Wrongful Accusation of Theft
Discussion
Right then, let's open this one up, as I've been asked for advice but I am not informed enough to give any.
My brother-in-law's brother was a supervisor at a retail outlet. To get to the point, he has been accused of theft of money, has had his employment terminated and was arrested for the alleged offence but has been released without charge pending further investigation. He assures all that he is not guilty of the crime, and does so with sincerity so no-one disbelieves him (aside from his manager and HR), coupled with the fact he lives a life of no lavish means; he's a humble guy.
The back story is that a large sum of money has gone missing from the store takings over the period of roughly 1yr; someone was stealing smaller amounts over this time and has it amounted into single figure £k's. He was responsible for the running of the store in absence/unison with the store manager and management of his subordinates, who would assist him in cashing up activities at the end of the day.
The crime appears to have been executed by someone who's watched the system a while. At the end of the day, the cash is counted and verified by two people who can be any two employees as the manager has given this power. It is bagged but not sealed, and a slip is placed inside the bag stating the amount of cash that is contained within. The bag is then locked in a safe over night which is accessed by a key to the back office and then a separate key to the safe itself. The money is collected in the early morning by one of those secure transportation companies and taken away for processing. As the store is contained within a shopping centre, there is 24/7 access to the site through the service entrances for various maintenance, cleaning or night shift staff in the stores who may need to go in for any reason (stock take, refit etc), which is where the back office is accessed.
ALL employees have access to a key to the back office (stored under till) to allow access to the office at all times so that the store can run smoothly, and the safe keys are stupidly kept in the office in plain view of anyone who may be in the office. The culprit has been accessing the store sometime between store close and cash collection, rewriting the slip that states the amount of cash contained within the bag with a lower £ value, and has been pocketing the deficit in cash. The slips must be signed, and as you might have guessed the signature of the forged slip does not match his and it at very best a bad copy. Who knows how much per time, perhaps it was nominal to begin to test the water and then greed set in and then became £hundred here/there. The silly thing...? No CCTV at the maintenance entrances, hallways or more importantly, the store. Literally any staff member in the past who had a key cut/kept a key, present staff, shopping centre staff, contractors or whoever could have done this. It sounds like a fairly simple plan, but they've watched the goings-on of the shop and they knew how to execute the crime. The only crime of my BIL's brother is that he's a likable lad, who unfortunately gets walked over quite a bit due to his nice nature and someone has taken full advantage of this.
After a long period unnoticed, it had been discovered and the manager was hauled in. Some discussion took place between them and the business and for whatever reason, the buck is stopping with said BIL's brother as presumably the manager has saved their own skin. The only common denominator is that the BIL's brother was working a high majority of the time that the money went missing, as was discovered after they pulled apart till taking records and compared them with what was cashed at the bank over a period of time, and also comparison with the shift rotor. It was identified that not only he was working on those days but as the most senior, he is getting this stuck on him although, it could well be that multiple people were in on this so as not to create a pattern; one could have worked and another stolen.
An investigation took place, and it could not be proven BIL's brother did this but, as a company only needs to have a 50/50 probable suspicion that the employee is guilty of gross misconduct, they terminated his employment. He went to appeal but, as he had found a new job in a hurry (he was without income) he found it difficult to find time to arrange any further hearings as the head office was 200 miles away and the company were not flexible, naturally; also he just wanted to forget the whole thing.
Several months pass and he starts to recover but he is then arrested at his home on suspicion of theft/money laundering as the company finally decide to take it further. It's not known if they chose to create this delay in order to see if further takings went missing, but if they did delay due to this presumably the crime stopped at the point of BIL's brother's dismissal so, the thief is clever and knew when a "good" thing is no longer "good". The evidence provided by his previous employer was the same as presented at the internal investigation so, no proof of anything, only that he happened to work on a majority of those days. Paperwork was taken from his home to prove/disprove he had laundered the money, and it was searched for cash but nothing was there of course. Interview took place and he was released without charge pending further investigation, but he must go back to the Police Station at a later date unless he hears further.
To give the police respect, it seems like they have used their heads and worked out that it's very unlikely to be him or at least the evidence is nil based on their comments to him, but they are essentially impartial and the case must be decided by the CPS I assume, and if it will go to court. The outcome that is hoped is for it to been thrown out before court but it seems to be damaging this lad a lot and he's incredibly distressed and unwell over it. Does anyone have any experience of this situation and any guidance on it?
Should this be thrown out, is there any case to answer for his employer causing this distress and wrongful accusation or, does he have to just accept the ordeal that's been thrown at him and let them get away with it, presumably no wiser who actually stole.? I appreciate that this cannot be undone but a clean record,good reference and an apology would go a long way to settling his head.
There's not a lot I can do to help him, but there's a good few of you here with legal knowledge who might be able say something, so at least we can make clarity of it.
Cheers.
My brother-in-law's brother was a supervisor at a retail outlet. To get to the point, he has been accused of theft of money, has had his employment terminated and was arrested for the alleged offence but has been released without charge pending further investigation. He assures all that he is not guilty of the crime, and does so with sincerity so no-one disbelieves him (aside from his manager and HR), coupled with the fact he lives a life of no lavish means; he's a humble guy.
The back story is that a large sum of money has gone missing from the store takings over the period of roughly 1yr; someone was stealing smaller amounts over this time and has it amounted into single figure £k's. He was responsible for the running of the store in absence/unison with the store manager and management of his subordinates, who would assist him in cashing up activities at the end of the day.
The crime appears to have been executed by someone who's watched the system a while. At the end of the day, the cash is counted and verified by two people who can be any two employees as the manager has given this power. It is bagged but not sealed, and a slip is placed inside the bag stating the amount of cash that is contained within. The bag is then locked in a safe over night which is accessed by a key to the back office and then a separate key to the safe itself. The money is collected in the early morning by one of those secure transportation companies and taken away for processing. As the store is contained within a shopping centre, there is 24/7 access to the site through the service entrances for various maintenance, cleaning or night shift staff in the stores who may need to go in for any reason (stock take, refit etc), which is where the back office is accessed.
ALL employees have access to a key to the back office (stored under till) to allow access to the office at all times so that the store can run smoothly, and the safe keys are stupidly kept in the office in plain view of anyone who may be in the office. The culprit has been accessing the store sometime between store close and cash collection, rewriting the slip that states the amount of cash contained within the bag with a lower £ value, and has been pocketing the deficit in cash. The slips must be signed, and as you might have guessed the signature of the forged slip does not match his and it at very best a bad copy. Who knows how much per time, perhaps it was nominal to begin to test the water and then greed set in and then became £hundred here/there. The silly thing...? No CCTV at the maintenance entrances, hallways or more importantly, the store. Literally any staff member in the past who had a key cut/kept a key, present staff, shopping centre staff, contractors or whoever could have done this. It sounds like a fairly simple plan, but they've watched the goings-on of the shop and they knew how to execute the crime. The only crime of my BIL's brother is that he's a likable lad, who unfortunately gets walked over quite a bit due to his nice nature and someone has taken full advantage of this.
After a long period unnoticed, it had been discovered and the manager was hauled in. Some discussion took place between them and the business and for whatever reason, the buck is stopping with said BIL's brother as presumably the manager has saved their own skin. The only common denominator is that the BIL's brother was working a high majority of the time that the money went missing, as was discovered after they pulled apart till taking records and compared them with what was cashed at the bank over a period of time, and also comparison with the shift rotor. It was identified that not only he was working on those days but as the most senior, he is getting this stuck on him although, it could well be that multiple people were in on this so as not to create a pattern; one could have worked and another stolen.
An investigation took place, and it could not be proven BIL's brother did this but, as a company only needs to have a 50/50 probable suspicion that the employee is guilty of gross misconduct, they terminated his employment. He went to appeal but, as he had found a new job in a hurry (he was without income) he found it difficult to find time to arrange any further hearings as the head office was 200 miles away and the company were not flexible, naturally; also he just wanted to forget the whole thing.
Several months pass and he starts to recover but he is then arrested at his home on suspicion of theft/money laundering as the company finally decide to take it further. It's not known if they chose to create this delay in order to see if further takings went missing, but if they did delay due to this presumably the crime stopped at the point of BIL's brother's dismissal so, the thief is clever and knew when a "good" thing is no longer "good". The evidence provided by his previous employer was the same as presented at the internal investigation so, no proof of anything, only that he happened to work on a majority of those days. Paperwork was taken from his home to prove/disprove he had laundered the money, and it was searched for cash but nothing was there of course. Interview took place and he was released without charge pending further investigation, but he must go back to the Police Station at a later date unless he hears further.
To give the police respect, it seems like they have used their heads and worked out that it's very unlikely to be him or at least the evidence is nil based on their comments to him, but they are essentially impartial and the case must be decided by the CPS I assume, and if it will go to court. The outcome that is hoped is for it to been thrown out before court but it seems to be damaging this lad a lot and he's incredibly distressed and unwell over it. Does anyone have any experience of this situation and any guidance on it?
Should this be thrown out, is there any case to answer for his employer causing this distress and wrongful accusation or, does he have to just accept the ordeal that's been thrown at him and let them get away with it, presumably no wiser who actually stole.? I appreciate that this cannot be undone but a clean record,good reference and an apology would go a long way to settling his head.
There's not a lot I can do to help him, but there's a good few of you here with legal knowledge who might be able say something, so at least we can make clarity of it.
Cheers.
Edited by 1Addicted on Thursday 14th July 11:48
Skimmed as it's tl;dr.
Based on the events as presented, evidence seems circumstantial regarding the theft. My IANAL advice... tell him not to say anything stupid and to have legal representation when questioned.
Regarding setting sacked. One could argue that leaving the safe effectively unlocked, by hanging the key where anyone can use it, is gross misconduct. Bad luck that it's his signature that was on the slips that were down. The lesson - he should learn to better cover his arse.
BTW. Being totally objective, being a 'nice lad' and appearing to be poor doesn't mean he didn't do it. He could have a secret penchant for gambling, coke and prostitutes.
Based on the events as presented, evidence seems circumstantial regarding the theft. My IANAL advice... tell him not to say anything stupid and to have legal representation when questioned.
Regarding setting sacked. One could argue that leaving the safe effectively unlocked, by hanging the key where anyone can use it, is gross misconduct. Bad luck that it's his signature that was on the slips that were down. The lesson - he should learn to better cover his arse.
BTW. Being totally objective, being a 'nice lad' and appearing to be poor doesn't mean he didn't do it. He could have a secret penchant for gambling, coke and prostitutes.
xxChrisxx said:
Skimmed as it's tl;dr.
Based on the events as presented, evidence seems circumstantial regarding the theft. My IANAL advice... tell him not to say anything stupid and to have legal representation when questioned.
Regarding setting sacked. One could argue that leaving the safe effectively unlocked, by hanging the key where anyone can use it, is gross misconduct. Bad luck that it's his signature that was on the slips that were down. The lesson - he should learn to better cover his arse.
BTW. Being totally objective, being a 'nice lad' and appearing to be poor doesn't mean he didn't do it. He could have a secret penchant for gambling, coke and prostitutes.
It's long I know, but I wanted to state as much as possible so you had all the info.Based on the events as presented, evidence seems circumstantial regarding the theft. My IANAL advice... tell him not to say anything stupid and to have legal representation when questioned.
Regarding setting sacked. One could argue that leaving the safe effectively unlocked, by hanging the key where anyone can use it, is gross misconduct. Bad luck that it's his signature that was on the slips that were down. The lesson - he should learn to better cover his arse.
BTW. Being totally objective, being a 'nice lad' and appearing to be poor doesn't mean he didn't do it. He could have a secret penchant for gambling, coke and prostitutes.
He sought legal rep, the free kind offered by the police and will do so again if called to trial. He's been nothing but truthful as I understand, and has no reason to be anything but. The safe keys are kept in this place as a normal thing, not his doing but by instruction of the manager; it's just "where they go". There are several slack practices in the store it seems which go against guidelines, so I'd hazard a guess that the manager had a brown pants moment when they were called in and bounced the blame.
As much as it might be funny for him so be a secret Dan Bilzerian or pimp, he's definitely not that type and lives with his parents.
I presume you mean he's on bail to return to the police station when you say, 'released without charge'.
Did he have a solicitor at the police station? If not he should have, and if so they'll be best positioned to assess whether there's likely to be any action taken or not.
If there's little evidence then it doesn't need to go to the CPS to be discontinued.
There needs to be a realistic prospect of conviction for him to be charged with any offence. A conviction requires the matter to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. So your 50/50 becomes near 100%.
That's the criminal side. The civil side would require some other advice others on here may be able to give an outline of. I'd can't imagine there'd be much come back for an allegation that can't be proven, though.
Did he have a solicitor at the police station? If not he should have, and if so they'll be best positioned to assess whether there's likely to be any action taken or not.
If there's little evidence then it doesn't need to go to the CPS to be discontinued.
There needs to be a realistic prospect of conviction for him to be charged with any offence. A conviction requires the matter to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. So your 50/50 becomes near 100%.
That's the criminal side. The civil side would require some other advice others on here may be able to give an outline of. I'd can't imagine there'd be much come back for an allegation that can't be proven, though.
La Liga said:
I presume you mean he's on bail to return to the police station when you say, 'released without charge'.
Did he have a solicitor at the police station? If not he should have, and if so they'll be best positioned to assess whether there's likely to be any action taken or not.
If there's little evidence then it doesn't need to go to the CPS to be discontinued.
There needs to be a realistic prospect of conviction for him to be charged with any offence. A conviction requires the matter to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. So your 50/50 becomes near 100%.
That's the criminal side. The civil side would require some other advice others on here may be able to give an outline of. I'd can't imagine there'd be much come back for an allegation that can't be proven, though.
Tell that to a lot of Post Office managers!Did he have a solicitor at the police station? If not he should have, and if so they'll be best positioned to assess whether there's likely to be any action taken or not.
If there's little evidence then it doesn't need to go to the CPS to be discontinued.
There needs to be a realistic prospect of conviction for him to be charged with any offence. A conviction requires the matter to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. So your 50/50 becomes near 100%.
That's the criminal side. The civil side would require some other advice others on here may be able to give an outline of. I'd can't imagine there'd be much come back for an allegation that can't be proven, though.
xxChrisxx said:
Regarding setting sacked. One could argue that leaving the safe effectively unlocked, by hanging the key where anyone can use it, is gross misconduct.
Agreed. He's in (at least partial) charge of the store, the safe key is kept somewhere blindingly obvious, and there is damn near universal access to both safe and key. WTF?Monumentally stupid, monumentally lax, at the very best.
Some companies will have their own internal investigators who will perform an investigation before presenting it to police. That could easily take several months depending on the volume of thefts and could explain the delay.
Police bailing will not be unusual in my experience as there is no point in keeping someone in after interview for a complex enquiry, there could be several lines to investigate regardless of the interview and in these types of enquiry it would be very rare to be in a position to charge/nfa after one interview.
Police bailing will not be unusual in my experience as there is no point in keeping someone in after interview for a complex enquiry, there could be several lines to investigate regardless of the interview and in these types of enquiry it would be very rare to be in a position to charge/nfa after one interview.
sidekickdmr said:
Seems odd that the store would flag it immediately and point the finger, rather than keep shtum and set up a camera etc and catch them red-handed?
This. Could it be that the store have more evidence up their sleeve than they've let on to date, that suddenly makes an appearance at the trial? I've got a relative currently awaiting trial for stealing from his employer - you'd never have guessed he'd be the type, really lovely honest chap. He definitely did it though - admitted it as soon as he was caught.
Thanks for the replies.
He'll definitely be getting a solicitor when they call him back in. He didn't the first time because he didn't really know what had hit him I think.
I think I do mean that he's on bail. You'll have to excuse my lack of knowledge as this to be honest is the first and only time I've known anyone to be in a decent amount of trouble. So yes, he's on bail for the next month or so, then to return for further interview.
It's relieving to know that his odds seem to be better here than with his ex-employer which rather pointed the finger, then covered their ears when he tried to defend himself.
I couldn't agree more, the place sounds totally lax and I wonder why someone didn't figure this out sooner, or at least rob the place blind of goods. The manager seems to be in for the easy life, delegates everything and does nothing so passing the blame would have come easy.
To reiterate, the signature on the forged slips was not my BIL's brother, it was in some cases totally different or a very bad copy. He pointed this out in the internal investigation and they glazed over it. He even provided smaple signatures. WTF?! I would hope that the company have pulled other staff in for interview but I don't think they have, therefore no-one is owning up to the signatures, and why would they I suppose as they're getting off. So, I suppose that answers if this was a fair investigation, he seems to think not as his work "friends" have contacted him and mentioned that it's gone no further after his dismissal. The company has added 1+1 and come up with 3, it's a pure case of "well, he might have".
I really don't get why they didn't investigate this internally, like you say with CCTV. If they had, none of this would be going on, it'd be sorted straight away. Funnily enough, BIL's brother says that he requested to his manager that CCTV was installed above the till and in the office a while ago, as he noticed the odd £20 missing from the till a little while ago, during the time that the safe theft was going on but his manager declined to escalate. Now correct me if I sound silly, but a guilty person who is currently "nicking" wouldn't be asking for security. My BIL is a bit of a hot head when it comes to his family, very protective, and has grilled the kid (he's 20 by the way, so explains his naivety) to the point of bursting a blood vessel but he remains that he didn't do it and is virtually falling apart over it, so we have to assume he that definitely didn't.
I am really just perplexed how all staff had access to the safe and how that was ever considered a good idea by the manager. Jesus.
He'll definitely be getting a solicitor when they call him back in. He didn't the first time because he didn't really know what had hit him I think.
I think I do mean that he's on bail. You'll have to excuse my lack of knowledge as this to be honest is the first and only time I've known anyone to be in a decent amount of trouble. So yes, he's on bail for the next month or so, then to return for further interview.
It's relieving to know that his odds seem to be better here than with his ex-employer which rather pointed the finger, then covered their ears when he tried to defend himself.
I couldn't agree more, the place sounds totally lax and I wonder why someone didn't figure this out sooner, or at least rob the place blind of goods. The manager seems to be in for the easy life, delegates everything and does nothing so passing the blame would have come easy.
To reiterate, the signature on the forged slips was not my BIL's brother, it was in some cases totally different or a very bad copy. He pointed this out in the internal investigation and they glazed over it. He even provided smaple signatures. WTF?! I would hope that the company have pulled other staff in for interview but I don't think they have, therefore no-one is owning up to the signatures, and why would they I suppose as they're getting off. So, I suppose that answers if this was a fair investigation, he seems to think not as his work "friends" have contacted him and mentioned that it's gone no further after his dismissal. The company has added 1+1 and come up with 3, it's a pure case of "well, he might have".
I really don't get why they didn't investigate this internally, like you say with CCTV. If they had, none of this would be going on, it'd be sorted straight away. Funnily enough, BIL's brother says that he requested to his manager that CCTV was installed above the till and in the office a while ago, as he noticed the odd £20 missing from the till a little while ago, during the time that the safe theft was going on but his manager declined to escalate. Now correct me if I sound silly, but a guilty person who is currently "nicking" wouldn't be asking for security. My BIL is a bit of a hot head when it comes to his family, very protective, and has grilled the kid (he's 20 by the way, so explains his naivety) to the point of bursting a blood vessel but he remains that he didn't do it and is virtually falling apart over it, so we have to assume he that definitely didn't.
I am really just perplexed how all staff had access to the safe and how that was ever considered a good idea by the manager. Jesus.
Edited by 1Addicted on Thursday 14th July 15:18
1Addicted said:
Now correct me if I sound silly, but a guilty person who is currently "nicking" wouldn't be asking for security.
Sounds like a good double-bluff. He gets to know exactly what's going on with security, and he gives a false pointer away from himself by looking more honest.1Addicted said:
Funnily enough, BIL's brother says that he requested to his manager that CCTV was installed above the till and in the office a while ago, as he noticed the odd £20 missing from the till a little while ago, during the time that the safe theft was going on but his manager declined to escalate. Now correct me if I sound silly, but a guilty person who is currently "nicking" wouldn't be asking for security.
him being called in etc, was a stroke of luck as he could then pin it on a subordinate.
just how i feel on what's been written.
Don't know about other people, but 'wrongful accusation' sounds like something done maliciously, whereas this sounds more like an employer believing they've sacked a thief. Whether they're right or not, who knows until the Police have investigated.
As has been advised already, I agree that nobody should be in a police interview without representation.
As has been advised already, I agree that nobody should be in a police interview without representation.
TooMany2cvs said:
Sounds like a good double-bluff. He gets to know exactly what's going on with security, and he gives a false pointer away from himself by looking more honest.
jesta1865 said:
I can't help feeling that the manager deciding it's not worth escalating even though he knows the till is light, is because it's his fingers in the till.
him being called in etc, was a stroke of luck as he could then pin it on a subordinate.
just how i feel on what's been written.
It could be seen both ways. The manager sounds suspect to me, but I'm just speculating really.him being called in etc, was a stroke of luck as he could then pin it on a subordinate.
just how i feel on what's been written.
What I'd like to see happen is the actual thief caught via further police investigation, but I feel that (hopefully) when they find him not guilty they'll leave it at that as the evidence is too weak with too many unknowns. That in itself makes it frustrating why it has even come to this.
They cannot just spring evidence on him at a trial it should be disclosed. His lawyer will have a good idea if the evidence supports the accusation but that will be second, third hand or more for you.
Just because your BIL grilled the kid and is convinced doesn't mean you should be, unless you think he would be good and spotting holes and inconsistencies in the kids story. Does he have a good bulls
t detector regard the news and things like conspiracy theories?Ask the kid, who he thinks did it.
TooMany2cvs said:
1Addicted said:
Now correct me if I sound silly, but a guilty person who is currently "nicking" wouldn't be asking for security.
Sounds like a good double-bluff. He gets to know exactly what's going on with security, and he gives a false pointer away from himself by looking more honest.if the manager had said to him the cash is light and he had suggested cctv then i'd agree.
seems odd to me that the manager didn't seem to be bothered about the cash going etc.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff