The Boy Scouts.

Trustworthy    Loyal     Helpful     Friendly     Courteous     Kind

Obedient     Cheerful     Thrifty      Brave      Clean      Reverent

In fairness, as I only have boys in our family, I was told the Girl Scouts have a very similar character building motive for young woman.  In searching for these traits tonight, I was moved by an article I found by Janet Lombardi posted on the Girl Scout’s website.  Although directed towards girls and the Girls Scouts, it is easily gender neutral in the message.

From her article “Sowing the Seeds of Character” -

“Q: Why is character-building so important today?
Our children are getting hit with a huge barrage of mixed messages. They are confronted with peers, not-so-great adult role models, and media where they hear about top CEOs who value money more than ethical behavior. They are receiving unfiltered information from the Internet, song lyrics, video games, and TV. Character-building is nothing new. Socrates and Aristotle spoke about it. They believed that “You are what you are because of what you do repeatedly.”    Exactly!

“Q: How does moral intelligence connect to character?
Moral intelligence consists of seven essential virtues—empathy, conscience, self-control, respect, kindness, tolerance, and fairness—that guide your character. Once you plant the virtues, you can teach girls the skills to empower them so they can provide their own moral compasses.”   We seem to only hear about moral compasses when they seem to go astray.

Here’s the link to her entire article:  http://www.girlscouts.org/for_adults/parenting/articles/sowing_character.asp

What a great book.  It is a simple story of a bank employee embezzling from the bank customer’s savings accounts, and how a superior bank employee discovers the theft.

What made this book and story interesting enough for me to start and finish it in one night, 160 pages, something I never do, is that the scheme and the details around the scheme, including how it was detected, quantified and supported, is as applicable to day as it was when this was first written, in 1936.  Just another example of how fraud really hasn’t changed over time.

The setting is interesting, being 1936, but the writer had accurate details on how this would have occurred, perhaps with the assistance of a subject expert at that time.  I may never know, given the age of the story, but substitute any one of my on-going existing embezzlements into this story, and I can see it still working as it did back then.

If the field of embezzlement and fraud is one that interests you, I highly recommend you read this book, if you are fortunate to find a copy still available.

A movie was produced in 1940 based on the book, called “Money and the Woman.”.  Here is a link talking about the book and movie:

http://booksintofilms.com/support-files2/cain4.htm

The Embezzler.  James M. Cain.  Avon Book Company, 1946.

Today, for instance, I received a booklet of courtesy checks at my home.  These courtesy checks are linked to a corporate credit card I maintain for my firm.  All the information regarding the account pertains to the business: firm name, address, phone number… My monthly statements go directly to the firm address, as does all communications regarding the account – rightfully so – that’s the way I set up the corporate account.

So why then would this well-known, highly publicized card issuer send unsolicited courtesy checks to my personal residence that were prepared using my name (not the firm’s name) and my personal residence address (not the firm’s address) to be drawn against my account, when I would not be expecting such checks???

A few years back we had an experience with bank fraud.  In closing a relative’s estate a savings account was opened to accumulate any funds for estate purposes.  No checks were requested or issued, and no debit card was requested.  Simply a bank account to accumulate any funds until the estate was distributed.  So how surprised were we when we received a call from the fraud unit of the bank alerting us to potentially fraudulent activity on the account using a debit card???  Turns out the bank on it’s own accord issued a debit card on the savings account, and sent it to an old address used more than twenty years ago.  The current residents of that address received a windfall when the debit card arrived out of the blue in their mail – unbeknown to us.

Seems to me that although the credit card companies complain they fall victim to fraudulent activity and suffer the losses, their own actions in some part (perhaps a large part) contribute to fraud and could have been prevented if they simply stopped sending out unsolicited information (or worse courtesy checks) to cardholders not expecting the materials.

This individual was accused of stealing $171,000 in payments payable to the organization, a non-profit working with disabled children no less. Then, by sharing information with the individual’s prior employer, the prior employer discovered the same individual had stolen $335,000 in payments intended to them. Further, the same individual faces yet more charges for theft in a third context here in Connecticut.

Attorneys often provide advice, rightfully so, suggesting that communications be maintained to a minimum to limit potential exposure to the victim organization. However, if sharing of information and discussions with previous and successor employers does not occur, potential actions and thefts of an individual could go undetected forever. It is common for someone to steal, go undetected or go unprosecuted, only to obtain future employment and steal again, commonly using the same schemes of the past.

Thefts of cash receipts and payments have been the most common schemes I have encountered in the last few years.  I am convinced the ATMs and other automated depositing processes have contributed in large part to this, as the checks payable to the employer are easily deposited directly into the suspect’s account. Controls are critical for every organization over the cash receipts and deposit processes for these reasons.

Read the entire article >

Finding material to write about isn’t usually an issue, as so many things happen to me personally with my own banking, all of which never ceases to surprise me.

What was today’s bank error – the misapplication of my payment.

I sent in a check for $5,000 to my credit card company (a major bank in Connecticut) in an attempt to get my balance under control.  I used a check from our savings account (has a check feature) to pay the funds, and I wrote the check information into the register.

I monitored my credit card account details on-line each day, and soon a payment was posted to my account.  The issue – the payment was for $500 (not $5,000).  Thinking a payment I had already scheduled for $500 was what I saw, I didn’t think much of it.  A day later I received a confirmation for the withdrawal of the $500 from our savings account.

I looked back at my register, and I had written $5,000.  I figured I wrote the check for $500, when I intended to write it for $5,000 (I don’t write checks of this size all too often, so perhaps subconsciously I couldn’t bring myself to write this one).  I contacted my bank and requested an image of the check I had written.  Checks no longer get returned to account holders, and tracking down images are getting harder as I learned.  Turns out my bank never received an image – only an electronic file with the withdrawal information in the file.

I had to next call the credit card issuer and have them track down the image of my check, to determine if I had written it for $500 or $5,000, another venture.  Turns out I did in fact write it for $5,000 (and not $500).  Their processor entered my check incorrectly.

No big deal?  Well, interest tolls on the unpaid balance of your credit card.  If I chose their solution to send in another check for the difference, I would pay interest on the unpaid balance for the period until they received my second check (because of their posting error).

Rather, I required them to reprocess my payment for the correct amount ($5,000) as of the day they received it, recalculate the interest in my account, and credit me the proper amount.

This is just another example of why you really need to monitor your banking and credit card activity on a daily basis, and stay on top of your accounts and balances.  Don’t become complacent and rely on the systems and procedures of the financial institutions to get things right.

I for one decided a while back that good does remain in society, albeit hard to find at times, and that there are many people like me that work hard to go out of their way to help others by doing good deeds, and by doing the right thing, with no expectation of compensation or acknowledgment.

Today was a good day of redemption.  The northeast is about to get blanketed in a blizzard, and the grocery store was mobbed this morning.  All the shopping carts were scattered in the parking lot, and the wind was blowing before the snow’s arrival.  My son and I just finished shopping after renting a Red Box movie, and loaded the bags into the car.  We then collected carts across the lot and returned a bunch to the front door, with customers waiting and thanking us for bringing them carts.

When we finished unpacking our groceries, we discovered we must have left the rented movie in our cart, now in the midst of all the carts we brought back.  We called the store, but no one returned the movie.  We learned the consequence of our forgetfulness was going to be $25 (versus the dollar daily rental fee).  We watched on-line for notice that someone returned the movie to the vending machine, but nothing appeared.

Then, most to my surprise, a movie return notice appeared in our email in-box.  Someone obviously found our rented movie, and rather than take it home and watch it, or worse, simply keep it or give it as a gift, they simply put it back into the vending machine, limiting my loss to $1.06.

To the person who returned the movie this morning – a big THANK YOU! Not just for returning the movie, but also for showing me that people still do exist that do the right thing when presented with a situation.  You made my day.

I am not representing that I agree or disagree with President Obama’s policies and strategies, and I firmly believe everyone is entitled to an opinion, but in the context of last evening’s speech with all the country’s political leaders present, I think the outburst showed nothing but disrespect to the Office of the President (regardless of who currently fills that office), as well as our entire political system.

Representative Wilson was entitled to his opinion, but how he chose to express his opinion during the nationally televised speech was unacceptable, and the fact that individuals can support such actions just helps explain why the social climate in America continues to deteriorate.

Children disrespect their parents, students disrespect their teachers, motorists disrespect other motorists, elected officials disrespect the President… and the list continues on and on in this country.  At what point does this train stop and return back in the direction it originated?

Apologies seem to be the solution of choice these days, and in my opinion, apologies aren’t enough.

In very large cases, there likely will be both consulting experts and testifying experts involved.  However, in smaller cases, the bulk of cases in everyday litigation, counsel may utilize a single expert for both roles, which in essence makes the expert a testifying expert (and everything that has been written, relied upon and produced since inception is discoverable).

Although there is a potential cost savings to the client in using a single expert, there are also risks and disadvantages associated with this practice, as I have been experiencing first hand in recent cases.  As the testifying expert I limit the notes I take, knowing full well that my notes are discoverable.  As I sat through depositions and trial testimony,  I would love to take more detailed notes of issues I heard, to have provided counsel with needed financial direction in the matter.  However, as the “testifying expert” witness, I was frequently prohibited from attending the depositions and portions of trials, and counsel therefore lost the benefits of my background, training and experience in my areas of expertise.  Reading transcripts after the fact no where nearly replaced my ability to write out questions for counsel to ask right during the testimony.

Often new information, or “surprises”, are produced or introduced late in the process, as late as during depositions and trial testimony.  By being able to sit alongside counsel to review the materials and provide questions to ask to legitimize or counter the information could make or break the outcome of the matter.

In my area of expertise I have found this especially true of financial information, such as tax returns, financial statements and other potentially complex transactional information.  In some cases counsel had a great understanding of the financial materials and the implications associated with reported amounts and transactions.  However, in many more cases I have found counsel heavily relied upon my involvement to provide that review and insight.  As the consulting expert one can expand counsel’s knowledge and expertise to ensure a thorough understanding and analysis of any financial information and associated implications.

In the end… I strongly encourage in every matter the consideration of whether it makes sense to engage two experts: one as a “consulting expert” strictly to assist counsel from planning through  final adjudication of the matter; and one as a “testifying expert” should testimony of an expert be required in the matter.  The cost differential may not be as great as one expects, especially if the right experts are engaged.

The common practice of withholding documents and information by opposing parties not only negatively impacts counsel’s ability to adequately prepare and prejudices their case,  it also impacts their experts in the case who need the complete documents in the opposing party’s possession to perform their complete and objective analysis of all the facts in the matter, not just the ones the opposing party choose to produce.  Following months and in some cases years of frustration, cost and energy to gain access to the information known to exist,  it is often provided on the eve of depositions or the trial itself, leaving no time to react to the withheld information.  The withheld information could also have an impact on any report that was issued based upon the limited information actually provided, positively and/or negatively changing the conclusions and opinions previously reached.

From a non-attorney’s perspective, the questions I have are these – why has this become such a pervasive practice?, and what significant consequences can the courts impose when this is identified to stem this growing practice?

Here’s the excerpted two paragraphs from Mr. Nealson’s article:

“Almost all commercial litigators have frequently encountered an uncooperative opposing party who fails to timely comply with document requests in a complete manner.  The requesting party is then forced to spend a significant amount of time, effort and client money analyzing the production to identify “holes,” followed by tedious and expensive letter-writing campaigns seeking to induce voluntary compliance.”

“Once a motion to compel is finally filed as a last resort, the producing party seeks to pull the rug out from under the motion by producing documents on the eve of the court hearing.  In the meantime, the requesting party is prejudiced by having to proceed with its case preparation and depositions without the benefit of the withheld documents.”

My question is this – with unemployment reaching or exceeding 10% in many states, with so many law abiding, hard working, tax paying individuals out of work looking for a job, why should these state employees be allowed to continue being paid by our state when they didn’t bother to file their state tax returns?

Below is the link to today’s article -

Tax cheats found on CT payroll
Connecticut officials say they’ve cited nearly 600 state employees who didn’t file their state income tax returns over the last four years.

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/news9897.html