Internal Theft: Report of Ongoing Suspect Investigation / Interviews
Internal Theft: Report of Ongoing Suspect Investigation / Interviews, Case Studies, Summit Loss Prevention Consulting, Inc., Indianapolis, Indiana (IN)
As discussed in the case study
"The Disappearing Discs," one of the
primary suspects in the theft of DVDs, video games and gaming systems was
employee G.D. After initially appearing cooperative, he became
increasingly more hostile to the proceedings. This report describes the
step taken by investigators to secure an interview with G.D. and develop
evidence for prosecution.
(Note: All names and locations have been changed to protect the
privacy of those involved.)
Summary of Events - June 26th – July 25th
On several occasions during the months of June
and July 2002, our investigators have traveled to Burnside, IN to
interview G.D. in an effort to obtain an admission statement concerning
losses that he caused his employer, during the time frame when he was
employed by compact disc manufacturer, and after he was terminated.
Also, the investigators were attempting to obtain information from G.D.
concerning the role other former employees played in theft from the
company, and finally to recover restitution from him for his admitted
losses. G.D. has been interviewed several times, and the results of
those discussions are detailed below.
In addition, investigators have continued to
pursue leads concerning possible theft and resale of Company product on,
or near, the Indiana State campus, and at a variety neighborhood store.
This store is believed to be owned and operated by members of the Holmes
family, who have a reputation for dealing in stolen merchandise in the
Prior Discussion with G.D.
G.D. was interviewed
by investigators in late June, and at that time, he acknowledged his
interest in cooperating fully with the ongoing investigation into loss
issues related to the CD manufacturer. He verbally agreed to provide an admission
statement for his own activities, make some significant restitution
payment, and provide information concerning other individuals involved
in causing losses to the company. G.D. stated he was willing to
provide those items in exchange for a ‘Release from Prosecution’
agreement with company. However, over the course of the next two weeks,
investigators made numerous attempts at contacting G.D. with no
success. At least six messages were left on his answering machine with
no return phone calls. It was decided that another visit to his home
Interview of 7/17/02
Investigators traveled to Burnside, IN on
7/17/02. G.D. was not at home upon their arrival, so surveillance
was established. Photographs of the residence were taken and are
included with this report. At approximately 5:45 P.M., G.D. arrived
home and was approached by investigators. Initially, he was
reluctant to discuss the issues at hand, but within 10 minutes he began
to discuss his position.
G.D. was asked why he
hadn’t returned any calls, but declined to offer any meaningful
response. He was reminded of his earlier indication of willingness to
cooperate, and asked if that position had changed. He replied that
he wanted to review the offer for the Release with his attorney prior to
signing it. G.D. was provided a copy of the Release for that
A one-week timeline was
agreed to by G.D. as it relates to the attorney review process. He
indicated he would contact the investigators, or have his attorney
contact them, with any questions or clarification required. G.D. was
informed that this offer was not open-ended, and that he needed to
respect the time frame agreed to, or communicate why it couldn’t happen
that quickly in a timely manner.
Response Message from G.D.
G.D. failed to contact the investigators
within the time frame established on 7/17/02. Numerous calls were made
to his residence, in an effort to determine what his final position
would be. Eventually, on 7/25/02, G.D. left a message on the
investigator’s cell phone stating that he had decided not to cooperate
as he stated he would. He offered no explanation for his change of
position, and stated that he understood his decision could lead to
possible criminal charges being brought against him in the future.
Variety Neighborhood Store
This investigator traveled to the local variety
store linked to the case on
6/26/02 to observe the activity in and around the location, as well as
attempt to purchase any DVD’s or video games that might be
During the surveillance that was conducted, several license plates
from vehicles parked in front of the store were run to determine
ownership. One plate, from a Ford Explorer, came back to a Sarah
Holmes, and another plate, from a 2002
silver Dakota, came back from Federation Leasing in Indianapolis.
It has long been suspected that Larry Holmes has some connection with a
Federation Leasing outlet because there have been numerous Federation
vehicles in Holmes’ possession over the course of this entire
investigation. We will attempt to contact Federation Leasing’s Loss
Prevention Department to further pursue this lead.
eventually entered the store and interacted with the salesperson for
several minutes while looking at various merchandise. At one point, the
salesperson was asked if there were any DVD’s or games for sale. The
investigator stated that he had heard the store had some of those items
for sale, but that he couldn’t locate any in the store.
The salesperson replied that there were no games for sale, and that the only
DVD's in the store were for employees to watch throughout the day. In fact,
during the time the investigator was in the store, a DVD movie was being
shown on a small TV in the corner. The investigator continued shopping
for several more minutes and eventually asked about some shoes that were
for sale. The investigator then followed the salesperson into the back
room when he went to look for additional shoes in stock, and noticed a
stack of approximately 40 DVD’s, out of their cases, placed on a counter
top. It was not possible to determine the titles of these due to where
they were situated. The investigator asked who owned all the DVD’s and
the salesperson responded that they were ‘just here for us to watch when
its slow’. The salesperson did not seem phased at all by the inquiry,
and the investigator eventually thanked him for his help and departed.
222½ Pine Street – Holmes Residence
This investigator next traveled to 222 ½ Pine
Street, which is a double dwelling. After only a few minutes of
surveillance, a young black male and a young white male exited the house
and got into a blue Mercury station wagon and departed. Photographs
were taken of the vehicle and two men, and are included with this
report. The plate number on the car came back to Sarah Holmes at that
same address. The investigator followed at a distance and the car drove
into the ISU campus.
As the vehicle was followed, it appeared the
driver became suspicious, as he was observed to make two identical loops
around the campus. After he drove by a main entrance the first time,
the white passenger got out of the vehicle and began looking over his
shoulder. The second time around, the driver parked and ran from the
vehicle across the street. When the driver crossed the street, he
stopped and stared back in the direction of the investigator After a
few moments, the black male made a gesture and walked away.
The investigator waited several minutes and then
parked near the vehicle and looked inside it through the window. The
investigator noticed an Indiana Driver’s License with the name Mark
Holmes on it. The photo on the license matched the description of the
black male driver. The investigator did not see any items in the
vehicle that looked to be company property. It was obvious that the men
were concerned about who was following them due to their erratic
Follow-up – Conclusion
Our investigators will pursue the Federation
Leasing information and report on that as it develops. Additional
investigation work will focus on the Holmes family, L.D., and G.D., in a continued effort to make them aware that their activities
are being monitored. Any information of consequence will be forwarded
to the client immediately.
How to Prevent Situations Like This
For information, call 317-363-8312, send email to
info@SummitLossPrevention.com. or submit the short form below: