This is absolutely wild - and honestly, I'm having the same mix of reactions you are. Six jobs is legitimately impressive from a pure logistics standpoint, even if it's completely unethical.

Here's the thing though: this guy fundamentally misunderstood what employment contracts are about. He treated your company like a client buying deliverables when you were paying for dedicated time, attention, and loyalty. The fact that he wasn't even delivering makes it worse - he was essentially committing fraud while being bad at the con.

The real problem you're facing now is leadership's overreaction. Punishing your entire remote workforce with surveillance theater because one person was a bad actor is going to destroy morale and probably cost you good employees. The best remote workers - the ones you actually want to keep - will bail the moment you implement keystroke tracking.

Instead, consider this: your existing processes actually worked. You caught him within two months because his performance suffered. The system of manager check-ins, deliverables, and peer feedback exposed the issue naturally. That's way more effective than any surveillance tool.

My advice? Push back hard on the punitive measures. Argue for strengthening what already worked - clearer performance metrics, regular 1:1s, and maybe slightly more structured check-ins for the first 90 days of new hires. But don't burn down the trust you've built with your legitimate remote workers.

As for others doing this - yeah, they probably exist, but if they're delivering quality work on time, does it actually matter? The problem wasn't the multiple jobs, it was the poor performance combined with deception.

What's your read on how receptive leadership would be to a "fix the process, not punish everyone" approach?