March 4, 2012
Cash Larceny Scheme Case Study: Bank Teller Gets Nabbed for Theft
1. Why were Laura Grove's actions classified as cash larceny rather than skimming? Technically, since the money deposited in the night depository was not yet recorded on the bank's books, the robbery should have been considered as a skimming scheme. However, according to Federal Statute 18U.S.C. $ 2113(a) “...a night depository is part of “any building used in whole or in part as a bank...” ” (Criminal Resource Manual 1358). At the time that Laura Grove opened the safe and took the two deposit bags the money was in the custody of the bank therefore making her act a bank larceny in violation of 18U.S.C. $ 2113(b).
2. How may Laura have been nabbed if her husband had not discovered the money and called the bank? It would have been very difficult to prove that Laura Grove committed the night depository robbery without the “smoking gun”--her husband calling the bank that he had found the money. The circumstantial evidence pointed to Laura as the prime suspect. As head teller, she had the opportunity to commit the crime since she had one-half of the combination to the night depository. According to Wells (2011), she was the first one in the bank entering before the surveillance cameras turned on (p. 74). Even without her husband calling the bank her anxiety and feelings of guilt would have made her more nervous at work and at home. Her family would have convinced her to give herself up and hope for mercy from the court if she was arrested. In the end, she did receive probation instead of a jail sentence.
3. What measures could the bank have taken to prevent Laura from committing the crime? a) All employees with access to the safe should be trained not to allow anyone else to observe and record the combination (Bishop, 2005). b) Access to the night