The argument that a bank teller justified stealing because the bank stole from the poor is an example of which fallacy?

The argument in question illustrates the fallacy of an inconsequent argument, which occurs when the conclusion drawn is not logically related to the premises provided. In this case, the bank teller employs a reasoning process that claims their theft is justified due to the supposed wrongdoing of the bank. However, the act of the bank apparently mistreating the poor does not logically validate or excuse the act of stealing from the bank. The teller's reasoning diverts from addressing the ethics of their own actions to accusing the bank, making the argument inconsequential to the justification of their theft. This demonstrates a clear disconnection between the rationale offered and the behavioral judgment being made, which is characteristic of an inconsequent argument.