Serial Embezzlement

Embezzlement is a growing problem in Maine. An article in the current issue of Chamber Business, published by the Ellsworth Area Chamber of Commerce, reports that employee theft losses total as much as $100 billion a year nationally. It quotes District Attorney Michael Povich as saying that enough cases are reported in Hancock and Washington counties to keep “pretty much a case running all the time.”

Mr. Povich noted that employee embezzlement afflicts not only businesses but also nonprofit institutions that use volunteers, such as churches and Little Leagues. He says it can flourish anywhere: “If you have a location that holds money, somebody will try to steal it.” And the embezzler often thinks of the theft as a loan and assumes he or she will pay it back, often having no idea of how the total is mounting.

What to do about it? The article urges the usual precautions: Choose employees carefully, check their backgrounds, see that the owner receives and opens all bank statements and communications, separate bookkeeping and check-writing authority, and let the work force know that even a small theft will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

When a theft is reported and made public, it can turn out that the same employee stole from previous employers and was not prosecuted. That is what’s called serial embezzlement. Some years ago, the Wall Street Journal reported on an employee who had stolen from one employer and had been let off with an apology and a promise to make restitution. The thievish employee then went on to another job, and another and another, each time stealing to repay his or her thefts from the previous employer.

Mr. Povich explains that failure to prosecute can stem from pity and compassion but more importantly from a desire to avoid the humiliation of having sloppiness and gullibility become publicly known.

A report by Kyle Anne Midriff, CPA, published by The Metropolitan Corp., points out that serial embezzlers have certain common characteristics that should raise a red flag. They offer to take on responsibility and handle all details. They tend to be messy, and the lost documents and general confusion can cover up the theft. Finally, they have the knack of spotting trusting employers and organizational weaknesses that they can exploit. A victimized employer has not only a social duty to prosecute and thus protect other employers but also a self-interest in demonstrating that theft will not be tolerated.

Misplaced compassion and failure to prosecute can send a message to employees that they, too, can get away with skimming off company funds.