Relativism D'16 Q2(c)

the answer says the investment was both fraudulent and impossible to defend on any ethical grounds then in the next sentence it says krank believed his actions were justified as he expected that eventually he would recover his position and return to normal levels of performance.
So can the fraudulent/illegal activity be justified if he actually achieved the levels of performance that maximise the shareholders value or is fraudulent/illegal activity REALLY CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED IN ANY ETHICAL GROUND?

another question is, if an action has underlying motive of self-interest, can it be justified in relativist ground?

if you have time, can you please explain to me the answer for this 2(c) in a more understandable way with easy words??