looking for a legal term

[Deleted]

quick question,
does anyone know the term for using money that has been paid into one store location, then taken by an employee without permission and used in another store. Nothing was removed from the store except the cash, and the same amount that was taken is replaced as sales in another store location ?

Not sure if I am making sense :S

[Ayla]

I would use embezzlement?

[Deleted]

pretty sure embezzlement means that they gain the money for their own use, they do not gain anything out of it.

I am almost certain that my manager has been taking money from one store to use in my store to artificially boost the sales figure in the past before I started, this has meant that I now have hugely unrealistic sales figures to achieve this year. Trying to find the legal term so I can explain the drop in figures when and if I am approached by the area / regional management team to why I am so far behind compared to last year.

[PC2]

There is laundering, which is about concealing the origins of money.

Commingling is illegal in certain accounting related scenarios. It's where you mix money from different areas or people that is suppose to have a clear provenance.

[Morrigenn]

I think the colloquial term (sorry don't remember legalese off-hand) is "cooking the books".

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/cookthebooks.asp

[Deleted]

There is is laundering, which is about concealing the origins of money.

Commingling is illegal in certain accounting related scenarios. It's where you mix money from different areas that are suppose to have a clear provenance.

Thank you PrimaryColor, just read the definition and it is exactly what I was looking for

[Independent voter]

It doesn't seem like it'd be illegal unless he violated tax law, moving the money out of a retirement fund or something.

It could be something the boss might fire him over though.

[poser765]

So an employee took money from one store...WITHOUT permission...which they then used to purchase goods in another location of the same store? What happened to the goods they purchased? Sounds like plain and simple theft to me.

[Deleted]

So an employee took money from one store...WITHOUT permission...which they then used to purchase goods in another location of the same store? What happened to the goods they purchased? Sounds like plain and simple theft to me.

The goods purchased never left the store, The money was not tilled in in location A, goods given the customer in Location A, the money then transported and tilled in Location B to make location B look like it is performing better than it actually would have been doing.

[PC2]

Thank you PrimaryColor, just read the definition and it is exactly what I was looking for

Sure thing. One more comment would be that if the owner of both stores happens to be the same sole proprietor and someone is trying to inflate sales for whatever reason, it likely is not going to be immediately illegal since managerial accounting is discretionary. It only becomes a crime once they knowingly submit a misrepresentation to a third party, such as the IRS or to a creditor.

[Feredir]

You could possibly add fraud, and tax evasion to the list. It all depends on why it was done and if it occurred in a different locality, tax-wise.

[khazmodan]

pretty sure embezzlement means that they gain the money for their own use, they do not gain anything out of it.

I am almost certain that my manager has been taking money from one store to use in my store to artificially boost the sales figure in the past before I started, this has meant that I now have hugely unrealistic sales figures to achieve this year. Trying to find the legal term so I can explain the drop in figures when and if I am approached by the area / regional management team to why I am so far behind compared to last year.

he may be trying to pump up the numbers so that location is less likely to be closed down or taken over by another regional manager which would lower his pay. Another possibility is he is trying to make one location look like the best of all the stores in the region or the country so he can get a promotion out of the recognition he would get.

[PC2]

You could possibly add fraud, and tax evasion to the list. It all depends on why it was done and if it occurred in a different locality, tax-wise.

Increasing sales usually increase taxes and losses can always be written off. This suggests a manager could be trying to keep their job or get a bonus, or that the owner is trying to make their financial statements look more appealing to a potential stakeholder. High turnover is typically very desirable.

[Deleted]

Sure thing. One more comment would be that if the owner of both stores happens to be the same sole proprietor and someone is trying to inflate sales for whatever reason, it likely is not going to be immediately illegal since managerial accounting is discretionary. It only becomes a crime once they knowingly submit a misrepresentation to a third party, such as the IRS or to a creditor.

Forgot to add, it is a nationally based charity store based in the UK. So whilst US laws do not apply, they will give me a general idea of situation.

[Pann]

The goods purchased never left the store, The money was not tilled in in location A, goods given the customer in Location A, the money then transported and tilled in Location B to make location B look like it is performing better than it actually would have been doing.

I assume that A and B within the same company? And does the manager in question oversee both A and B? Because from what you've said the situation simply does not make sense, if a sale is made at A and the customer receives the goods at A but the sale is recorded at B then A will have massive stock deficit whilst the stock at B will show a massive surplus.

[Celista]

Misappropriation of funds.

[Deleted]

I assume that A and B within the same company? And does the manager in question oversee both A and B? Because from what you've said the situation simply does not make sense, if a sale is made at A and the customer receives the goods at A but the sale is recorded at B then A will have massive stock deficit whilst the stock at B will show a massive surplus.

it is the same company/charity, and they do oversee both locations. However with it being mainly reliant on donations there really is no way of keeping track on the stock in either store.

[Deleted]

Not a lawyer ("who would claim to be that who was not") but if no monetary gain has been accomplished or intended it is still possible that "fiduciary duty" has been compromised.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiduciary

[PC2]

Forgot to add, it is a nationally based charity store based in the UK. So whilst US laws do not apply, they will give me a general idea of situation.

If the bookkeeping is recorded properly and they are just transferring assets to another branch with full public disclosure it probably isn't an issue. I'm pretty sure even charities have to submit accurate financial statements where its activities are disclosed and available to the public.

[Pann]

it is the same company/charity, and they do oversee both locations. However with it being mainly reliant on donations there really is no way of keeping track on the stock in either store.

The lack of stock tracking does shed some light on situation but the only reason I can see for this is that the manager is evaluated (and possibly performance related pay) on the performance of both outlets which would be false accounting as covered by the Theft Act. To be honest this is a serious accusation and I would be looking much further into it in case it something entirely innocent.