Bookkeeper plays “hide and seek” with company’s bank records

Source: Hyku

Bonnie Denning didn’t want the owners of Easy Picker Golf Products to see the company’s bank records, and now we know why! Over the course of less than 12 months, Denning alledegly embezzled $818,339.37 from the Lehigh Acres company using wire transfers, a debit card linked to the company’s accounts, and one check (I suspect that there will be more fraudulent checks uncovered in due time).

Here is a break down of the loss:

  • 60 Debit card transactions – $411,387.00 

Alledegly used to used to buy clothes, gas, electronic goods and home furniture.

  • 54 wire transactions – $358,885.50

Alledegly included $4,799.58 to purchase granite for Denning’s home and $29,160.00 associated with a drug rehabilitation program for a relative

  • 1 check – $5,295.76 for shutters for Denning’s home

Total loss – an eye popping $818,339!

Here are some lessons learned:

  1. Denning refused to turnover the company’s bank records to the owners. In fact, the owners had to request the statements directly from the bank! That is a GINORMOUS red flag. Never, I repeat never give your bookkeeper sole custody of your company’s bank records.
  2. The bank issued a debit card to Denning apparently without the knowledge of the owners. I’ll leave it up to the owners and the bank to decide who is at fault here; however, as I have said before, relying exclusively on your bank to prevent embezzlement is a losing proposition.
  3. Engaging a bookkeeper should never result in the the owners abandoning oversight of the financials. To the contrary, owners must stay engaged and ensure that the bookkeeper compiles the results in an accurate and efficient manner. Put simply, not paying attention can cost you dearly.

I sincerely hope that the Easy Picker Golf Product Company can survive this catastrophic loss. I can only imagine how the owners must feel.

As this case develops, I’ll keep you posted.

Need a writer that understands fraud? When you hire me to write an article, blog post, newsletter or white paper you get an accomplished writer that is also an expert in fraud.

paul@mccormackwrites.com

Don’t forget about fraud perpetrated by customers…

Source: Brittany G

Many fraud blogs – including this one – tend to focus almost exclusively on employee fraud. However, fraud perpetrated by customers can be just as damaging.

Not surprisingly, many companies are loathed to think that customer fraud happens. Senior executives in marketing, sales and operations often appear determined to explain why customer fraud is not a big issue. To underscore their flawed logic, and in defiance of their fiduciary duties to the company, the executives continue to dream up new products and services that are riddled with holes that allow, and sometimes encourage customer fraud to take place.

Inevitably, when the fraud losses start to mount, rarely will the department that created the product/service acknowledge that it was flawed. Instead, they ask why the fraud department seemed unable to stop the fraud from taking place. The company’s CFO or COO normally gets dragged in to the discussion and so begins the “Mexican Standoff”.

Before anyone becomes overly agitated that I believe executives sometimes violate their duties of loyalty and/or care, think about the bigger picture. Typically, fraud losses are not recorded in the same profit and loss statement (P&L) where the revenue is booked. Most executives that are in charge of a product or service receive bonuses based on the revenue generated instead of net profit earned. Surely, that creates the potential to drive up revenue at the expense of sound fraud risk management practices that minimize costs?

Some enlightened organizations allocate fraud losses back to the individual product or services’ P&L. Doing so allows the company to judge the sales and marketing executive’s performance based on revenue growth and the “bottom line” which reflects revenue less associated costs, including fraud.

This approach to fraud loss accounting is not “fool-proof” and requires time and effort to ensure that both the fraud department, and the department receiving the fraud loss allocation support the process. However, it is well worth the effort as the moral hazard associated with marketing and sales “owning” the revenue and not the fraud loss should give organizations – both large and small – cause for concern.

Does your organization allocate fraud losses to product P&Ls? If so, has it helped minimize losses?

Need a writer that understands fraud? When you hire me to write an article, blog post, newsletter or white paper you get an accomplished writer that is also an expert in fraud.

paul@mccormackwrites.com

Punishing the white collar criminal

“The judge opened his file and retrieved the case’s sentencing memos, plea agreement and lengthy pre-sentence report, which he had read over the past few days and which spelled out the case’s particulars: Borgono had pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the federal government by falsifying records that allowed her boss, the president of a Miami-based export company, to steal more than $10 million from the Export-Import Bank of the United States”

–  Judge who had ‘no passion for punishment’ retires after 31 years, The Washington Post, June 1, 2012

The Washington Post Article referenced above provides a ‘behind the scenes’ look at the challenges facing the judiciary when sentencing white collar criminals. Should society punish white collar criminals to the maximum extent allowable under the law, or does it make more sense to show compassion? Does tough sentencing for white collar criminals discourage “would be” fraudsters? How important is it to rehabilitate the offender?

Consider the vast difference between the punishment that the federal prosecutors argued for and the request made by Borgano’s defense attorney:

“Because so much money had been stolen, federal prosecutors argued in court papers that Urbina should sentence the former office manager to 18 months in federal prison. Her attorney countered that Borgono deserved just a year of home detention and two years of probation because the Peruvian immigrant, who became a U.S. citizen in 2007, had not reaped a dime in the scheme’s proceeds beyond her $500 weekly salary. She had cooperated extensively with authorities and had helped them build their case against her boss, a man sentenced by Urbina to nearly four years in prison. She also had the support of her community, the attorney said. The judge’s folder was filled with heartfelt letters from relatives, friends and even her priest.”

More on who won that fight in a minute…

In addition to the investigations that I personally conduct, each week I review over fifty cases involving fraud and intellectual property theft to determine which examples to include in our Global Knowledge Center. The differences in the sentences handed out to white collar criminals are truly startlingly, and in some cases alarming. Even within the same jurisdiction, the sentences handed down vary significantly. And let’s not forget that the Internal Revenue Service may also take an interest in the case. Or not… I have yet to understand the criteria that the IRS applies when determining which cases involving fraud and unreported income are worthwhile pursuing. That’s a discussion for another day…

I understand better than most that each case is unique and numerous factors must be taken in to account before a sentence can be handed down. But let’s consider the variation in sentencing from the “would be” fraudsters perspective. Does the threat of prison time factor in to their decision making process? Should it? What are the odds that they will be caught in the first place? Why consider the worst case scenario when committing fraud is so incredibly easy to do?

The case highlighted in the Washington Post article is somewhat different as Norma Borgano did not personally benefit from the fraud – her boss Guillermo O. Mondino did and he received 46 months in prison for his troubles.

So let’s compare Mondino’s sentence to the 66 months that Patricia K. Smith,the perpetrator of a $10.2 million dollar fraud received. That’s a difference of 20 months, or nearly two years. I fully understand that each case is different, but is Smith’s crime anymore heinous than Mondino’s? In fact, Mondino’s fraud involved a far higher potential loss of $24 million. Did Mondino’s attorneys do a better job defending their client? Who knows, but the difference is significant – especially if you are the unlucky individual serving the “extra” 20 months!

As for Norma’s fate, she received a year of home detention, four years of probation and $5,000 in restitution payments. Is that an appropriate sentence? Let’s be honest, who are we to judge?

Need a writer that understands fraud? When you hire me to write an article, blog post, newsletter or white paper you get an accomplished writer that is also an expert in fraud.

paul@mccormackwrites.com