Looking at the two years’ data on major embezzlements in the US, the following observations and conclusions appear consistent:
- Women are more likely to embezzle than men.
- Men embezzle significantly more than women.
- Perpetrators typically begin their embezzlement schemes in their early 40s.
- By a significant margin, embezzlers are most likely to be individuals who hold financial positions within organizations.
- The two broad industry categories that have the highest risk for a major embezzlement are Financial Services and Government Agencies/Municipalities.
- The Financial Services industry suffers the greatest losses from major embezzlements.
- On average, major embezzlement schemes last about 4½ years.
- California and Florida are consistently the states that experience the greatest losses from major embezzlements.
- The vast majority of major embezzlements are caused by sole perpetrators
- Gambling is a clear motivating factor in driving some major embezzlements.
- Fewer than 10 percent of embezzlers have a criminal record – less than expected, but enough to suggest that pre-employment screening has merit.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, women are more likely to be perpetrators of major embezzlement schemes than men. However, men, who still tend who hold more senior level management positions, embezzle significantly more in their schemes than women. Authorities say governments and businesses need more than a typical audit to catch embezzlement.
Officials said a typical audit checks to see everything balances. The forensic audit takes a deeper look at one's finances. It can be helpful at catching more elaborate schemes. A forensic audit examines companies and individuals receiving funds. That is important when determining the legitimacy of the receiver. In come instances, the scheme artist will pass the money through a fictitious company that appears legitimate.
It's not an uncommon scheme when there is significant construction of a various of types. For example if you saw a bunch of checks going out to Lowe's, Home Depot, John Smith Septic and Excavation Services, you might not notice a check going out to Concrete Finishers, which may be a fictitious company.
So a typical audit focusing on in-flows, out-flows and balances would never pick up a fictitious company. Cash is a completely different embezzlement where daily reporting can still be adjusted with modification, changed receipts and worse destruction of records. A forensic audit is designed to address such issues.
Lastly is a 'life-style' audit performed in-conjunction with a forensic audit wherein the IRS is involved and a life-style personal audit is accomplished concurrently. How many thief's claim their ill-gotten gains on the tax returns? Can you say "Al Capone"? Now for some questions to which answers must be provided in order to re-store the public trust. The Board of Finance is the focal point here and they MUST full-fill their Oath of Office.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE EMBEZZLEMENT, SETTLEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL AGREEMENT BY THE BOS
A few simple things about the financial embezzlement in New Fairfield:
- Few people, if anyone really have any idea about its true size, scope and duration of the embezzlement.
- The financial misappropriation was created by deliberate systemic fraud while the New Fairfield Finance Department was looking on.
- Why did it take so long from Ms. Coehlo resignation (1/19/2010) to authorization to sign (2/25/2010) the settlement agreement by the BOS?
- The "legal settlement" that the BOS executed with Ms. Coehlo is not binding on the BOF, therefore the BOF is not obligated to adhere to the terms and conditions.
- The BOF has the obligation to hire an outside auditors to review the accounts and other related areas Ms. Coehlo had a direct or indirect supervisory control.
- To what degree has the public trust been violated by the BOS actions?
If you want to know where the New Fairfield misappropriation/embezzlement is heading then read the following questions and demand answers.
- Was this event the first time that this individual embezzled public funds?
- When was the missing public funds first discovered?
- Who first discovered the missing public funds?
- What methods were used to discover the missing public funds?
- Who discovered it.
- Where is the report filed?
- Were the revenue accounts all within the Park & Recreation Dept?
- What specific accounts were the funds misappropriated?
- How was the missing public funds reported and when was it reported?
- What are the reasons that a settlement agreement with a Town employee is necessary?
- What is the nature of the settlement agreement?
- What is the date of the settlement agreement?
- When and who prepared the settlement agreement?
- What was the date of the settlement agreement?
- Who are the signatories of the settlement agreement?
- Why was the settlement agreement not on the meeting agenda?
- Which legal authority was the report filed with, State Police or Local?
- Can an elected official legally not press charges with an individual that embezzled public funds?
- Can an elected official knowingly be a legal party to a settlement agreement with any person who has committed and embezzlement of public funds?
- Can an elected official be a legal party to a confidential agreement with an individual that knowingly embezzled public funds and protect that individual with the confidential agreement?
- Why was the settlement agreement added to the meeting agenda after Public Comment?
- Why was the settlement agreement not added during the first agenda change?
- Why was the posting of the agenda intentionally withheld?
- What was the charge that establishing the settlement of pending litigation?
- Were the police involved in the investigation?
- Where is the report that established the pending litigation filed with the local or state police?
- Who did the investigation?
- Was there a independent forensic audit establishing the grounds for the settlement of pending litigation?
- What is the confidential agreement order all about?
- Who was required to sign the confidential agreement?
- Who found the discrepancy in the books?
- What is purpose of the confidential agreement?
- Why wasn't the BOF notified?
- When was the BOF notified?
- With regard to each of the following questions, what documents support the answers?
- On what do you rely in concluding that the loss was limited to Park & Recreation and/or any specified year(s) and/or amounts?
- Whose job was it to supervise and oversee the missing accounts?
- What disciplinary action was taken against anyone else?
- What conclusions have been reached regarding what specific control failures allowed these actions to happen without supervisory knowledge.
- Did the town of New Fairfield issue a w-2, 1099 or other tax-related documents to notify tax authorities of the transfer of funds from the town to the individual?
- If Ms. Coehlo was bonded, was the bonding authority notified?
- Is Ms. Coehlo entitled to pension or retirement benefits and if so, describe in detail?
- Regarding the person or persons conducting the town audit of this loss,
- Name of person
- Credentials
- Detailed nature of relationship with this person and Ms. Coehlo
- All written reports and documents in any way related to said audit
- Who within the Town government is responsible for notification?
- Were federal taxes paid by the individual on the misappropriated public funds?
A fundamental question regarding the embezzlement is this: why is our BOS so activity engaged in not informing our New Fairfield Board of Finance, the State Police, Bonding Agency, and Office of Budget Management of the embezzlement? Why was the Board of Finance not notified immediately allowing them to exercise their statutory obligation, duty and authority of to hire an outside auditory? What impact on the existing budget preparations does this embezzlement have ... will the budget presently underway be compromised? Have prior budgets been compromised? If so, how and to what scope and extend?
If our elected and appointed officials succeeded in failing to fully expose the embezzlement, then how did they intend on putting the $50,000 back into the revenue; while avoiding the exposure and explanation of the theft? What were the motivations behind the intentions? Why was the restitution given priority over the crime? Why did our CEO/First Selectman so instant upon telling the BOF that they did not have any legal standing over this public funds thief?
