Case of Organized Loot in Oakland County Sherriff’s Department

This case involves the organized loot of government funds in the Oakland County Sherriff’s Department. Mr. Anderson discovers that bonuses are being awarded to employees for no reason, and suspects a case of official kickback. He investigates further and finds evidence of misuse of funds and support of a mistress through charity work. The case presents an ethical dilemma for the employees, and Anderson decides to act as a whistleblower. The recommended alternative is to focus on recovery of public funds rather than punishment.

MANDATORY HEADINGS SECTION INSTRUCTIONS
I. NARRATIVE SUMMARY OF THE
CASE
The present case in the Oakland County Sherriff’s
department between Mr. Anderson and Mr. Marshall
gives us an account of the organized loot of
government’s exchequer and public funds. The case
comes into the light when Mr. Anderson receives the
news that he received a bonus from the side of the
department as a token of gratitude because of his good
work. Next day when he meets his senior and the head
of the department Mr. Marshall, Mr. Marshall requests
him to donate a substantial sum of this bonus to a charity
fund. He smelled a rat in this business when he figured
out that it is a common practice in this office.
A. Case Summary Element 1 of the case
Initially, it seems like an act of philanthropy, however,
after discussing this proposal with the others in the
department, he figures out that others Marshall has made
the same requests to the other employees as well.
Objective one of the case
Anderson took this proposal on a serious note and

started an investigation.
The outcome of the primary events
Under the true spirit of a detective working to find out
an organized crime scenario, Anderson discovers that on
most of the occasions the bonuses were awarded to the
employees for no reasons. Prima facie it appears as a
case of “official kickback.” However, he fails in finding
out the partners in crime or the methods.
Element two of the case
The second element of the case is the detection of the
crime and collection of the corroborative evidence.
Objective
Anderson was keen on collecting corroborative
evidence.
Outcome derived from the primary investigation
Anderson finds two half conclusive evidence when one
of the newly appointed female employees in the
department confess that she also received a bonus in the
first month of her service, however, Marshall told him to
pay back one-third of the bonus in direct cash with no

receipts. An in-depth study of the charity works done by
the department provides an idea to Anderson that
Marshall is actually supporting her mistress with the
help of charity work.
Objective 3 of the case
This situation presents an ethical dilemma in front of the
employees because they never did anything forcibly. It
was their choice to donate money. If we assume that
whatever Marshall has done is a crime, then it is a white-
collar crime and finding substantive evidence is always a
difficult task.
Outcome derived from the objective 3
Anderson decides to act like a whistleblower and reports
this issue to the FBI. FBI wants to make a case and they
need the testimonies of the employees to prove the guilt.
Since it is a white-collar crime, an investigator is bound
to face the challenge of fixing the ethical dilemma
associated with the subject. On a theoretical level, we
can see that offering bonuses to the employee is a
practice which comes under the provision of "good
faith." Marshall has never forced anybody to return this
money, he only requested others. The absence of the
force brings the burden on the guilt on the passive or

ignorant partners in the crime as well (Bruce, 1994).
B. Key Actors and Their Roles
On a theoretical level, it can be considered as the case of
organized loot where the key player Marshal is
siphoning the public money in the form of bonus. The
ethical dilemma of the employees lies in the fact that
none of them have ever refused the fruits because they
were also keeping a substantial part of the fruits that
were coming out of a Modus Operandi. They can be
considered as a dormant or negligent partner in the
crime. Mr. Anderson is playing the role of a
whistleblower and FBI is acting as the agency, the other
employees in the office can also be considered as
passive or dormant partners in the crime. However, their
guilt is confined to ignorance of negligence of a reality.
The newly appointed secretary, who gave money in
cash, can be considered as a prime witness in the case.
This is the only tangible proof that has in our hands
against Marshall. An audit report of the accounts can
also challenge the status of the mistress of Marshal in
the existing crime. An auditor can demand the money
back from her.

C. Central Problem(s)
Problem 1
The outbreak of this scam in the public, administrative
and legal domains can cause many internal and external
problems for an organization which is doing a fair job in
the terms of the disposition of its duty. It can trigger an
administrative collapse in the structure of the
organization. The peculiar fact associated with the crime
lies in the fact that most of the factions of the
organization are involved in corrupt practice and they
are not aware of it. The mastermind of this conspiracy
Marshall has a strong defense supporting him if Marshal
is doing something wrong the rest of the employees are
a dormant or active partner in the crime.
Problem 2
The second problem is associated with the nature of the
crime; allotment of a bonus on the merit of good tasks is
very common. There are no hard and fast barometers to
figure out the good or bad performance of a policeman.
They are risking their lives in every mission and facing
the threat of life almost on every step. Let's think in the

term of the punishment of this white-collar crime. In the
previous section, we made a point that additional money
given to the mistress of Marshal can be taken back as a
recovery. Auditors can prove this wrongdoing and force
the department to roll back the money. However, this
model cannot be applied to every kickback or the bonus.
It also means that we cannot apply the principle of parity
here, we are aware of the fact that the principle of parity
is a primary requisite of the law for delivering any
punishment.
II. IDENTIFICATION OF CASE
PROBLEM(S) AND ISSUE(S) AND
APPLICATION OF CORE COURSE
KNOWLEDGE TO THE RELATED
CASE PROBLEM(S) AND ISSUE(S)
Identification of the case problems from an ethical
perspective
Broadly on an ethical level, the administrative services
enjoy a relationship based on the ideologies where
certain practical aspects can be worked out to serve the
best interests of the community. While considering this
equation the present case gives us certain sets of ethical
problems that can be derived as under.
Case problem one and application of the theoretical
implications
All the problems presented in the case can be studied
Introduc
identifie
discuss
course c
process
materia

under the heading of “Breach of Trust.” The scope of
this breach of trust can be defined under certain
subheads.
1. The financial accountability
The office of sheriff conducts its affair with the help
of public money. The allocation of the bonus without
any proper reason attracts the charge of misuse of
the public fund.
2. Socio-economic accountability
Marshall used some of the funds in charitable tasks;
he presented strong reasons behind his choices. If the
auditors find that the utilization of the funds in the
charity was unjustified then it can be termed as a
misappropriation of the public funds.
3. A Breach under the purview of the “principle of
the legality”
Some of the acts done by the Marshal can be termed
as criminal acts where he received unsolicited direct
money from the other employees. It can attract
criminal charges on him under the provision of
“misuse of the post and power.”
4. A failure in establishing Democratic

answerability of a public servant
The hearing of the present case in the public
domain or legal domains can create the contest of
democratic answerability for Marshal as the
holder of the post.
III. ALTERNATIVES FOR ACTION
There are four ways to look at the imperative actions in
this case; Sherriff Marshal can be booked for the
imperative of integrity, imperative of accountability and
imperative of legality. The presence of these three
imperatives gives us three different courses of action.
Another course of action can also determine where we
can handle it as a complex case with strong tangents.
A. Alternative 1 The application of the law and the notion of the legality
can be practiced where the superior authorities can book
the chair holder and slap an investigation in the issue.
Since we are dealing with a dilemma of the employees
they cannot come up as direct evidence in the case
because they did everything under the oath of good
faith, we can always fix contradictory choices made by

the Marshal and bring him under the book.
B. Alternative 2
The involvement of the entire department in this alleged
fraud can bring in a collapse of the system and it can
cause chaos. In order to prevent this condition,
investigators can search for lapses in following the
rightful procedures and connect the fruits with the
culprits to bring them under the book.
C. Alternative 3
The presence of ethical vagueness in the process is
evident because there are many employees that received
a bonus for no reason. This lack of clarity can be cleared
up by considering it as a soft case for the department and
hard case for the mastermind involved in the case.
IV. SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE
Summary of The case
This the case of Sheriff Marshal who was believed to be
siphoning money from the department and using it for
personal gains. His colleague Anderson acted as a
whistleblower and brought the issue in broad daylight.
Anderson finds two half conclusive evidence when one

of the newly appointed female employees in the
department confesses that she also received a bonus in
the first month of her service, however, Marshall told
him to pay back one-third of the bonus in direct cash
with no receipts. An in-depth study of the charity works
done by the department provides an idea to Anderson
that Marshall is actually supporting her mistress with the
help of charity work.
Issues
1. The financial accountability
The office of sheriff conducts its affair with the help
of public money. The allocation of the bonus without
any proper reason attracts the charge of misuse of
the public fund.
2. Socio-economic accountability
Marshall used some of the funds in charitable tasks;
he presented strong reasons behind his choices. If the
auditors find that the utilization of the funds in the
charity was unjustified then it can be termed as a
misappropriation of the public funds.
3. A Breach under the purview of the “principle of
the legality”

Some of the acts done by the Marshal can be termed
as criminal acts where he received unsolicited direct
money from the other employees. It can attract
criminal charges on him under the provision of
“misuse of the post and power.”
4. A failure in establishing Democratic
answerability of a public servant
The hearing of the present case in the public
domain or legal domains can create the contest of
democratic answerability for Marshal as the
holder of the post.
The best alternative is the third alternative
The presence of ethical vagueness in the process is
evident because there are many employees that received
a bonus for no reason. This lack of clarity can be cleared
up by considering it as a soft case for the department and
hard case for the mastermind involved in the case
(Cooper, 2004).

A. Method
The legal imperatives and failure in disposing of the
accountability imperatives of a chair holder on the post
of an administrator can act as a legal method to book
and examine the case. In order to serve the natural flow
of justice towards ignorant employees, alternative 3
presents the best option in front of us. It is a soft case for
the rest of the employees and a hard case for the main
convict of the case.
B. Criteria The investigating body or the FBI will pick this case
upon three criteria.
1. The nature of the fund misappropriation,
presence of direct kickback, that takes it into
domains of the corruption.
2. The distribution of the fruits, how they can
recover the fruits. In the present case, Marshall
and his partner can be booked. Other employees
can return additional money with their own free
will.
3. The justifications related to the accountability of
the chair holder can be taken into consideration

because it seems like a white-collar crime.
C. Recommendation
Instead of giving punishments to the guilty parties, this
case should focus more on the recovery of the public
money. It is very difficult for investigators to prove the
wrongdoings of each and every individual because it
seems like a syndicated and structured crime.
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE
A. Implementation Plan
It should start with an audit where controversial
financial transactions can be pinpointed. At the same
time investigating agencies should collect other evidence
like direct kickbacks etc. After a charge sheet should
come in action where investigators should scrutinize the
soft cases and try to settle them. The main culprits
should be booked.
B. Obstacles The biggest obstacle will come forward when we will
fix the collective accountability of all the stakeholders.
Barring one or two occasions, Sheriff always completed
the task of taking a kickback with the help of allies or an
innocent partner. Under these circumstances, it will
become difficult for the investigators to fix collective
accountability because of the even distribution of the
fruits. Also, the paperwork associated with the

distribution of the fruits is immaculate in many ways.
In order to overcome this condition, investigators can
nullify the crime of certain individuals by offering them
recovery fines.
C. Evaluation Plan
We will create indicators of the recovery on all the
stages. If we recover all the booty or the fruits then it is
a success, however, if we fail in procuring enough
evidence to prove the paperwork wrong then it is a
failure. In the case of Marshal, we can put direct blames
like “ misuse of the post," misappropriation of the
funds" and other such charges and wait for the evidence
to make an appearance.
References
Bruce WM (1994). Ethical People Are Productive
People. Publ. Prod. Manage. Rev., 17: 241-252.
Cooper LT (2004) Big Questions in Administrative
Ethics: A Need for Focused, Collaborative Effort.
Washington D.C., Publ. Adm. Rev., 64(4): 395-407