|
MALTREATMENT INVESTIGATION MEMORANDUM Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 1 states, “The legislature declares that the public policy of this state is to protect adults who, because of physical or mental disability or dependency on institutional services, are particularly vulnerable to maltreatment.”
License Number and Program Type: 1070491-H_CRS (Home and Community-Based Services-Community Residential Setting) Investigator(s): Scott Brandt/Jamie Randall 651-431-6556 Suspected Maltreatment Reported: It was reported that a vulnerable adult (VA) went to make a purchase, but the VA had insufficient funds in the VA's bank account. A facility staff person went to the VA’s bank with the VA and discovered there was over $620 withdrawn at multiple ATMs and $300 in unknown online charges on the VA’s bank statement. Date of Incident(s): Prior to March 11, 2025 Nature of Alleged Maltreatment Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, section 626.557, subdivision 9c, paragraph (b), and Minnesota Statutes, section 626.5572, subdivision 15, and subdivision: In the absence of legal authority a person willfully uses, withholds, or disposes of funds or property of a vulnerable adult. Summary of Findings: Pertinent information for this investigation was obtained remotely, including documentation from the facility and law enforcement records; and through six interviews conducted with two staff persons (the SP and P5), two facility managers (P1 and P2), the VA’s case manager (CM), and the VA’s guardian (G). The VA was reached by phone and declined to answer questions from this investigator but did provide information to law enforcement and for the facility’s internal review. The VA enjoyed playing video games and riding his/her bike. The VA diagnoses included disruptive mood deregulation disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, intermittent explosive disorder, and major depression. The VA’s Individual Abuse Prevention Plan stated that the VA was susceptible to financial exploitation. The facility supported three individuals including the VA. The VA’s cash and debit card were stored in a cabinet in the staff office. The cabinet had a few shelves including one for a three-ring binder where receipts for the VA’s purchases were stored and one for a lockbox where the VA’s cash and debit card were stored. The staff office was accessible to all facility staff persons. The facility’s Safeguarding Individual Financial Resources and Property policy stated that all purchases made with an account must have a receipt to verify the expense. If cash was needed, it would be withdrawn from the account using a check made out to the financial institution where the account was located. Staff were required to use a cash tracking record to account for all cash spent. A review of the bank statements showed the following purchases for which there were not receipts and were not normal purchases for the VA to make. (Note: the bank statements showed the date that a transaction cleared on the bank account but did not show the actual transaction date.): · ATM Withdrawals that totaled $630 with fees on some ATM withdrawals that totaled $10.50: o Kwik Trip in St. Croix, MN for $80, $100, and $200 on March 4, 5, and 6, 2025, respectively. o Woodlands in Hinckley, MN for $204 and a fee of $3.50 on March 10, 2025. (Note: a google search for the address listed on the transaction showed that the address was for Grand Casino Hinckley.) o Wells Fargo in Pine City, MN for $23 and a fee of $3.50 on March 10, 2025. o US Bank ATM at a Holiday store in Pine City, MN for $23 and a fee of $3.50 on March 10, 2025. · Online purchases that totaled $252.42: o Google for $26.83 and $10.73 on March 6 and 10, 2025. o “B2 service” for $14.99, $19.99, and $19.99 on March 10, 2025. o “B2 US” for $19.99 on March 10, 2025. o “Www.zulaca” for $29.99 and $29.99 on March 10, 2025. (Note: a google search for “zulaca” showed that “Zula Casino” was a website that offered “casino style games” to play.) o “Sportszino” for $19.98, $19.98, $19.98, and $19.98 on March 12, 2025. (Note: a google search for “Sportzino” showed that Sportzino was an online sportsbook and casino.) o “Crown Coin” for $19.99, $19.99, and $9.99 on March 12, 2025. (Note: a google search for “crown coin” showed that “Crown Coins Casino” was a website that offered “casino style games” to play.) P2 provided the following information to this investigator and for the facility’s internal review: · On March 3, 2025, the VA received a new debit card. The facility kept the VA’s debit card in the staff office to avoid it being lost or stolen. The VA asked for the card to go shopping. The internal review noted that the facility “suspected” that the VA gave the card to the SP, who did not return the debit card to the staff office but did not detail why this was “suspected.” At the time there was not a sign out sheet for the debit card, so it was not able to be determined when the card was moved from the office. · On March 11, 2025, P1 contacted P2 and said that the VA’s debit card declined a purchase, and s/he went to the bank to get a statement. The bank statement showed ATM and other purchases that the VA denied making. The VA made “consistent” purchases, and the ATM withdrawals and online purchases were not purchases the VA had made in the past. On March 12, 2025, P1 cancelled the VA’s debit card. · On March 14, 2025, P2 went to the facility to speak with the VA. The VA was “not happy” to see P2 and said that s/he did not want to talk with P2. P2 went to the staff office where P1 informed him/her that the VA had a “long” interview with a law enforcement officer (LEO) prior to when P2 arrived at the facility. The VA entered the staff office and agreed to speak with P2 if P1 was also present. The VA said, “No,” when asked if s/he gave permission for anyone to use his/her debit card. P1 asked if the VA had any cash and if s/he asked anyone to get him/her cash and the VA replied, “No, I don’t have any cash and now I can’t use my card.” P1 asked the VA if s/he had any questions, and the VA asked if the SP was “going to be in trouble?” P1 explained that the SP was no longer going to be working at the facility and the VA responded, “If the police don’t stop coming to the [facility], I’m going to drop charges against [the SP].” P1 explained to the VA that the LEO would no longer be investigating the VA’s missing money to which the VA replied, “I wish I could steal $1,000 dollars and get away with it.” · If the VA needed cash, staff persons were to assist the VA by withdrawing cash “directly from the bank” and not to use a debit card to withdraw from an ATM. The VA provided the following information to the LEO and for the facility’s internal review: · On Saturday March 1, 2025, the VA was making a purchase at Holiday gas station and noticed the SP looking over the VA’s shoulder when the VA was entering his/her PIN number. The VA asked the SP, “What are you doing?” and the SP replied, “I was just wondering what your PIN was?” When the SP and the VA got back into the van, the VA and the SP argued about the SP looking over the VA’s shoulder to see the PIN number being entered. The VA knew his/her PIN number but did not share that with staff persons. The VA said that if s/he were to ask staff persons to get money out of an ATM, that s/he would get a “lecture” from his/her guardian and would be “in trouble.” · On March 4, 2025, the SP left the facility “around 8 p.m.” in the facility van and told the other staff person working that s/he would be back. The SP was not allowed to drive the facility vehicle. The VA played video games in the basement while the SP was gone. · The VA told the LEO that s/he had not been to a casino in “a year and a half” and did not gamble “that much” as s/he did not like gambling. When the VA went to the casino “a year and half ago” it was to play bingo with another facility resident. The VA would go the casino on his/her birthday but would mostly go swimming and not gamble. The facility’s logbook for outings showed that the VA had gone to Grand Casino Hinckley on March 6, 2025. The VA denied going to the casino on March 6, 2025. The LEO went over transactions from the VA’s bank statement and asked about the “casino” and “sports betting” purchases. The VA said the s/he “did not know” what sports betting was and denied using funds for sports betting. The VA said that the SP would have “sports gambling” and “casino slots” on his/her phone. The VA told the LEO that P4 “knew” about the SP having these on his/her phone. The VA showed the LEO his/her phone and went through applications and an internet browser. The phone did not appear to have any of the casino apps or websites on the browser. · When the LEO asked the VA about the VA’s debit card going missing, the VA told the LEO that s/he “did not want to press charges anymore as the investigation was taking too long.” The LEO told the VA that things take time to “figure everything out.” The LEO asked the VA again about the card going missing and the VA said that P3 told him/her that it was gone on the night of March 5, 2025. P1 provided the following information to this investigator and law enforcement: · On March 11, 2025, the VA attempted to purchase a video game system, and his/her debit card was declined with insufficient funds. When the VA arrived back at the facility, P1 and the VA went to the VA’s bank to get a bank statement. The statement showed that since March 3, 2025, there had been multiple ATM withdrawals totaling about $620 and online purchases totaling about $300. Upon returning to the facility, P1 looked through the VA’s receipts and could not find receipts for the online purchases or for the ATM transactions. On March 12, 2025, P1 cancelled the VA’s debit card and filed a claim for unauthorized or fraudulent purchases with the VA’s bank. · The LEO provided P1 with two pictures of the SP withdrawing money from an ATM at a Kwik Trip near the VA’s home (Note: One picture of the SP was dated March 4, 2025, at 8:25 p.m. and shows the SP at an ATM inside the Kwik Trip and another picture of the SP at the front counter of the Kwik Trip that did not have a date or time stamp). The SP told the LEO that the VA asked the SP to withdraw the money from the ATM for the VA. The SP told the LEO that the VA called P1 and P1 gave permission for the VA to use the debit card to get cash from an ATM. P1 denied giving permission for the VA’s debit card to be used to get cash out of an ATM. On March 14, 2025, the LEO sent P1 a text message that the investigation was inconclusive as there was too much contradictory information. · The VA’s cash and debit card were stored in the staff office. If the VA wanted to make a purchase, staff would assist the VA by getting the VA’s cash and/or debit card from the staff office. When a purchase was made by the VA, the staff person would write the date and their initials on the receipt and then put the receipt in a three-ring binder that was stored in the staff office. P1 would balance the VA’s checking account with a checkbook register and would create a ledger for cash purchases using the receipts from the three-ring binder. If the VA needed cash, staff persons would have a check written out and get cash from the bank. The VA’s debit card was not to be used to withdraw cash from an ATM or the bank. The VA knew the personal identification number (PIN) for his/her debit card, but that PIN number was not available to staff. If the VA wanted to make an online purchase, a “Visa gift card” would be purchased as the VA’s debit card was not supposed to be used for online transactions. The VA had made several transactions to online websites in the past, including “Doordash.” The VA was on a budget of $150 per week due to the VA’s “excessive” spending. · The VA did not have a Steam account to P1’s knowledge. The VA had a PlayStation and Xbox but did not have a computer or an iPad. P5 provided the following information: · The VA’s debit card was stored in a locked staff office to keep the VA “on budget” as the VA did not know how much to save and would spend any funds s/he had. “Certain” staff persons knew the VA’s PIN in addition to the VA. When on outings, staff persons held onto the VA’s card and gave it the VA when s/he wanted to make a purchase. · In what P5 thought was August 2025, the VA had a “couple” $300 transactions for CashApp on the VA’s bank statement. P5 said that the VA did not have a CashApp account, so it was unknown where the funds went (Note: A review of bank statements showed that there were several CashApp transactions in July 2025 with no name on the transactions. The transactions were disputed, and the VA was reimbursed). · The VA had a Steam account and a personal computer, Xbox, and PlayStation. The VA played games on the various platforms “all the time.” The VA would purchase games on his/her Steam account using a Steam card that the VA would purchase from a store. P5 did not think that the VA used his/her debit card to purchase Steam games but “could have” if the VA had his/her debit card. The VA used his/her debit card to make online transactions in the past that included “Apple Play” and “Google Play” stores. P3 told the LEO that on March 4, 2025, P3 came in for an overnight shift and the SP left the facility in the facility van. P3 did not see the SP leave as s/he was in the staff office and “noticed” that the SP came back to the facility in the facility van. P3 was unsure of the amount of time the SP was gone as s/he did not see the SP leave and when the SP returned, P3 did not “look at a clock.” P3 did not see if anyone else left with the SP and was unsure if anyone left with the SP. P3 told the LEO that s/he did not know why the VA would say that s/he told him that his/her debit card was missing. On an unknown date a “long time ago” on an overnight shift, the VA asked P3 for his/her debit card. P1 gave permission for P3 to let the VA use his/her debit card. P4 told the LEO that s/he had no knowledge of the SP having “sports gambling” or “casino games” on the SP’s personal phone. The G provided the following information: · The VA could be “deceitful” to get his/her way and may not always be truthful. · The VA was not allowed to use an ATM or make online purchases due to “little impulse control.” The facility limited the VA’s spending to $150 a week. The VA was “tech savvy” and could make online purchases if s/he had his/her debit card in his/her possession. The CM said that the VA was allotted a certain amount of money per month but was not sure of the amount. The VA can have a “distorted” view of things and may not understand “the whole picture.” The VA wanted to move from the facility and was “upset” since s/he had not moved. The SP provided the following information to this investigator and law enforcement: · The SP told the LEO and this investigator that they got money out of the ATM on numerous occasions using the VA’s debit card when the VA requested the SP to get money for the VA. The SP told the LEO that s/he withdrew $80 out of an ATM at Kwik Trip on March 4, 2025, and put $100 dollars onto a prepaid card for the VA. The SP put the money onto a prepaid card for the VA so the VA could purchase games on his/her Xbox or PlayStation with a Steam card. The SP said that the Steam cards the VA used to purchase games could not be purchased with a debit card and the VA used cash to purchase them. On an unknown date, the SP took the VA and another resident on a bike ride. The VA wanted cash to buy a PlayStation, and the SP told the VA s/he needed to ask P1. The SP said that s/he and the VA had already called P1 “a bunch of times that day” when asked what P1 said when the VA called for permission to get money out of an ATM. The SP, the VA, and the other resident went to a local Kwik Trip. The SP went inside the store while the VA and the other resident stayed outside as the SP did not want to take the other resident inside. The SP withdrew $200 from an ATM and left the store. The SP gave the $200 that s/he withdrew from the ATM to the VA and assumed that the VA was going to purchase the PlayStation the “following day or something.” The SP said that s/he put all the receipts for the VA purchases in the “receipts book” in the staff office. The SP said that s/he withdrew money from ATMs for the VA “five times or something” in the last “six months.” · On an unknown date, the VA asked the SP for his/her debit card to make a purchase on the VA’s phone and when the SP went to help enter the information, the VA’s debit card information was already on the VA’s phone. The SP did not know why the VA’s debit card information was on the VA’s phone. · The VA’s cash and debit cards were stored in the staff office which only staff persons could access. If the VA needed cash, staff persons would call P1 and get approval to get money out of an ATM for the VA. The SP said P1 had given him/her permission to use the VA’s debit card to get cash out of an ATM even though it was against “house rules” to use a debit card to withdraw money from an ATM. The SP said that “house rules” would be “flexed” by P1. P1’s approval of purchases made by the VA would be “different every time” as sometimes purchases would need to be approved by P1 and sometimes the VA could get whatever s/he wanted without approval. This was dependent on how much the VA spent on a specific day and how much an item was but did not specify how much an item would have to be to require approval from P1. The SP knew the VA’s PIN number because s/he was given "access to all this stuff” by P1. The SP told P1 that s/he was “concerned” that the VA’s debit card was accessible to all staff. · The SP denied taking any money from the VA and denied using the VA’s debit card to make online purchases for him/herself. Review of personnel records showed that the SP, P1, P2 and P5 were all trained on the Maltreatment of Vulnerable Adults Act and the Safeguarding Individual Financial Resources and Property policy. Conclusion: On March 11, 2025, the VA went to purchase a “PlayStation,” and his/her debit card was declined with insufficient funds. P1 and the VA went to the VA’s bank and looked through a bank statement. There were several ATM transactions and online purchases that the VA denied making and/or denied asking anyone else to make on his/her behalf. The ATM transactions showed cleared dates of March 4, 2025, March 5, 2025, March 6, 2025, and three ATM transactions on March 10, 2025. The ATM transactions totaled $630 and there were transaction fees for three of the ATM withdrawals that totaled $10.50. The online purchases posted on March 6, 2025, March 10, 2025, and March 12, 2025. The total amount of the online transactions was $252.42. P1 looked through the VA’s receipts and could not find receipts for the transactions. P1 cancelled the VA’s debit card on March 12, 2025. The SP told the LEO and this investigator that they got money out of the ATM on numerous occasions using the VA’s debit card when the VA requested the SP to get money for the VA. The SP said that the VA would get permission from P1 to use the VA’s debit card to get cash out of an ATM. This was against “house rules” but the SP said P1 gave him/her permission to use the VA’s debit card to get cash out of an ATM for the VA. The SP said that s/he knew the VA’s PIN number as they were given “access to all this stuff.” P1 and the VA said that the PIN number associated with the VA’s debit card was not information that was accessible to all staff but P5 said the PIN number was known by “certain” staff persons. The facility determined that $892.92 of the VA’s funds were used in ATM transactions, ATM fees, and online purchases that were unexplained with no receipts. The SP admitted to using the VA’s debit card to get cash which the SP said was either given to the VA or used to purchase a prepaid card and then given to the VA. However, although the SP had reason to minimize his/her actions, given that the SP denied using the VA’s funds for him/herself, that there was inconsistent information regarding who knew the VA’s PIN and if the VA asked for the card from staff and used it to make purchases, that the VA had a history of making online transactions when s/he had their debit card in his/her possession, that the VA could be unreliable with information at times, and that there was not a mechanism in place to track who had or when the VA’s debit card was taken out of the staff office, there was not a preponderance of the evidence whether the VA’s funds were used by a staff person in the absence of legal authority. Action Taken by Facility: The facility completed an internal review and determined that policies and procedures were adequate but not followed by the SP. The facility added a sign out sheet for staff to utilize with the VA’s card. The SP no longer worked at the facility. Action Taken by Department of Human Services, Office of Inspector General: No further action taken.
|
