3 ms·

> they're being charged for embezzling public funds to construct housing for themselves Did they actually "construct housing for themselves" though? They never

> they're being charged for embezzling public funds to construct housing for themselves Did they actually "construct housing for themselves" though? They never owned said housing, I think at all times it remained the property of their employer, and I assume all their use of it only occurred while they remained employees. Now they are no longer employees, they no longer have access to that housing, whereas their employer is free to use it as they see fit. If they'd used public funds to pay for the renovation of their own privately owned residence, that would be a very clearcut case of what you are talking about. I think this case is not clearcut.

hunter2_ 3y ago
The public is damaged in nearly identical fashion regardless of whether the housing is used by a specific person/family forever, is handed down to some remaining employee, is on public land, is on private land, or is ripped out and tossed in the trash. In all cases, the public paid for something that returns no value to them, and the party responsible should make the damaged party whole.
- londons_explore 3y ago
  Plenty of employers build apartments for their staff. For example a little bed and kitchen so the on-site security guard can sleep overnight but still be on site. Many jobs require a human nearby all the time, but there is no need for them to be actively working. If someone else was on duty at that site next week, then that person would be staying in the apartment. I suspect that is what these were. So the only real crime is violation of zoning laws.
  - yuliyp 3y ago
    > I suspect that is what these were. This is not the case. They did this without anyone else's knowledge or approval. They were used only by the conspirators.
    - skissane 3y ago
      > They did this without anyone else's knowledge or approval. They were used only by the conspirators But now the employer knows about it, they should be able to make these facilities available to any of their employees or contractors who might be able to use them, in a way which could benefit the employer. For example, if someone has to work overtime in an emergency, allowing them to stay the night in one of these apartments could allow them to save commuting time and be better rested for the next day, which could improve performance (and reduce safety risks due to tiredness). Or, if someone needs to be rostered on-call to respond to unexpected events, having them stay in one of these apartments may improve their response time if they are called in
      - infecto 3y ago
        The hurdles to get over to reach this logic path is amazing. They used employers funds without approval to build something that benefited themselves. Sure, it happened on employer property but without any type of approval. That is theft, let us not try to come up with complicated explanations to say its not theft.
      - yuliyp 3y ago
        This is the classic "oh I was only borrowing it / gonna give that back" excuse of thieves who got caught with new window dressing.
  - dmurray 3y ago
    I can't imagine this would violate zoning laws if the employer did it and declared it it as a temporary structure for construction staff. And the expense wouldn't have raised an eyebrow for the agency reviewing the construction contract. Maybe some permitting laws - should someone have signed off on the kitchenette being properly vented, etc. This is an employee slacking off to build a side project that will be owned by to the company, but mostly has value for himself. Which wouldn't normally be a criminal matter, but the laws are (correctly) stricter about doing this kind of thing with public funds.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > So the only real crime is violation of zoning laws. Caltrain is a government agency – it is incorporated by its three member counties under the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act, which enables two or more public agencies to agree to create a new jointly controlled agency, and delegate some of their powers to it. As such, do zoning laws actually apply to Caltrain? I don't know the answer to that question, but I wouldn't assume the answer is necessarily "Yes". Zoning laws are primarily targeted at private actors (private corporations and individuals) and government agencies are not always bound by them. It is true that the work these Caltrain employees were doing was not authorised by upper management, but they were making improvements to Caltrain property and using Caltrain funds to do so, so most likely they still legally count as acts of Caltrain.
  - mcmcmc 3y ago
    No, the crime is still embezzlement. It does not matter what they were intended for if they were constructed with public funds taken without approval.
- prmoustache 3y ago
  Public got in exchange well rested worker closer to their place of work, and thus probably more efficient because of that. How is that worse than the management having too much space in their office than needed or leather covered office chair?
kragen 3y ago
yes, i agree
CPLX 3y ago
A common legal synonym for the concept of theft is "conversion" which is illustrative. The act of stealing doesn't require the property to be consumed or destroyed. Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)
dfxm12 3y ago
Embezzling is the important word in that sentence. If the money wasn't specifically meant for this, it could be proven to be embezzlement & what you're talking about would have no bearing on that.
onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
Embezzle (verb) - steal or misappropriate. You do not need to steal money from your employer and deposit it into your savings account to embezzle. Anything that is a misuse of company money is technically embezzlement. If you use company money meant to upgrade your computer to build a fancy aquarium on your desk instead, that's technically embezzlement. So would using company money to build a kitchen in your office - even if that's technically improving the company's property.
- skissane 3y ago
  > Anything that is a misuse of company money is technically embezzlement. > If you use company money meant to upgrade your computer to build a fancy aquarium on your desk instead, that's technically embezzlement. I knew this (now retired) public agency executive who couldn’t get enough money in her budget to keep the lights on, but the board was much more willing to fund new projects. Her solution? She’d get funding for all these new projects, use that to hire all these contractors, and quietly direct them to spend 50%+ of their time on “keeping the lights on” but bill 100% to the project. For example, funds appropriated for an identity management project paid for a network engineer who was supposed to configure the firewalls and load balancers for that project, but the project also paid for the weeks he spent upgrading outdated network switches in office buildings even though that had no logical connection with identity management. To my knowledge she never got in any trouble; on the contrary, I’m led to believe that “budget hacks” like hers are common in the public sector, and a lot of public agencies would just utterly collapse without them. Whereas, one of her underlings ended up in prison, because (apparently unbeknownst to her) he was awarding sham contracts to a company controlled by his friend. I think a big difference is the enterprise actually benefited from her redirection of funds, whereas it got absolutely zero out of his. I think these employees do have a problem in they appropriated company property such that the direct immediate benefit was solely to themselves. If they’d appropriated it in a way which benefited other employees as opposed to just themselves personally, I think that would have made it much harder to prosecute. The same public agency, there was an internal dispute over whether it was appropriate to use public funds to pay for expensive (>$1000) coffee machines for staff break rooms - other divisions were doing it, she insisted hers couldn’t because it would be a misuse of those funds. But as far as I know the divisions which did do that never got in any legal or other trouble. The managers who requisitioned these expensive coffee machines shared the benefit of them with their teams. I think she was more afraid of the press and politicians than the law but the press and politicians never found out (or else maybe they did but just decided they had bigger fish to fry than coffee machines)

hunter2_ 3y ago

The public is damaged in nearly identical fashion regardless of whether the housing is used by a specific person/family forever, is handed down to some remaining employee, is on public land, is on private land, or is ripped out and tossed in the trash. In all cases, the public paid for something that returns no value to them, and the party responsible should make the damaged party whole.

londons_explore 3y ago
Plenty of employers build apartments for their staff. For example a little bed and kitchen so the on-site security guard can sleep overnight but still be on site. Many jobs require a human nearby all the time, but there is no need for them to be actively working. If someone else was on duty at that site next week, then that person would be staying in the apartment. I suspect that is what these were. So the only real crime is violation of zoning laws.
- yuliyp 3y ago
  > I suspect that is what these were. This is not the case. They did this without anyone else's knowledge or approval. They were used only by the conspirators.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > They did this without anyone else's knowledge or approval. They were used only by the conspirators But now the employer knows about it, they should be able to make these facilities available to any of their employees or contractors who might be able to use them, in a way which could benefit the employer. For example, if someone has to work overtime in an emergency, allowing them to stay the night in one of these apartments could allow them to save commuting time and be better rested for the next day, which could improve performance (and reduce safety risks due to tiredness). Or, if someone needs to be rostered on-call to respond to unexpected events, having them stay in one of these apartments may improve their response time if they are called in
    - infecto 3y ago
      The hurdles to get over to reach this logic path is amazing. They used employers funds without approval to build something that benefited themselves. Sure, it happened on employer property but without any type of approval. That is theft, let us not try to come up with complicated explanations to say its not theft.
    - yuliyp 3y ago
      This is the classic "oh I was only borrowing it / gonna give that back" excuse of thieves who got caught with new window dressing.
- dmurray 3y ago
  I can't imagine this would violate zoning laws if the employer did it and declared it it as a temporary structure for construction staff. And the expense wouldn't have raised an eyebrow for the agency reviewing the construction contract. Maybe some permitting laws - should someone have signed off on the kitchenette being properly vented, etc. This is an employee slacking off to build a side project that will be owned by to the company, but mostly has value for himself. Which wouldn't normally be a criminal matter, but the laws are (correctly) stricter about doing this kind of thing with public funds.
- skissane 3y ago
  > So the only real crime is violation of zoning laws. Caltrain is a government agency – it is incorporated by its three member counties under the California Joint Exercise of Powers Act, which enables two or more public agencies to agree to create a new jointly controlled agency, and delegate some of their powers to it. As such, do zoning laws actually apply to Caltrain? I don't know the answer to that question, but I wouldn't assume the answer is necessarily "Yes". Zoning laws are primarily targeted at private actors (private corporations and individuals) and government agencies are not always bound by them. It is true that the work these Caltrain employees were doing was not authorised by upper management, but they were making improvements to Caltrain property and using Caltrain funds to do so, so most likely they still legally count as acts of Caltrain.
- mcmcmc 3y ago
  No, the crime is still embezzlement. It does not matter what they were intended for if they were constructed with public funds taken without approval.
prmoustache 3y ago
Public got in exchange well rested worker closer to their place of work, and thus probably more efficient because of that. How is that worse than the management having too much space in their office than needed or leather covered office chair?

kragen 3y ago

yes, i agree

CPLX 3y ago

A common legal synonym for the concept of theft is "conversion" which is illustrative. The act of stealing doesn't require the property to be consumed or destroyed. Relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conversion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_(law)

dfxm12 3y ago

Embezzling is the important word in that sentence. If the money wasn't specifically meant for this, it could be proven to be embezzlement & what you're talking about would have no bearing on that.

onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago

Embezzle (verb) - steal or misappropriate. You do not need to steal money from your employer and deposit it into your savings account to embezzle. Anything that is a misuse of company money is technically embezzlement. If you use company money meant to upgrade your computer to build a fancy aquarium on your desk instead, that's technically embezzlement. So would using company money to build a kitchen in your office - even if that's technically improving the company's property.

skissane 3y ago
> Anything that is a misuse of company money is technically embezzlement. > If you use company money meant to upgrade your computer to build a fancy aquarium on your desk instead, that's technically embezzlement. I knew this (now retired) public agency executive who couldn’t get enough money in her budget to keep the lights on, but the board was much more willing to fund new projects. Her solution? She’d get funding for all these new projects, use that to hire all these contractors, and quietly direct them to spend 50%+ of their time on “keeping the lights on” but bill 100% to the project. For example, funds appropriated for an identity management project paid for a network engineer who was supposed to configure the firewalls and load balancers for that project, but the project also paid for the weeks he spent upgrading outdated network switches in office buildings even though that had no logical connection with identity management. To my knowledge she never got in any trouble; on the contrary, I’m led to believe that “budget hacks” like hers are common in the public sector, and a lot of public agencies would just utterly collapse without them. Whereas, one of her underlings ended up in prison, because (apparently unbeknownst to her) he was awarding sham contracts to a company controlled by his friend. I think a big difference is the enterprise actually benefited from her redirection of funds, whereas it got absolutely zero out of his. I think these employees do have a problem in they appropriated company property such that the direct immediate benefit was solely to themselves. If they’d appropriated it in a way which benefited other employees as opposed to just themselves personally, I think that would have made it much harder to prosecute. The same public agency, there was an internal dispute over whether it was appropriate to use public funds to pay for expensive (>$1000) coffee machines for staff break rooms - other divisions were doing it, she insisted hers couldn’t because it would be a misuse of those funds. But as far as I know the divisions which did do that never got in any legal or other trouble. The managers who requisitioned these expensive coffee machines shared the benefit of them with their teams. I think she was more afraid of the press and politicians than the law but the press and politicians never found out (or else maybe they did but just decided they had bigger fish to fry than coffee machines)