Mrs Reed was denied bond and the case will go before the grand jury. Her lawyer stated that Moores Fabrication did business out of a cash bag. That folks just stuck their hands in bag and got out cash, and now want to say his client stole money.
I thought Linda was responsible for the 'petty cash' and to keep the cash books balanced.Mrs Reed was denied bond and the case will go before the grand jury. Her lawyer stated that Moores Fabrication did business out of a cash bag. That folks just stuck their hands in bag and got out cash, and now want to say his client stole money.
I thought Linda was responsible for the 'petty cash' and to keep the cash books balanced.
If so, and if she was the one in control of the cash money, then the onus would lie on her to make sure that the correct amount is paid out and not allow people to just dip into the bag and take what they want.
Otherwise, without receipts or any records to show that the correct amounts were paid out, there is no way anything would balance. Surely she would have been aware of that early in her working career at Moores Fabrication and would have taken that up with management so as not be put in a position to be incriminated if any money went missing.
Sure, plenty enough businesses run by cash and 'hide' cash money, but even so, there is some form of accountability by the employees.
Something doesn't sound right about that...
Mrs Reed was denied bond and the case will go before the grand jury. Her lawyer stated that Moores Fabrication did business out of a cash bag. That folks just stuck their hands in bag and got out cash, and now want to say his client stole money.
I can see where you're coming from, having worked on and off for years in a small family business too, but in my case, only when they have needed extra help. It's not something I thought was wonderful being family. All sorts of shannanigans. Even so, there comes a point where everyone (maybe not so much the big boss lol) is accountable for what cash they take out of a business and balanced books (regardless how they are balanced) are a must for taxes, superannuation and so on...The family spoke of the charges being possibly dropped and may had reason to believe it was possible...soooo...it will be interesting to see what is coming down pike. IMO, JMO, etc.
I agree and it seems as if she has had a previous 'incident' made mention of in a post earlier in this thread.I think she should be held accountable, and I hope she is!
hmmm...this makes me a little suspicious now...
From the Clarion Ledger:
"Jones said Reed was indicted in 1974 for forging checks. According to Hinds County Circuit Court records, a 1974 uttering forgery indictment against Reed was dismissed by the judge. She was then had the last name of McDaniel from one of her previous marriages"
http://www.clarionledger.com/articl...ing-woman-alive?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Home
Just one question please... in America what does it mean and what is the implication when it said, that she will go before the grand jury?
I can see where you're coming from, having worked on and off for years in a small family business too, but in my case, only when they have needed extra help. It's not something I thought was wonderful being family. All sorts of shannanigans. Even so, there comes a point where everyone (maybe not so much the big boss lol) is accountable for what cash they take out of a business and balanced books (regardless how they are balanced) are a must for taxes, superannuation and so on...
I'm talking from an Australian perspective, but even so, business is business and there are certain requirements that need to be met to keep yourself relatively legal and legitimate. Otherwise you can find yourself as a business in all sorts of legal trouble.
I see they held Linda without bail, I guess maybe she is considered to be a flight risk having done so before... but it makes me wonder too what it is that makes her family feel that charges may possibly be dropped.
Just one question please... in America what does it mean and what is the implication when it said, that she will go before the grand jury?
It'll be interesting to see what eventuates from this and if they have enough proof to make the suspicion of embezzlement turn into a formal charge. The rest of what she did and how she did it is purely academic and isn't against the law so I can understand why she would be let go with no further charges if no financial fraud is found evident.Reeves said that she moved out of state is irrelevant to the case against her. But he said it's what the public gets hung up on.
"She was living in Texas under her name, her social security number, openly working two jobs and had joined a church, was in a Sunday school class and all of that," Reeves said.
<snip>
"She was very upset, she was sitting in a park crying, thinking about how she would raise her children, feeling sorry for herself," he said.
It wasn't long before she was approached by two males and a female who asked her what was wrong. After she told them what had happened, they invited her to hitchhike with them down to Florida.
"At a whim, she decided at that very moment, she would go along with them," said Schofield.
<snip>
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/01/us/pennsylvania-woman-reappears/index.html?hpt=ju_c1
http://copiahcounty.msnewsnow.com/news/news/110281-linda-gale-reed-indicted-embezzlement-chargesReed was served an indictment in Copiah County jail Friday afternoon. She is now charged with three counts of embezzlement.