Theft by Employees

The enemy within one’s own company: unfortunately, a company’s own staff represent one of the greatest risks to their employers’ wellbeing. One of many ways in which employees damage businesses is through the theft of company property. For example, the retail sector is not only affected by typical shoplifters but – precisely because the blame can easily be shifted onto such external perpetrators – also by thieves within its own workforce. Even vigilant colleagues and supervisors often require months to detect such offences.

The detectives of Kurtz Investigations Dortmund are responsible for identifying the offenders and providing evidence admissible in court: +49 231 8401 0065.

Cooperation Between Colleagues: Theft of Goods (Case Example)

A technical department store in Dortmund city centre with almost fifty employees, one managing director and two deputy managing directors. From a 16-ampere fuse to a washing machine, everything was available here, including cameras and all accessories for amateur and professional photographers. The photography department extended over two counter areas: the somewhat smaller area comprised small accessories such as films, SD cards, HDMI cables, photo paper, the drop-off and collection of negative and slide films and so forth, and also incorporated the checkout area; the larger area contained the entire range of cameras from disposable cameras to high-quality single-lens reflex cameras, as well as lenses, tripods and further camera accessories.

The respective cashier worked at the till throughout the day and was only relieved during break times by a substitute. The cashier’s till insert was, logically, located in the till, while the substitute’s till insert was kept in a cupboard beneath it. This cupboard was unlocked, as it also contained plastic carrier bags, mailing envelopes for films and similar items; thus every employee of the photography department had legitimate access to the cupboard – and until then this had never posed a problem. A cashier or sales adviser was always within sight of the cupboard. Once per day, money was skimmed from both till inserts and sent via pneumatic tube to the cash office, where one of the deputy managing directors, together with the head cashier or her deputy, counted the interim totals. After her final substitution – the coffee break at approximately 16:00 – the substitute prepared her interim total and placed it in the cupboard. About an hour later, the cashier counted her interim total and then sent both bundles of cash to the cash office at around 17:30. Until day X, this procedure had been carried out without irregularities.

Money and Goods Missing – Shoplifters or Thieving Employees?

On day X, everything had also proceeded normally until 17:30. The cashier then intended to take the substitute’s interim total from the cupboard, but there was no bundle of cash there. She searched the entire cupboard but found nothing. She then called the substitute via the internal telephone and asked whether she had not yet counted the money. The substitute stated that the bundle was lying directly on top of the till insert. Shortly afterwards, she came to the department and searched for the money together with the cashier – but it had disappeared.

Naturally, following this incident there was a clear address by management to the entire department in general and to the cashier and substitute in particular – yet the modus operandi remained unchanged. For months nothing unusual occurred and the attention and mistrust of both management and staff gradually subsided – until one day an expensive single-lens reflex camera disappeared. The high-quality and therefore costly cameras were displayed in a locked cabinet. If a customer showed interest, an employee had to unlock the cabinet. Now one of these cameras, a Leica worth around 800 euros, had vanished. The employees in the responsible department area – Reinhold, Karl, Sven and Dieter – could not say with certainty where the camera had last been located. Had someone perhaps inadvertently failed to lock the cabinet properly? Or had an employee forgotten the camera on the counter after showing it to a customer? No one knew exactly. Who had removed the camera from the cabinet and served the customer? At least Reinhold recalled that there had been a customer who wished to think it over. The initial commotion was considerable, yet subsided again after a few days. The incident was recorded as shoplifting.

Detectives from Dortmund Set a Trap for the Perpetrator

After several weeks – during which no further irregularities had occurred – another valuable camera disappeared, this time a Nikon single-lens reflex camera worth almost 1,500 euros. Karl remembered that the camera had been lying on the counter and that Sven had gone to fetch the key for the cabinet. Karl was then distracted by a customer and, when Sven returned with the key, the Nikon had vanished. Now not only the employees grew uneasy; management also concluded that the perpetrator might indeed be found among the staff, as the theft of high-quality cameras had previously averaged one item every two years. What was inexplicable, however, was how a potential perpetrator from the workforce could remove the camera from the premises, as random bag checks were conducted in the evenings and an employee would therefore be taking a considerable risk by transporting stolen goods. As these checks were linked to a random generator, they could not be manipulated. Management began to suspect that the person conducting the bag checks might be involved. This inspector was Franz, the building technician.

Before management had agreed upon a specific measure, yet another camera disappeared, an Olympus worth approximately 1,000 euros. Once again, allegedly no one had seen the perpetrator. Management decided to consult the commercial investigators of Kurtz Detective Agency Dortmund. After the usual preliminary enquiries by our detectives, they planned a case-specific approach together with the management in order to convict the perpetrator or perpetrators.

Double Check Convicts the Perpetrators

When another camera disappeared a week later, the managing directors, acting on the advice of our Dortmund commercial detectives, instructed Franz to check all bags in the evening, regardless of whom the random generator selected. Franz complied, yet the stolen camera was not found on any employee. What no one expected: outside in front of the exit door, the two deputy managing directors and two of our detectives from Dortmund had positioned themselves in order to conduct the bag checks a second time. And indeed – employee Reinhold had a Leica in his bag.

With their trap, our investigators achieved success on the very first evening and prevented further financial losses for the company, as on the basis of similar past cases and the circumstances described they quickly concluded that the bag checks were not being conducted properly and that the inspector himself was either the perpetrator or the necessary accomplice of an employee from the department. Finally, Kurtz Investigations Dortmund provided the management of the department store with a detailed operational report admissible in court, on the basis of which Reinhold and Franz were, of course, dismissed immediately. Both confessed and confirmed their statements before a notary (notarial acknowledgement of debt). Reinhold had stolen the cameras from the company, Franz allowed him to pass during the bag checks, and they split the profit fifty-fifty. Furthermore, Reinhold confessed to having removed the bundle of cash from the till cupboard under the pretext of needing mailing envelopes for films.

Note

In order to safeguard discretion as well as the personal rights of clients and subjects, all names and locations in this case report have been altered beyond recognition.