Donald's Case — Theft — Investigation

Client:  Donald V.
Complainant:  Donald's former employer, an electronics manufacturer
Potential Charges:  Theft and Possession of Stolen Property

Background:  Donald knew that his company was concerned about internal thefts. They were performing various audits and investigations to determine what property was missing and who was taking it. Donald did not know, however, that they were building a case against him. He was unexpectedly called into a meeting with a human resources representative, his supervisor, and corporate security. They accused Donald of stealing. Donald denied it. They grilled him on his activities at work, his personal lifestyle, and his sources of income. Feeling intimidated, Donald signed a release authorizing his bank to provide personal banking information to his employer. Donald was then suspended with pay. He was told that he was still an employee, that the investigation was continuing, and that he would be expected to cooperate with the investigation. They made it very clear to him that he would be called in for more meetings. Donald was worried. He called me for help.

Goals:  Donald wanted to avoid being charged criminally. He also wanted to preserve his job, or, failing that, to negotiate a severance package. We hired an employment lawyer I regularly work with to assist on that front.

Strategy:  I wanted to ensure that Donald did not say or do anything (i) that could later be used against him as evidence, or (ii) that might cause the security team to focus their investigation on him. Here's what we did. We immediately revoked the consent provided to the bank. Donald had no obligation to provide it, and nothing good could come from it. Dealing with Donald's on-going cooperation was a little more delicate. As an employee, Donald had a duty to cooperate. I did not want him to appear guilty by quitting or by refusing to cooperate. That might cause the corporate security team to focus on him. I explained to the human resources representative that, although Donald wanted to cooperate, he would not be subjecting himself to more intimidation. I suggested that they submit questions in writing. This approach allowed me to control the flow of information while still allowing Donald to cooperate. They persisted in their requests to interrogate Donald, but we refused. Read the letters below for the details.

READ THE FIRST LETTER TO THE EMPLOYER
READ THE EMPLOYER'S RESPONSE
READ THE SECOND LETTER TO THE EMPLOYER

Results:  Donald refused to attend for an interview. They refused to submit questions in writing. The corporate security team remained resolute in their belief that Donald had committed extensive internal thefts, but they didn't have sufficient proof. The stalemate lasted a few weeks. It ended when the company advised Donald that his services were no longer needed. They offered him a severance package. Donald accepted. We never heard from them again. Donald was never charged.