he realized that he “was deceived/had been deceived” by his fund manager.

[z7655431]

The investor had lost millions of dollars before he realized that he “had been deceived” by his fund manager.
The investor had lost millions of dollars before he realized that he “was deceived” by his fund manager.
In the two sentences, which verb tense is used more properly? Which is correct?

 

[z7655431]

'... had been deceived' is correct.

The investor had lost millions of dollars before he realized that he “was deceived” by his fund manager.
---Is this sentence incorrect?

 

[Tdol]

The deception came before the realisation, so the past perfect is the natural choice.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I would accept the simple past at the the end because of the word "before". That word established the timing of the events.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I am aware of that. There was a deception, then a realization.

 

[Matthew Wai]

The context has made it clear that the deception must have happened before the realization, so the past perfect is optional.

Is that correct?

 

[bhaisahab]

I think it's essential, not optional.

 

[MikeNewYork]

I consider it optional, Matthew.

 

[Matthew Wai]

Yet another difference between AmE and BrE.

 

[bhaisahab]

Possibly, Matthew. We need the opinions of more people, British and American, to be sure.

 

[Raymott]

Yet another difference between AmE and BrE.

Really? What I see is another difference between Mike and everyone else.
In any case, one thing happening before another is not a signal for necessarily using the past perfect.
One thing happening before another with an added "before" is not necessarily a sign that the simple past is adequate.
There are other contextual determinants. In this case, I'd consider "had been deceived" to be a superior answer.

 

[Tdol]

If you wanted to use the past, was being deceived would work better for me.

 

[Tdol]

Possibly, Matthew. We need the opinions of more people, British and American, to be sure.

I have put a poll up to see what people think: https://www.usingenglish.com/poll/1131.html

 

[Barb_D]

This American agrees with the BrE and AusE posters and disagrees that the past perfect is options in this context.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Really? What I see is another difference between Mike and everyone else.
In any case, one thing happening before another is not a signal for necessarily using the past perfect.
One thing happening before another with an added "before" is not necessarily a sign that the simple past is adequate.
There are other contextual determinants. In this case, I'd consider "had been deceived" to be a superior answer.

But you have no evidence that the simple past is wrong.

 

[MikeNewYork]

Because it is not.

 

[Matthew Wai]

The investor had lost millions of dollars before he realized that he “was deceived” by his fund manager.

Would any native speakers think that 'was deceived' did not happen before 'realized' above?

 

[Matthew Wai]

The past perfect is necessary for the sentence to be natural but unnecessary for the meaning to be clear.

Any objection?

 

[Tdol]

Sounds OK to me.

 

[Raymott]

But you have no evidence that the simple past is wrong.

Put into reported speech, back shifted:
1. "He realized 'I am deceived' " -> "He realized he was deceived."
2. "He realized "I have been deceived' " -> "He realized he had been deceived."

I think the most likely meaning is 2.