“If Frenkel is only interested in money why would he leave a position that pays him 20 to 30 times the salary to be Bank of Israel Governor?” Lapid said in a fiery interview with Israel Radio’s Keren Neubach.
"Lapid testifies to Turkel, defends Frenkel on comptroller report", The Jerusalem Post)
Lapid, Israel's minister of finance, argued that a very talented and wealthy candidate for a high civil service position can not be corrupt, because he could make a lot more money outside the civil service.
I think it is a clear logical fallacy. Monetary gain is just one reason for personal corruption. A candidate can be corrupt for other reasons, like the desire to gain power and influence. And even if a candidate is after money, the civil service position can be leveraged to gain a lot more money than the salary outside the service.
In short, I argue that Applying for a civil service job with lower salary than one could have made outside the civil service, does not imply that one is uncorrupt.
Is there a name for that logical fallacy? If not, I'd really like to call it "Argumentum ad lapidum", which is also a pun on Argumentum ad lapidem.
Addendum: Lapid did not refer directly to corruption, but to an alleged shoplifting event Frenkel was involved in. This logical fallacy can be expanded to describe moral purity, not just corruption.