Fund Losses

• A bartender was counting money at the end of the evening.
• Two people entered the bar and ordered hamburgers.
• The bartender left the money unattended and went to the kitchen to prepare the order.
• When the bartender returned to the bar, the people had taken the money and left.

Board action: The fund loss was denied because the money was not kept secure at all times.

This fund loss could have been prevented if the organization’s employee had properly secured the funds before leaving the bar area.

• The bingo paymaster was getting money for a bingo occasion, carrying the money in an unsecured manner (unbound, unwrapped, and not in a money bag).
• Before returning to her station, she stopped at the concession counter. Someone came up behind her and took the money from her hand.
• The suspect ran outside and jumped into a vehicle at the side entrance. The getaway vehicle, driven by the paymaster’s (now ex-) boyfriend, hit several other vehicles as it sped away from the scene.

Board action: The fund loss was denied because of the lack of adequate security over cash and inventory within the premises.

• Paper pull-tab deposits “mysteriously” disappeared from a premises.
• The seller, who became a suspect, either failed to secure the money or remove the deposits that had been placed in a moneybag and secured overnight in the bar’s safe.
• Several people, both bar and organization employees, had access to the moneybag.

Board action: The fund loss was denied because of lack of adequate security over cash within the premises.

• The paper pull-tab seller closed the paper pulltab booth for the evening, following the organization’s internal control procedures.
• The paper pull-tab seller put the receipts into the organization’s safe.
• The paper pull-tab seller set the security alarm system before leaving the bar.
• Suspects entered the building, setting off the security alarm.
• The suspects removed the safe containing paper pull-tab receipts.

Board action: The fund loss was approved because the organization had used proper internal controls and a safe to ensure that assets were protected at all times.

• The suspect drove a vehicle into the rear door of the business to gain entry to the bar.
• The suspect removed the paper pull-tab dispensing machine from the premises.
• The suspect then drove off from the premises.

Board action: The Gambling Control Board approved the fund loss because the loss was beyond the organization’s control.

• The suspects used a pry bar to force open the back door of the premises.
• The suspects then pried open another door inside the premises, gaining access to the room containing a safe.
• The safe was cemented to the floor.
• The suspects removed the money from the unlocked safe. The safe was not damaged.

Board action: The Gambling Control Board denied the fund loss because the safe had been left unlocked. NOTE: Some organizations leave their safe unlocked during the day so bartenders and sellers have access to the cash when the owner or person who knows the combination is not at the premises. This is unacceptable internal controls. Money left in a safe must be kept secure at all times—so keep the safe locked.

• The organization used a keyed safe to secure the funds overnight.
• The paper pull-tab seller hid the key to the safe at night, so the day person could open the safe in the morning.
• The bar was burglarized. The suspects found the key to the safe, opened the safe, and removed the funds.

Board action: The fund loss was denied, because the organization hid the key to the safe on the premises and the suspects found it to remove the money. Hiding keys or combinations to the safe on the premises is an unsatisfactory internal control. This fund loss could have been prevented if the key to the safe had been secured off site.

• A suspect possibly hid in the bathroom at closing.
• The suspect took the money that was hidden in an unlocked cooler.

Board action: The fund loss was denied, because the organization hid the money instead of locking the money in a locked cabinet or safe.

• The bar was burglarized by a suspect who broke in through a door.
• The suspect took the money that was hidden in an unused oven in the storage room.

Board action: The fund loss was denied, because the organization hid the money instead of locking the money in a locked cabinet or safe.

• The bar was burglarized by breaking through a side door.
• All the bar machines were broken into. The suspects found the money bags containing the paper pull-tab receipts hidden in the storage room.

Board action: The fund loss was denied because the organization hid the money instead of locking the money in a safe.