CoWorker Stole $4,600,000

F

Financial Advisor

Guest
Jurisdiction
Wisconsin
I am a Financial Advisor, and I worked in an office with other Financial Advisors. A year and a half ago a 56 year old coworker got arrested for stealing $4.6 million. She stole from her elderly clients that she met by herself by having they write checks to her business checking account. Then she would transfer the money to her personal account and then spend it. This was going on for 12 years (I worked with her for 10) and by the end she was just stealing to pay other victims back. When she was 1st arrested she wrote letters and talked on the phone (which was listen to by the police) blaming another one of my coworkers saying he was the ringleader. They interviewed him and found nothing. The DA even told the victims she did this all by herself. She also stated that I once forged a receipt for one of the victims. Luckily it was handwritten and once I submitted my handwriting they asked if I would like to press charges against her. I didn't because that seemed like small potatoes and I didn't want my name anywhere near this case.

During this time she got looked into by the State Commissioner of Insurance and Plead the 5th. The handed down a $1.5 fine which she did not fight.

She plead "Not Guilty" and was released on bond. At the pre trail she was offered a Plea Deal of 15-20 years. She declined it and we are now going to trail. I was subpoenaed by the State as a witness. The Defense attorney did not subpoena anyone and to my knowledge didn't even interview anyone. I have nothing to hide however I am concerned that she could try and blame me and then that would be written in the newspaper. Why would she take this to trail?
 
Criminal defendants have the RIGHT to a trial in this country.
People, even criminal defendants in this country are fond of asserting their rights.

If you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear, mate.

Either way, fear or not, you don't have a say in this matter.

If you're ordered to testify, you simply tell the truth as you know it.

If there's something you don't know, you say you don't know.

If, however, you're guilty of something, you have the RIGHT not to incriminate yourself and are free to plead the fifth.
 
Thank you for your replay.

I am not concerned criminally I have absolutely nothing to hide. However the defendant has nothing to lose and even though there is no proof to anyone else being involved what is there stopping her from lying. Then if my name gets involved what is stopping the newspapers from putting my name down saying she accused me? I have my own business as a financial advisor and if my name gets tied to this case my career is over.
 
Investment Advisor said:
Then if my name gets involved what is stopping the newspapers from putting my name down saying she accused me?
Click to expand...

Nothing.

Investment Advisor said:
I have my own business as a financial advisor and if my name gets tied to this case my career is over.
Click to expand...

That's not a legal issue that anyone here can comment on.

Obviously, there is that risk whether you testify or not.

Personally, I think there is the risk that you might be prosecuted in spite of having done nothing wrong and having nothing to hide. This video explains how that could happen.


I suggest you consult a criminal defense attorney and seek unqualified immunity in writing in exchange for your testimony.
 
I guess the question that I have for the board is:

Why take this to trial? I my eyes she could only try to put reasonable doubt in the jury's mind and be proven Not Guilty OR prove that there was a mitigating circumstance and hope that the judge gives a less sentence then what the Plea Deal would have given her.

Am I correct in that assumption?
 
The two options:

1. Not guilty: I understand everyone is innocent until proven guilty however there is a "Mountain of Evidence" against her according to the lead Detective.

2. Trying to get a lesser sentence due to a mitigating circumstance: The DA offered her 15-20 years which is a long time but her many many charges carry a sentence of 277 years.

I am just trying to get an idea of the strategy by the defense.
 
Very often plea agreements are not accepted until the last minute. There may still be time for that.
Also, just because you received a subpoena it does not mean you will be called to testify. Whether you testify or not will not have an effect on what others might say about you. You only have control over your own testimony.
 
When the Assistant DA called me to let me know that I was subpoenaed he told me that there was a lot of people being subpoenaed. He also said that they would set up a time before the trail to go over what they are going to ask me.

I also called the lead Detective and she said that my testimony would only be a pebble in a mountain of evidence against the defendant. Again I know I probably shouldn't have reached out to the Detective but again I know I have nothing to hide.

The DA told the Defendant that the Plea would be taken off the table if she didn't accept it by last Wednesday. She didn't Take it.
 
Investment Advisor said:
When the Assistant DA called me to let me know that I was subpoenaed he told me that there was a lot of people being subpoenaed. He also said that they would set up a time before the trail to go over what they are going to ask me.

I also called the lead Detective and she said that my testimony would only be a pebble in a mountain of evidence against the defendant. Again I know I probably shouldn't have reached out to the Detective but again I know I have nothing to hide.

The DA told the Defendant that the Plea would be taken off the table if she didn't accept it by last Wednesday. She didn't Take it.
Click to expand...


As one who has prosecuted military defendants, and criminal defendants in federal court, a plea agreement is merely a dream list, until a judge approves it.

I've seen many prosecution, defense, and defendant agree to a plea deal, only to ave it rejected by the judge n

As a judge, I've rejected a few plea deals myself.

No plea agreement means ANYTHING, until and unless APPROVED by the presiding judge.

As far as testifying at trial, I've seen many witnesses mysteriously take ill the morning of their scheduled date to testify.

I've seen some check themselves into mental hospitals, drug rehab clinics, or acquire a dreaded illness, CERTIFIED by a physician.

I've even seen a few people get arrested 200-300 miles away for a petty offense to avoid testifying.

By the way, a physician with the stroke of her pen can easily get anyone from testifying because a health issue.

With the recent advent of certain medical reord protection laws the nature f the medical problem need not be disclosed easily.

Where there's a will, mate, there's always a way.
 
Truthfully I have not problem testifying.

My concern is that I have no idea what the Defense is going to do.

Is the Defense attorney just going to make up some crazy story about how others committed the crime in order to put reasonable doubt in the jury's heads? However you would think that he would have to do research by talking to peopleto have some sort of evidence. But according to everyone the only person he has talked to is the defendant.

The DA and Lead Detective have already reassured all the Victims that the Defendant is the only one who committed this crimes.

I tend to believe that the Defense is going to be more on the defendants mental state rather then blaming other people but that is just a guess.
 
Investment Advisor said:
Truthfully I have not problem testifying.

My concern is that I have no idea what the Defense is going to do.

Is the Defense attorney just going to make up some crazy story about how others committed the crime in order to put reasonable doubt in the jury's heads? However you would think that he would have to do research by talking to peopleto have some sort of evidence. But according to everyone the only person he has talked to is the defendant.

The DA and Lead Detective have already reassured all the Victims that the Defendant is the only one who committed this crimes.

I tend to believe that the Defense is going to be more on the defendants mental state rather then blaming other people but that is just a guess.
Click to expand...


Your guess is as good as mine as to what avenue the defense will travel.
Rest assured, it won't involve you.
That's not to say the defendant won't say that the entire SCAM was your idea.
Even if she lies, don't worry, the prosecutor stands ready to set the record straight.
Your hands are clean, they'll remain that way.

Most people tell me afterwards they enjoyed it, found it to be cathartic in some cases, exhilarating in others.

Relax, enjoy the ride, you'll be back here telling us you enjoyed your time in "the box".
 
Thank You that is what I was thinking.

I think everyone was just assuming that she would take the Plea and then when she didn't everyone was shocked. However I am guessing the Defense is assuming that they have nothing to lose by taking this to trail.

My Guess would be that she is going to say that she has a reason, such as gambling, drug addiction, ect., and hope that the Judge gives her a sentence of less then 15-20 years.

The defendant is in her upper 50's and in poor health. A 15-20 year sentence is the rest of her life.
 
Investment Advisor said:
Thank You that is what I was thinking.

I think everyone was just assuming that she would take the Plea and then when she didn't everyone was shocked. However I am guessing the Defense is assuming that they have nothing to lose by taking this to trail.

My Guess would be that she is going to say that she has a reason, such as gambling, drug addiction, ect., and hope that the Judge gives her a sentence of less then 15-20 years.

The defendant is in her upper 50's and in poor health. A 15-20 year sentence is the rest of her life.
Click to expand...

I'll venture a guess.
She's a 50+ year old woman, good citizen all her life, respected in the community, respected among her peers, she won't do a year in prison.
She's in poor health, depressed, and who knows what else.
She'll get 10 years SUSPENDED, maybe 30 days of jail (on the weekends), a fine, community service (if her health indicates it), and some novel alternative sentence such as writing letters of apology, and making an effort to repay something.

At her age she'll never work again, go on SS disability, and try to survive.
 
So you are saying because of her age and health condition she may get a lesser of a sentence? Even though the total penalty for her crimes is 277 years.

And that is why she would decline the 15-20 year Plea Deal?

I guess that thinking makes me feel better. The idea that she may try to blame someone else scared me, even though I know I did nothing wrong.
 
Investment Advisor said:
So you are saying because of her age and health condition she may get a lesser of a sentence? Even though the total penalty for her crimes is 277 years.

And that is why she would decline the 15-20 year Plea Deal?

I guess that thinking makes me feel better. The idea that she may try to blame someone else scared me, even though I know I did nothing wrong.
Click to expand...


The law is remiss to punish the elderly, the infirm, the mentally challenged for MOST first time offenses.

Why?

Juries are composed of everyday Joes and Janes.

We tend to be reluctant to see our elders punished HARSHLY for first time, nonviolent offenses.

Of course this view changes if rape or murder are alleged.

This is a country based upon contrition and redemption.

Society doesn't view WHITE COLLAR criminals as it views those lower class, violent offenders who have pigmentation, or speak English with accents foreign to those of us without pigmentation.

Time will tell, mate, time will tell.
 
Investment Advisor said:
I guess the question that I have for the board is:

Why take this to trial? I my eyes she could only try to put reasonable doubt in the jury's mind and be proven Not Guilty OR prove that there was a mitigating circumstance and hope that the judge gives a less sentence then what the Plea Deal would have given her.

Am I correct in that assumption?
Click to expand...
Because that's her right to have a trial. That's everyone's right to have a trial. Wouldn't you want a trial if you were arrested and charged with a crime?

No one can stop the paper from reporting you as a witness. That's all they will do IF they even talk about you. They usually don't write about the trials in that much detail. They would say "so and so, a witness for the prosecution, testified that..."
 

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top