|
Local
judge charged
Arrest
stems from continuing probe of magistrate’s office
May
3, 2006
By MEGAN
VARNER, VIC MacDONALD and GREG DEAL
Index-Journal
staff writers
 |
| Greenwood County Sheriff’s
Office Chief Deputy Mike Frederick looks over evidence
that was seized from the Greenwood County Magistrate’s
Office during an investigation into alleged “financial
irregularities.” | A Greenwood
County magistrate has been arrested and charged with accessory
to embezzlement.
Investigators with the Greenwood County
Sheriff’s Office arrested Lisa Cain, 46, of 116 Flatwood Road,
Hodges, on a charge stemming from the alleged theft of $1,000
from the magistrate’s office in February 2004.
In addition
to her primary duties as a clerk, Cain serves as a part-time
magistrate for the office.
The arrest, the second from the
magistrate’s office in less than a month, comes as
investigators are conducting an ongoing probe of alleged
embezzlement and other “irregularities” within that
office.
Deputies arrested Cain in Greenwood on Friday and
booked her at the Greenwood County Detention Center later that
day, although the Abbeville County Magistrate’s Office
conducted her bond hearing to avoid conflicts of interest,
sheriff’s officials said.
Cain was released on a personal
recognizance bond of an unknown amount.
Mike Frederick,
chief deputy with the Greenwood County Sheriff’s Office, said
the investigation, now in its fourth week, is ongoing and
continues to expand in scope.
On Tuesday, deputies
questioned three other magistrate’s office employees at
locations in Greenwood and Greenville. No arrests were
made.
“We were initially looking at a specific theft,”
Frederick said, “but it became apparent to us very quickly
that we’re facing some major problems in that office.”
In
April, sheriff’s deputies arrested Greenwood resident Toni
Cole, a clerk in the office, on a charge of grand larceny in
connection with the alleged theft of more than $22,000 in
public funds from the office.
Cole was released on a
personal recognizance bond pending trial after a hearing in
Abbeville, officials said in April. Cole’s charge, a felony,
could carry a prison sentence of up to 10 years. Frederick
said Cole is cooperating with the sheriff’s office
investigation.
Greenwood County Sheriff Dan Wideman said he
was notified of a $1,000 missing-money situation in the
magistrate’s office in 2004 and another $2,500 missing-money
situation this year.
When a new allegation involving about
$5,000 arose last month, Wideman said he launched an
investigation with deputies and agents from the State Law
Enforcement Division (SLED).
Wideman said in April that his
office was conducting a forensic examination that would
“account for every dime” in the magistrate’s
office.
Frederick said Tuesday that the sheriff’s office
investigation has since uncovered what he called “systemic
problems and real financial irregularities” within the
magistrate’s office.
Frederick and two detectives are
dedicated to the case almost full time.
Investigations
Division Commander Maj. John Murray said the sheriff’s office
inquiry is “intense,” adding that detectives have seized
documents, reviewed financial records, interviewed each
employee and judge within the office, conducted polygraph
examinations and consulted with specially trained forensic
accountants as they dig through the case.
“This case hinges
upon the records in that office,” Murray said, “so that’s
where we’re spending a lot of our time.”
The sheriff’s
office contracted with forensic accountants, who have assisted
in investigators’ reconstruction of how the funds were
allegedly stolen and who was responsible.
Forensic
accountants are specifically trained to examine cash-handling
procedures and conduct statistical analyses of the records
attendant to those procedures in an effort to trace missing
funds and identify people who might have stolen those
funds.
Frederick said investigators are continuing to
conduct interviews and examine records, but he could not
provide an estimate regarding a completion date. He said
investigators have not examined e-mails from the magistrate’s
office but might at some point in the investigation to “cover
the bases.”
Frederick said investigators have not conducted
a full forensic audit of the magistrate’s office, which would
require the seizure of documents needed to keep the office
functioning.
“A forensic audit would have shut that office
down,” he said. “That office is more critical to the county
than most people understand. Shut that court down and criminal
justice in this county stops.”
Eighth Judicial Circuit
Solicitor Jerry Peace said this week that he would not comment
on the investigation but, in an earlier interview with The
Index-Journal, said that because of the close relationship
between his office and the magistrate’s office, he might refer
the case to the South Carolina Attorney General’s Office when
his office receives all case reviews.
Chief Magistrate Joe
Cantrell refused to take a reporter’s phone call about the
situation in April, having the secretary instead advise the
caller to contact the county manager. Cantrell did not return
a phone message left at his office on Tuesday.
Greenwood
County Manager Jim Kier said the magistrate’s office had
“lost” at least one employee, but he did not provide the name
of the employee.
“(The magistrate’s office) is doing OK,
and we will take steps to make sure there is proper staffing
in the office, even if we have to move people in from other
departments that are familiar with the bookkeeping,” Kier
said, adding that the county would coordinate resources to
make sure the office can continue functioning. “The county, as
a whole, has an obligation to see that things continue on
their own. We are concerned that things function
properly.”
Kier said magistrate’s office employees are paid
through a combination of fees collected through the department
and public tax money.
Dee Compton, chairman of Greenwood
County Council’s Justice Committee, updated the full council
on the magistrate’s office situation Tuesday night during the
full council’s regular meeting. Council agreed to conduct a
called meeting 10 a.m. Thursday to address magistrate’s office
issues.
“As you all are aware — sadly aware — the Justice
Committee has been working with the solicitor’s and sheriff’s
offices. We met before the first arrest was made to talk about
the issues,” Compton said. “It’s an unbelievable service the
sheriff’s office is doing. Their work is ongoing and it is
premature to have anything specific to say about
it.”
County Council Chairman Robbie Templeton said Compton
updated him about the magistrate’s office situation before the
full council meeting.
The Justice Committee expects to have
a recommendation for the full council related to the
magistrate’s office by Thursday, Compton said. “We do not want
to interfere with their investigation,” he said.
According
to the Greenwood County Web site, magistrates are responsible
for issuing warrants, setting bonds and hearing criminal,
traffic and civil cases. The office also conducts preliminary
hearings and transfer cases for the county, and the office’s
criminal jurisdiction is for cases with a maximum fine of $500
and/or 30 days in jail, the site says.
The Web site says
magistrates are named to four-year terms by the governor on
advice and consent of the state Senate, and they have to pass
a certification examination within a year of their
appointment. They are subject to rules of conduct that also
bind circuit court judges, according to the site.
The South
Carolina Court Administration supervises the administration of
the state’s various courts, including magistrates offices, and
the support personnel related to those courts, according to
its Web site. It also collects caseload information and
activity statistics on the operation of those
courts.
Rosalyn Frierson, director of Court Administration
with the South Carolina Judicial Department, said her
department does not perform audits of financial records from
county magistrate’s offices. Frierson said Court
Administration sees composite financial information from the
magistrate’s offices, but that information is not meant to be
audited, but instead used to help people such as legislators
find out how fee collections are being broken down by
county.
Court Administration generally handles procedural
issues dealing with magistrate’s offices.
Greenwood County
Chief Magistrate Joe Cantrell called Court Administration when
Greenwood County Sheriff’s Office deputies and State Law
Enforcement Division agents showed up at the local
magistrate’s office last month and demanded
records.
Frierson said Cantrell did not need Court
Administration authority to release the records, but she said
it was not wrong or unusual for him to make the
call.
Frierson said Court Administration always has
“concern and interest” when cases such as this come to its
attention, and she said the agency would consider looking into
additional training for judges. Judges already are required to
take part in continual legal education each year, she said,
and part of that education is ethics training.
Frierson
said each county treasurer is responsible for reporting
financial information from magistrate’s offices to the state
treasurer, and any audits of magistrate’s offices would take
place on the county level.
Greenwood County Treasurer Ken
Spate said the magistrate’s office is included in an annual
audit by local, independent auditors and that information is
used to complete a form required for the state treasurer’s
office. Spate said he could not comment on whether any recent
audits unveiled the missing funds from the magistrate’s
office.
Some information for this article came from a
Greenwood County Sheriff’s Office press release.
| |
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
