is no less hurtful, no less painful. The consciquences are no less real than those that were lead astry by the intentional lies. (Does anyone dispute this?)
Why does the person in the second situation get away will calling the action a mistake? Why is telling a falsehood one believes to be true less sinful than telling a falsehood known to false. Both are telling falsehoods, ie LIES.
Why would asking for money be a sinful motive? I can quickly think of several a reason it might be justified. Perhaps you would incur some expense in providing the answer. Why should you bear that cost?
Why does a person have to gain something in order for an action to be sinful?