CT News Junkie

A Connecticut news site that understands the usual media offerings just…aren’t…enough.

Connecticut Won’t Prosecute Workers in D-SNAP Food Stamp Fraud Case

by | Aug 22, 2014 11:45am () Comments | Commenting has expired | Share

The Office of the Chief State’s Attorney has decided against pursuing criminal charges against any state employees or private citizens who received D-SNAP benefits they weren’t entitled to following Tropical Storm Irene in 2011.

Deputy Chief State’s Attorney Len Boyle said, “It ultimately came down to the allocation of resources.”

Boyle noted there were administrative and other remedies applied in the cases, such as disciplinary action against the state employees.

“All of these cases involved dollar amounts under $1,000,” Boyle said.

Click here to read more from the New Haven Register.

Share this story with others.

Share | |


(20) Archived Comments

posted by: StateEmployee | August 22, 2014  12:01pm

Before anybody gets in a tizzy, State Employees had, or are in the process of paying back the money to the state.

posted by: Salmo | August 22, 2014  12:14pm

I’m a retired State employee. So help me out here. These people either broke the law or they didn’t. Which is it?

posted by: ocoandasoc | August 22, 2014  12:53pm

This is very sad. The abuse of their State employment positions was a violation of the public trust that was far more serious than the dollar amounts involved. But, apparently, now that the outrage had died down there’ll be no consequences. So remember, foks, if it’s under $1,000 it;s okay to steal from the taxpayers you’re supposed to be serving.

posted by: art vandelay | August 22, 2014  2:38pm

art vandelay

Why am I not surprised. Wouldn’t want to upset the Democrat voting base come election time.

posted by: NoNonsense2014 | August 22, 2014  5:02pm

@StateEmployee: As a retired State employee, I am not impressed that the money is being paid back. A non-State employee would not escape prosecution simply by paying back ill-gotten benefits, and the fact that they are paying back the State is not the reason they’re not being prosecuted. And yes, Salmo, they did break the law. But please read the NHR story and try to understand the reasons given for not prosecuting. We’re talking hundreds of State employees, and the amount of work involved in proving financial fraud is immense, and there simply isn’t the staff to do it. And if, after doing all that work, it is not possible to prove intent, all that work would have been for naught. And people are always complaining that prosecutors are wasting their time going after this or that person when they should be going after the REAL bad guys. Even if there were enough evidence to arrest even half of these employees, most would likely get accelerated rehabilitation rather than a conviction anyway.

And for you other commenters, the decision not to prosecute has nothing to do with politics. With budget cuts and unfilled positions and not enough staff, it IS all about allocating resources. As a retired State employee, and having taken very seriously the position of public trust that carries with it, I am appalled that State employees abused a program meant to help those truly in need. I want to see them prosecuted. But I understand the reasons why the decision not to do so was made. I don’t like it, but I understand it.

posted by: DrHunterSThompson | August 22, 2014  5:32pm

Here’s the problem: no one torched off a fattie before they judged the folks that attempted to help their families. Chill, it’s no biggie - the non-empolyees skated away free, the employees got unpaid time off and have to make restitution.

Some got justice, some didn’t. Ain’t America a beautiful place?

Twist one up, it’s the weekend!


posted by: ASTANVET | August 22, 2014  7:51pm

How is receiving benefits you are not entitled to not a criminal act of fraud… what a JOKE we are… Where is the rule of law!?

posted by: dano860 | August 22, 2014  9:49pm

NoNon 2014, if they are repaying then they have admitted guilt. No problem, give them a month off w/out pay…no wait can’t do that, the union will always come to their protection. They always cover for the bottom feeders.
We are a pathetic State. When you allow criminals to go free w/out persecution you are condoning their actions. The next time I would expect twice as many to perpetrate the same fraud…and get away with it.

posted by: whatsprogressiveaboutprogressives? | August 22, 2014  10:57pm

Okay, so let me get this right: If I go down to my local bank and hand a teller a note telling her I am holding them up, get the money ,leave,arrive home, and now scared/concerned I might get caught,go back to the bank, turn the money in and all is good with no punishment. How about substitute the note with the traditional gun? Anyone say uncle yet?...(sounds of crickets chirping) You can’t make this up.

posted by: art vandelay | August 23, 2014  11:26am

art vandelay

When State employees were caught red handed, they should have been fired NO QUESTIONS ASKED!

posted by: NoNonsense2014 | August 23, 2014  2:41pm

@dano860: You say that if the employees are repaying the ill-gotten benefits, then they are admitting guilt. Yes, but that is administrative “guilt”, not criminal “guilt”. The standards are different, and I’m not sure that prosecutors could use an administrative action as proof of guilt in a criminal court. And as for your suggestion of a “month off w/out pay”, again, that is an administrative action. And I believe that that has happened. All except four who were terminated were rehired as a result of arbitration—basically, the State was forced to rehire them—but they were subjected to substantial suspensions without pay in addition to having to repay the benefits they received. So, although they will not be prosecuted criminally, they did not “get off”. And, by the way, even if they were arrested and charged, the vast majority (if not all) would be facing only misdemeanor charges, and would almost certainly get accelerated rehabilitation (which means no conviction, no criminal record).

posted by: SocialButterfly | August 23, 2014  3:09pm

Who said “Crime Does Not Pay?”
It’s legal in Connecticut, and a legal precident for more thievery at taxpayer expense. More costly fruits of Malloyism. Our govenment is only as good as the people we elect to control it.

posted by: Joebigjoe | August 23, 2014  6:36pm

It was Bush’s fault.

Seriously this one creates a great opportunity for Foley. He should speak out about this and say that if he were Governor each one of these people would get a non-paid 30 day suspension. 95% of Connecticut would agree with him as many would have actually wanted more.

posted by: Moboss | August 24, 2014  10:38pm

As much as I can’t stand Malloy you can’t blame him for not prosecuting. He tried to fire them all but they were union employees. Also they all didn’t receive the same suspensions but I believe 30 days was the minimum and they were unpaid. One more thing, you can’t compare this to stealing from your employer because D-SNAP was a federal program and they were state employees.

posted by: SocialButterfly | August 25, 2014  8:33am

Malloy only wanted the votes from these on-the-job embezzler’s. so he gave them a free pass to steal.
We once had “Honest Abe” Ribicoff as governor, now we have “It’s OK to steal Malloy” tryng to stay in office banking on his quest of getting the votes of his conceived hope he can cash in on his desperate notion of the poor morality of the Connecticut voter’s, which may bomerang against him on Election Day

posted by: dano860 | August 25, 2014  8:56am

What in heavens name is that!?
Under that premise Michael Sharpe of the Jumoke School should have never been canned. He only lied on his resume. Many others are also been relieved of their positions when they have been caught lying on their resumes. Not when you’re in the employment of the State though, they even rehire the liars. More union strong arm tactics, more supporting the bottom of the employee chain.
Under your method of applying the law we should absolve and abolish all ‘misdemeanor crimes’. They aren’t real crimes. That would sure save us a bunch of cash in the courts. Heck, we could have our children steal candy instead of paying for it, after all that’s only a misdemeanor ‘event’!!
Admit it they are thief’s!

posted by: mmal231294 | August 26, 2014  9:18am

Wow. You thought the lines were long last time(for emergency SNAP benes)?!? Next time we offer them up, there will be a stampede! Why not. SMH.

posted by: NoNonsense2014 | August 26, 2014  10:26am

@dano860: When you fail to read and comprehend what someone has written before spouting off, your “reply” comes off sounding like illogical nonsense.

posted by: Greg | August 26, 2014  10:50am

Federal False Claim Act? If the Feds care enough they have ample opportunity to investigate.

posted by: Moboss | August 28, 2014  12:01pm

No ABC, I was just pointing out that it shouldn’t be compared to stealing from your employer. I never said they should be exempt from following the law. And they didn’t use their position to do it. They applied the same as people not working for the state did.

Social Networks We Use

Connecticut Network


Our Partners

Sponsored Messages