Background: Cheating in university education is commonly described as context dependent and influenced by assessment design, institutional norms, and student interpretation. In software engineering education, programming oriented coursework has historically involved ambiguity around collaboration, reuse, and external assistance. More recently, large language models have introduced additional mediation in the production of code and related artifacts. Aims: This study investigates how software engineering students describe experiences of using large language models in ways they perceived as inappropriate, disallowed, or misaligned with course expectations. Method: A cross sectional survey was conducted with 116 undergraduate software engineering students from multiple countries, combining quantitative summaries with qualitative data. Results: Reported large language model cheating practices occurred primarily in programming assignments, routine coursework, and documentation tasks, often in contexts of time pressure and unclear guidance. Use during quizzes and exams was less frequent and more consistently identified as a violation. Participants reported awareness of academic and professional consequences associated with large language model cheating, while formal sanctions were perceived as limited. Conclusions: The findings indicate that reported large language model misuse in software engineering is associated with assessment and instructional conditions. This suggests a need for clearer alignment between assessment design, learning objectives, and expectations regarding acceptable large language model use.