After the Joplin Tornado, the owners of Frank Fletcher Ford provided manager Kathryn Stayton with $1,500 to help her through the hard times.
According to a sentencing memorandum filed this afternoon in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, she repaid them by continuing to embezzle money.
And don't listen to her claims of remorse,the memorandum continues- to this date she has yet to repay a penny of the more than $88,000 she stole from the firm.
Representatives of Frank Fletcher Ford will be in federal court in Springfield Wednesday for Mrs. Stayton's sentencing hearing and they intend to testify against providing her with any lenience.
Mrs. Stayton's attorney, in a memorandum submitted last week, cited her remorse, depression, and the effect on her family as reasons why she should receive a lighter sentence. The sentencing is scheduled to take place Wednesday in Springfield.
The government's memorandum, written by Assistant U. S. Attorney Gary Milligan, included the following:
1. The nature of the offense requires a guideline sentence.
The defendant’s conduct involved an abuse of trust at her former place of employment, Fletcher Ford, in Joplin, Missouri. The defendant stole approximately $88,230.06 from Fletcher Ford and did so over a two-year period, from September 2009, to September 2011. The government would submit that the amount taken and the length of time involved in the conduct indicate that a prison sentence is appropriate because the defendant’s criminal conduct was not a single, isolated incident. Rather, it was a lengthy, ongoing series of repeated thefts from her employer.
Furthermore, the defendant’s conduct involved an abuse of her position as the “Controller” at Fletcher Ford, which made her responsible for the dealership’s financial activities. The defendant used her knowledge of the dealership’s finances to repeatedly circumvent the protections put in place by the dealership to prevent theft and abuse. This included repeatedly forging second signatures onto dealership checks, and the theft of cash payments to the dealership.
2. The defendant’s subsequent actions and prior criminal conduct require a guideline sentence.
In her motion, the defendant points to her criminal history and her remorsefulness as factors supporting a downward variance. However, the Government would point out that the defendant has a prior conviction for stealing from 1994, which did not score any points. This conviction demonstrates that the defendant has engaged in theft in the past and further supports the notion that her behavior in this case is not an aberration.
Additionally, the defendant claims that she is truly remorseful for her conduct. The government would assert that her conduct after the thefts from Fletcher Ford does not support her assertion. After being terminated from her employment at Fletcher Ford, the defendant began working at Credit Cars of Joplin, Missouri, in October 2011. While working for Credit Cars, the defendant embezzled approximately $13,079.34 from them. Finally, the defendant did not accept responsibility for her actions in this case until she was formally indicted.
3. Victim Impact
The victims in this case feel strongly that a prison sentence is appropriate, and they are flying a representative from Arkansas to speak at the sentencing hearing. The representative will provide a more complete and detailed statement about the impact this offense had on Fletcher Ford.
However, the government would offer the following at this time:
First, in addition to the money directly stolen from the dealership, Fletcher Ford incurred substantial fees and expenses, not to mention numerous lost man hours, conducting its internal investigation of the defendant’s conduct. Second, after the tornado which devastated Joplin, Missouri, on May 22, 2011, Fletcher Ford gave the defendant $1500 to provide her with financial assistance. The defendant continued to steal from the dealership even after receiving this gift. Third, as of the date of this motion, Fletcher Ford indicates that it is unaware of the defendant paying any of the stolen funds back.
Accordingly, the victim in this case feels that, based upon the length and depth of
the defendant’s betrayal of their trust, and her apparent lack of remorse, that a prison
sentence is necessary and just.
No comments:
Post a Comment