Bulletin HASKINS & SELLS 19
Another Cash Case
AN extremely interesting case has just
come to light involving an irregularity
in cash. The interest lies chiefly in the
boldness of the embezzler and the simplicity
of the audit procedure which would
have detected the defalcation.
The shortage occurred at the plant of a
manufacturing company. The company
in question maintained a general office in
a large city, where the general books were
kept. The plant, where the manufacturing
operations were carried on, was located in a
small town in another state.
The plant received money from sales,
which it deposited in a local bank, subject
only to checks drawn by the main office.
The plant itself was supplied with working
funds by means of an imprest fund of $7,-
500, reimbursed, when necessary, by checks
sent from the general office. It was in
connection with this fund that the irregularity
occurred—an embezzlement of nearly
$14,000 over a period of less than two
years.
The imprest fund normally consisted of
cash in hand, cash on deposit in a separate
bank account operated as a part of the
fund, and vouchers representing payments
for expenses not yet reimbursed by the
home office. At times there was the additional
item of cash in transit, consisting of
expense vouchers being remitted to the
