Act and Intent

Two things generally determine employee theft: Act and Intent. These qualifiers show that a crime is truly being committed. The act of removing company merchandise or other property (without permission) causes a tangible loss. This provides a concrete dollar amount to attach to the theft. It provides a total for restitution or even criminal proceedings, if the case goes to court.

The reason why Intent is important is it provides for motive. It shows that this loss wasn’t just some operational error, or a mistake. Intent says “Hey! I meant to steal form you”! That is a critical distinction in a court of law. Did this person really mean to cause a loss? Often in employee theft investigations, time is spent determining the intent of the employee. Generally if (through employee theft) they benefited in some way, one can say that there is intent.

Sometimes an employee is terminated for theft even if they didn’t have any intention of stealing.  I know of an employee who gave a customer an item that was known to be defective and against policy to sell. They genuinely thought they were providing good customer service by not telling this customer they could not have the item.

Because the employee did not profit, (no intent) it is not a true employee theft case. Nevertheless, there is a zero tolerance for violating the company policy that no item is to leave the store without a corresponding sale. Because of that specific policy violation, the employee was coded for employee theft and dismissed.

In this particular scenario, no legal action or restitution was taken due to the circumstances. There was an act, but no intent to cause a loss. The employee regrettably learned a very difficult lesson in judgement.

For more information on employee theft , employee theft investigation or internal contact us or call 1.770.426.0547 – Atlanta Georgia