Guillet Warrant

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION
JD-CR-64b Rev.
3-1
1
For Court Use Only
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
SUPERIOR COURT
wwwjud.d.gov
Supporting Affidavits sealed
C.G.S. $ 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1, 36-2, 36-3 Police Case
Ives INo
Geographical Area number
10-00033816
(Lasl Firsl
CT State Police-Western District Major Crime Squad
Guillet, Karen
Application For Arrest Warrant

To: A Judge of the SuPerior Court
The undersigned hereby applies for a warrant for the Affidavit set forth in the:
of the above-named accused on the basis of the facts

name ol
Oete
Q3-
Affidavit
The undersigned affiant, being duly $worR' deposes and says: 1) That the affiant, Detective Josh Pattberg#73l, is a member of the Connecticut State Police, and has been employed by said department since 2004. The affiant is currently assigned to the Western District Major
Crime Squad at Troop A in Southbury, and as a detective in this unit is tasked with handling criminal investigaiions involving, but not limited to, homicides, serious sexual assaults, serious physical assaults, financial crimes and investigations otherwise deemed complex in nature. The affiant has received training specific to financial records examination and analysis through the National White Collar Crime Center. In the course of investigating said matters, the affiant has authored and co-authored arrest and search and seizure warrants. The facts and circumstances contained hereinafter are the result of investigation by the affiant and information received from other law enforcement officers acting in their
official capacity.
2) On 0l/l9ll0, Sergeant Kline #142 and I met with Oxford Town Attorney Francis Teodosio" Teodosio gave us a brief overview and supplied us with documents relevant to a suspected larceny that was occuning at Oxford Town Hall. Teodosio stated the Town Tax Collector Karen Guillet, has been accused
funds and has been placed on administrative leave. 9f stealing town
3) Teodosio stated on 12/01/09 he received a phone call from a fellow attorney named George Temple.
Temple stated one of his clients informed him that the Oxford Tax Collector was stealing from the town. Assistant Tax Collector Sharon Scinto also provided information to First Selectrnan Mary Ann DraytonRogers about Guillet taking proceeds from the tax office.
This is page 'l of a 27 page Aftidavit.)
Finding
The forego.ing Application for an arrest warrant, and affidavit(s) attached to said Application, iJn.iA"rEO n-V itiiunOersigned, the undersigned finds from said affidavit(s) th.at the.re.is pt :eljt3"ffi:?"t[!1ru$:tn*&'nd been comriitteci inairrit-trdlciuieo committeo it and, thtirefore, that piobable cause exists for the Giuanie of a wanant for the arrest of the above-named accused.
; ;ff;;hjs
Date and
Trial Referee
Signature

JD-CR-64a Rev- 3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr- Bk. Sec. 36-1, 36-2. 36-3 Name {Lasf, First, Middle lnitial)
STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT

www.jud.ct.gov
GeooraDhical
Guillet, Karen
Area"number 5
Affidavit - Continued
attention by Scinto. The auditor also found additional fraudulent deposit slips. Teodosio showed us a deposit slip dated lllrcllg. It appeared the deposit slips were forged with a standard typewriter. Hence, making the cash deposit of $3,093.42 fraudulent as well. 5) Sergeant Kline and I then met with Sharon Scinto. We spoke briefly to Scinto about the investigation and asked her if a typewriter was used by the employees in the tax collector's office. Scinto showed us a greyi brown typewriter in the vault and stated to her knowledge the ribbon has never been changed. I then seized the ribbon and the correction tape from typewriter and forwarded the ribbon to the Forensic Lab for examination. The items were assigned Exhibit #1 and #2, respectively. 5) Drayton-Rogers provided State Police Detectives with a statement stating Scinto initially approached her on 12/01109 with allegations of theft by Guillet. Scinto went on to explain that the lllrcl0g deposit was from her (Scinto's) drawer and that she wrote up a deposit slip totaling $30,788.88 including $3,093.43 in cash. She had asked Assistant Town Assessor Joyce Eades to confirm the cash amount. Eades verified the cash amount because Guillet was not available at the time. Later that day Guillet brought the deposit to Naugatuck Savings and Loan. When the bank deposit bag was retumed to the tax office, Scinto noticed the deposit slip was for only $27,695.46. Upon questioning Guillet, she quickly took the deposit slip from Scinto and said she would take care of it wittr the bank. A loud discussion then occurred. Joyce Eades overheard the discussion. Scinto said Guillet never told her whether she contacted the bank or if the matter was resolved. Scinto made a copy of a deposit slip which appeared later and seemed to be in Guillet's handwriting with typed banking numbers on it, not the typical banking print and not the deposit slip that Scinto wrote or the one she had seen come out of the bank deposit bag. This was later confirmed to be the initial fabricated deposit slip.
7) On 07112/11, Detective Van Ness #1431 and I interviewed Scinto in a meeting room located in Oxford Town Hall. During the interview Scinto stated the following in part; Scinto stated she started working part time at Oxford Town Hall in 1998 as a receptionist. She then became a clerk in the tax collector's office in 2001. In April 2009, Scinto stated she became the Assistant Tax Collector.
8) Scinto recalled the day she discovered an altered deposit slip in one of the bank deposit bags from Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan. Scinto questioned Karen Guillet about the deposit slip at which time Guillet grabbed the deposit slips from her. Guillet stated the deposit slips were hers and a slip must still be at the bank. Guillet told Scinto she would go to the bank and get the missing deposit slip. Scinto
noticed there was no cash deposit equal to her closeout amount of $3,093.42. Guillet proceeded to leave the office. Upon Guillet's return Scinto asked an employee from the assessor's offtce (Joyce Eades) to witness the conversation between her and Guillet. Moments later Guillet returned and handed Scinto a bank deposit bag with Scinto's handwritten deposit slip. Scinto immediately pointed out to Guillet that the deposit slip did not look correct. She went on to tell Guillet that it appears someone typed the bank
(This
is
page 2 of a 27 page

JD-CR-64a Rev- 3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. 8k. Sec. 36-1. 36-2. 36-3 Name
SUPERIOR COURT
www.jud.ct.gov
GeooraDhical
Guillet, Karen
Area"number 5
validation on the back of the deposit slip. Scinto stated the bank's typed validation said "Checking Commercial Account" when the bank's normal validation says "Checking Commercial Deposit" and the letters seemed larger and the spacing was off. Scinto also stated the validation on the check reflects nfi.0109 at 1:33:04. Scinto stated she did not fill out the deposit slip until approximately 4:00 P.M. on llll0l09, making a deposit at 1:33:04 impossible. Scinto stated the earliest the deposit could have been made would have been 1lll2l09, due to the banks being closed for Veteran's Day on 11/11/09. Scinto stated Guillet's demeanor became very strange. Guillet then stated she would go to the bank Friday and straighten the matter out. The following Tuesday it appeared to Scinto that Guillet had not done anything to remedy the situation. Scinto stated she brought this incident to the affention of First Selectman Drayton-Rogers and Town Attorney Teodosio on L2l0Ll09. Scinto provided us with copies of the fraudulent deposit ticket, the computer generated transaction deposit slip, and the receipt tape associated with the batch report. Scinto initialed and dated these four (4) items as being accurate representations of
the actual documents.
9) Scinto stated after she reported the incident from November 2009 to the first selectman and town attorney they told Guillet there would be a meeting and recommended she bring iepresentation (legal) with her. Scinto further stated at that time Guillet began cleaning out her desk and tlrowing papers away. Scinto stated the tax ofhce was kept in disarray. She stated there were boxes of deposit slips, batch reports, and validation slips everywhere.
10) Scinto stated it was common to find random tax payer checks throughout the office. Scinto recalled times when she has seen some of the checks she processed in the cash box and then questioned Guillet about the batch being in balance despite the missing number of checks. Scinto stated Guillet would respond stating the checks musfhaVe gotten mixed up, the totals must have been flre same and everything worked out. I 1) Scinto gave examples of checks she observed in Guillet's cash box. She first observed an expired check from Tri-Town Teachers Federal Credit Union in payment of real estate taxes for David Wolf of 7 Davis Drive. Scinto stated the check was validated and showed as paid in the computer system. The closeout for the check was 07 /21/08 for the 2007 Grand List. When Scinto looked for the check on l2l3ll09 it was missing. Scinto supplied us with computer printouts of this issue regarding David Wolfs taxes. Scinto initialed and dated these three (3) items as being accurate representations of the actual documents.
12) In
April 2009, Scinto stated she ran out of deposit slips. She went into Guillet's desk and observed twenty (20) to thifty (30) taxpayer checks in the deposit slip box. Scinto wrote a note to Guillet telling her she found the checks in her desk. The following Monday, Guillet stated to Scinto "Thanks for finding those checks-good thing I didn't go to the bank-I would not have balanced."
13) Scinto stated Guillet seemed to live a luxurious lifestyle. She stated Guillet spent a lot of money and it
(This is page 3 of a 27

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-1 c.G.S. S 54-2a
1

www.jud.ct.gov
Geooraohical
Fr. Bk. Sec. 36.1, 36-2, 36-3 ame
(Lssl
First. MidCle lnitial)
Guillet, Karen
Area'number 5
seemed unusual
to Scinto for
someone
with Guillet's salary to be spending that much money. Scinto
stated Guillet spent money on lavish items such as shoes, purses and vacations worth thousands of dollars. Guillet also told Scinto that her house was paid off. Furtherrnore, Scinto was aware that Guillet put half of her pay into her retirement plan. Scinto stated she knew this because she (Scinto) used to work in payroll. Scinto asked Guillet why she puts so much money away and Guillet explained to her that she had
a trust fund from her parents, inheritance from her aunt, and father recently sold stocks worth a lot of money.
14) When asked about the Quality Data software used in the tax collector's office Scinto stated the program has always been easy to use. She further stated if she ever had a problem with the service she would call the company and they would fix her problem immediately. Scinto stated Guillet always complained of problems with the system, but the system always worked fine for Scinto.
15) Scinto stated she and Guillet normally used their own computers, unless they were extremely busy at which time they would use each others. She further stated that she and Guillet knew the passwords to each other's computers. Scinto stated she noticed that Guillet would use her computer while she (Scinto)
was at lunch. 16) Scinto stated she would sometimes use the typewriter in the vault to type out addresses on the envelopes. Scinto further stated she did not use mathematical symbols except numerals in the addresses.
17) Scinto stated that prior to April 2009 she did not complete her own closeouts because she was not officially assistant tax collector yet. Scinto stated she did not go to the bank to make deposits for the tax collector's office. She frrrther stated the only person who would make deposits lbr the tax collector's office was Guillet.
18) Scinto added that Guillet often hired a former Oxford employee named Judith Melko to watch her dog and fold her clothes. Melko told Scinto she has found on occasion bags of deposit slips from the tax collector's office in Guillefs laundry room. Melko also stated to Scinto she has found large amounts of cash in Guillet's dresser drawers. 19) Scinto also added it seemed to her that Guillet would often take advantage of only certain people. She gave an example of a time when a volunteer firefighter paid his taxes in cash. Upon paying his taxes Guillet told him that the computer in the office was not working and she couldn't give him a receipt. Scinto stated that flrreman, whose name she does not remember, now has to repay his taxes while other taxpayers who have receipts for their cash payments are getting their accounts credited.
20) On 10125/ll, Forensic Science Examiner Greg Kettering

AtfiQAvit,)
lied the affrantwith a lab report stating he
rofS
Htq
ARREST WARMNT APPLICATION

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11 C.G.S. $ 54-2a
Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1, 36-2, 36-3
SUPHRIOR COURT
www.jud.ct.gov
(Last Frrst Middle lnitial)
Guillet, Karen
has located six (6) captions within the ribbon that appeared to be words, mrmerals and symbols used to fabricate a deposit slip. The dates imprinted on the above six (6) captions are; 1l/I0109, 09124109, 07120109,06116109,05/15/09 and 05115109. Of those six (6) captions, he identified the caption used to
generate the initial fraudulent $3,093.42 deposit slip. Kettering stated the ribbon and the known fraudulent deposit slip were an exact match. Since Guillet had admitted to First Selectman Drayton Rogers that she forged the $3,093.42 transaction, it is likely Guillet is to blame for the additional forgeries located on the typewriter ribbon. In addition to the ribbon already examined are two (2) additional ribbons that have yet to be examined. 21) Due to the suspected improprieties in the tax collector's office Drayton-Rogers contacted John Accavallo of Michaud and Accavallo, LLC in Ansonia to conduct an audit of the town's records. After an audit of the records he was initially given, Accavallo informed Drayton-Rogers that the allegation of fraud in the tax collector's offtce was confirmed.
22) Accavallo conducted an initial audit spanning from l0/U/0g to l2/3t/09. Accavallo found that during
this time period there was approximately $50,000 of unresolved discrepancies. 23) On 0l/13/I0, a meeting was held with Guillet, Drayton-Rogers, Drayton-Rogers's aide (Joe Calabrese), Teodosio and Accavallo. The meeting was audio recorded with the knowledge and consent of all the parties. Accavallo explained several bank documents and batch reports in which he believed the figures were questionable. Guillet did not give an assertive answer to the majority of the questions she was asked regarding the suspected transactions. Guillet was shown and confessed to fabricating the deposit slip for the $3,093.42 and she further stated that she kept the money. Accavallo also asked Guillet if her actions proceeded October 2009. GuilleT stated they did not. Accavallo then stated that he found another check with font not consistent with the font found on a deposit slip generated by the bank. Due to this discovery, Accavallo told Guillet that he would be expanding his audit in search.of additional improprieties.
24) Due to the admissions by Guillet, Drayton-Rogers and Teodosio escorted Guillet from the building. Guillet was placed on paid sick leave and was informed that she was not allowed in the tax office. Drayton-Rogers also informed us that before Guillet's departure, during the time the initial audit was being conducted, she was being less than cooperative with the auditor when asked for documents stored in her office. Furthermore, Guillet was reportedly seen throwing paperwork away while the auditor was conducting the audit. Sergeant Kline and I inquired about the whereabouts of the trash and we were informed t'wo (2) dumpster pickups were made after the time Guillet was seen throwing things out. 25) On 02102110, a meeting was held with Guillet, her attorney @dward Giacci), Drayton-Rogers and Teodosio. In the meeting Guillet told Drayton-Rogers her resignation was forthcoming. Restitution was
(This is page 5 of a 27 page Atfid4vit.)
,rrl
stcna
(Affiab.1
/
,
me on (Dare) Stgned ({g!:ge/Clat
Jurat
7""1'";
iewedlBfosedtorial Oflicial)
/1/r/(
;TilT;*re /
lDate
Revied#
I r/-:r-r
llll-*
tLl ,{*t./ UudgeilafigaTiatReferee)
,:r'tr
Krt
|
ll
f)
ltt
Date
23'

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. $ 54-2a . Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1. 36-2. 36-3 Name flat,
SUPERIOR COURT
www.jud.ct.gov
Guillet, Karen
also discussed in this meeting. Guillet indicated that she had $125,000 in town retirement funds that would be "more than enough" to pay back any missing money. Dralton-Rogers stated there were no agreements made between the two attorneys. Upon leaving the meeting, Guillet told Drayton-Rogers she was "sorry" and that she had gone to confession and she just wanted "to go away" and never be seen again. Guillet formally resigned on 06/22/ I0. 26) At the direction of the first selectrnan, Accavallo conducted two (2) individual audits of the Oxford Tax Collector's office from 07101/09 to 09130109 and 10/01109 to l2l3ll09. Accavallo's audit included comparing the amounts and totals of the batch reports to the transaction deposit slip reports and posted batch reports. These were then compared to the actual bank deposit slips and the deposits posted to the bank statements from Naugatuck Savings and Loan during these time periods. During the 07101/09 to 09/30109 time period there was a total of 108 deposits. The results of the audit are as follows:
a. 93 deposits -The supporting documentation posted batch reports agreed with the transaction slip
reports b. 10 deposits - The auditors were unable to locate tax collection batch reports or transaction deposit slips for comparison to deposits as recorded on the bank statements.
$200,438.22 has a record of being deposited in the bank as $192,055.18 leaving a difference of $8,383.04. That difference is unexplained/re solved. d. 1 deposit - A transaction deposit slip dated 07129109 for $225,034.40 has a record of being deposited in the bank as $224,034.07 leaving a difference of $1,000.33. That difference is unexplained/resolved. e. I deposit - A tax collection batch report and transaction deposit slip dated 08/10/09 for $19g,951.71 has a record of being deposited inthe bankas $196,95I.71 leav-ing a difference of $2,000. That difference is unexplained/resolved. f. 1 deposit - A tax collection batch report and toansaction deposit slip dated 0}llz/0g for $1 ll,692.2l has a record of being deposited in the bank as $111,392.21leaving a difference of $300. That difference is unexplained/resolved. g. I deposit - A tax collector batch report and transaction deposit slip dated 0gl}3l09 for $34,44g.14 has a record of being deposited in the bank as $31,239.91 leaving a difference of $3,208.23. That difference is unexplained/resolved.
27) Thesame methods used for the first audit were used for the l0l3ll0g to l2l3ll19audit. During this time period there were a total of 42 deposits. The results of the audit are as follows:
a. 9 deposits - There were no supporting transaction deposit slip reports and posted batch reports. b. 28 deposits - The supporting hansaction deposit slip reports and posted batch reports agreed with
c. 1 deposit - A tansaction deposit slip dated 07/2ll}9 for

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. $ 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1. 36-2. 36*3 Name (Lasl
SUPERIOR COURT
www.jud.ct.gov
Geoqraohical
Guillet, Karen
Area'number 5
the bank deposit. deposit - The deposit slip dated 10/07109 for $13,009.00 has no record of being deposited in the bank. d. 1 deposit - The deposit slip dated 11/05/09 for $44,27L83 has a record of being deposited in the bank as $37,100.56 leaving a difference of 57,L71.27. That difference is unexplained/resolved. e. 1 deposit - The deposit slip dated lIll0/09 for $30,788.88 has a record of being deposited in the bank as S27,695.46leaving a difference of $3,093.43. That difference is the cash per the original deposit slip. f. 1 deposit - The deposit slip and posted batch report dated 11123109 for $35,860.86 has a record of being deposited in the bank as $31,369.83 leaving a difference of $4,491.83. That difference is the cash per the original deposit slip. g. 1 deposit - The deposit slip report and posted batch report dated 12117/09 for $64,807.43 has a record of being deposited in the bank as $52,889.57 leaving a difference of $11,917.86. That difference is unexplained/resolved.
c.
28) After Accavallo submitted his report to the town, Drayton-Rogers developed a committee comprised of James Hliva (Finance Director for the Town of Oxford), Joseph Calabrese (Administrative Assistant to the First Selectman), and Jack Kiley CPA (member of the Oxford Board of Finance) as well as other town employees. The committee's objective was to determine how Guillet was stealing the funds and facilitating the larceny. With the information gleaned from the process the committee was able to prove that cash was taken from the deposit because the amount of cash on the computer reports did not match the cash deposited in the bank. Also, checks were taken from other batches or sources in the tax office and added to the deposit with the missing cash tornake the deposit balmce. Therefore, the total deposir would equal the tax records, but the proper accounts were not credited. This process was repeated several times on subsequent deposits and a pattern was developed showing how Guillet would carry out her scheme. This process is commonly referred to as a lapping scheme which is an accouniing method that involves altering the accounts receivable section of the balance sheet with cash that is intended for the payment of a receivable has been stolen.
29) After the committee identified the type of scheme Guillet was using they proceeded to identiS the lapping scheme through computer generated batch reports (Quality Data), deposit slips, cancelled checks, cash register tape and inquiries to tax payers about the standing of their taxes. The processes required the committee to find and retrieve doouments from the poorly organized tax collector's offioe and reconcile the documents with cancelled checks and validated deposit slips from Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan. Hliva and Kiley then systematically compiled the figures derived from these documents to outline the lapping scheme. The process was very time consuining, but generated an accurate depiction of the
scheme from various angles.
(This
is page
7 of a
27
ARRE$T WARRANT APPLICATION

JD-CR-64a Rev.
3-'1
1
C,G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1. 36-2, 36-3 Name

www.jud.ct.gov
flast
Guillet, Karen
Affidavit - Qontinued
30) The first example generated was batch number 80-21, which received transactions between 08/03/09 through 08/11/09. As stated earlier in the affidavit, "80" was the identifuing number associatsd with the batches Guillet produced and "81" was the identiSring number associated with the batches Scinto produced. The reason why this batch and date was chosen was because the tax payer's software showed that Oxford taxpayer Elsie Smith had not paid her tax bill for July 2009. Scinto sent a letter to Smith asking her to send a copy of her cancelled check to town hall. The cancelled check (# 244) showed Smith paid her taxes on 07/30109. Smith's check cleared, but her tax account had not been credited. This prompted Kiley to examine the entire batch and deposit associated with that batch.
31) The batch report and transaction deposit slip totals generated by Quality Data showed there was a total of $231,396.04 in tax credits on 08/13/09. Of that amount, $1,833.11 was cash. However, Guillet's handwritten deposit slip stated there was only $190.83 in cash. After validation, the bank determined there was actually $222.67. This error can likely be attributed to a benign mathematical error on Guillet's behalf. Regardless of the amount actually deposited, the difference in the actual amount deposited and the cash listed on the batch report is $1,610.44. 32) To substantiate the lapping scheme, Hliva and Kiley compared the cancelled checks supplied to them by Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan to batch number 80-21. The total amount of the checks in this batch was $231,205.2L. This figure added to the fabricated cash amount of $190.83 Guillet listed on the deposit slip allows the batch to equal the deposit of $231,396.04 and creates the illusion that the batch and deposit figures match. However, five (5) taxpayers had payments credited to their tax account, but they did not make a payment on this day, so their payment is not included in this batch. Furthermore, four (4) tax that deposited checks did not have their accounts credited in batch 80-21. This manipulation of -payers checks and cash is consistent with lapping. 33) After the method(s) of Guillet's lapping scheme were determined the committee repeated the same steps -disted above for several additional batches. The goal was to show that Guillefs practice had been taking place for several years, using the same method(s). The following examples are outlined in no specific order and do not necessarily depict the order in which the committee compiled their data.
34) On LZlL2l07 batch number 80-15 was created and received tuansactions through l2ll8/07. This batch was chosen because of the large check (#0000057902) from Yankee Gas in ttre amount of $27,278.89 that was contained within the batch. The batch report and transaction deposit slip totals generated by Quality Data showed there was a total of $91,112.53 in tax credits within the batch. On l2ll9l09, a deposit was made to the bank. Of that amounl $4,160.98 was oash per the computer records. However, in Guillet's handwritten deposit slip stated there was only $29.27 in cash, leaving a cash shortage of $4,131.71.
8 of o 27 page Atfidavit,)

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 3G1, 36-2. 36-3 Name (Lasl
SUPERIOR COURT
www.jud.ct.gov
Geooraohical
Guillet, Karen
Area-number 5
35) To substantiate the lapping scheme, Hliva and Kiley compared the cancelled checks supplied to them by Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan to batch number 80-15. Per the transaction deposit slip the amount of checks that should have been deposited for batch 80-15 was $86,951.55. However, the bank deposit slip showed the amount of checks being deposited as $91,083.26. This figure added to the fabricated cash amount of $29.27 Guillet listed on the deposit slip allows the batch to equal the deposit of $91,1 12.53 and creates the illusion that the batch and deposit figures match. However, thirty-seven (37) taxpayers had payments credited to their tax account, but they did not make a payment on this day, so their payment is not included in this batch. Furthermore, ten (10) tax payers that deposited checks did not have their accounts credited in batch 80-15. This manipulation of checks and cash is consistent with lapping.
36) On 0l/31/08, batch number 81-43 was created and later closed on 02103/08. This batch was chosen because of a large check (#60356) from Yankee Gas in the amount of 827,957.23. The check was deposited into the bank, but credit was not given to Yankee Gas by the Oxford Tax Collector's Office for the payment. A late notice was sent to Yankee Gas requesting payment and they submitted proof
(cancelled check) that the payment had been made. The batch report and transaction deposit slip totals generated by Quality Data showed there was a total of $181,134.90 in tax credits associated with this batch. Of that amount, $487.41 was cash. However, Guillet's handwritten deposit slip stated there was only $69.18 in cash, leaving a cash shortage of $418.23. 37) To substantiate the lapping scheme, Hliva and Kitey compared the cancelled checks supplied to them by Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan to batch number 81-43. Per the transaction deposit slip the amount of checks that should have been deposited for batch 81-43 was $180,647.49. However, the bank deposit slip showed the amount of checks being deposited as $181,065.72. This figure added to the fabricated cash amount of $69.18 Guillet listed on the deposit slip allows the batch to equal the deposit of $181,134.90 and creates the illusion that the batch and deposit figures matoh. It should be noted there appear-s,to be a $1.00 difference between the deposit report and the actual deposit. This can possibly be attributed to a mathematical error. This manipulation of checks and cash is consistent with lapping.
38) Due to these inconstancies specific to Yankee Gas, the committee performed an inquiry into their tax account. They discovered the account had been overridden by Guillet on 02128108 and Yankee Gas' taxes were changed to make the account appear as if they have not paid their $54,557.78 balance. After Guillet's scheme was uncovered and she resigned from Oxford Town Hall, Scinto sent delinquent notices to residents with delinquent accounts and later received the aforementioned cancelled checks from Yankee Gas. Because Yankees Gas provided proof of payment to the tax collector's office, they were credited their balance of $54,557.78. This is an example of how Guillet manipulated the Quality Data software to accommodate the lapping scheme. 39) On 08/06/08, batch number 80-20 was opened and received transactions through 08/11/08. This batch
(This ispage 9 of a 27
ARRE$T WARRANT APFLICATION

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1. 36-2. 36-3
First, Middle lnitial)
STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUFERIOR COURT

www.jud.ct.gov
Guillet, Karen
was chosen because of a large check payment from Connecticut Light and Power in the amount of 51.14,074.72. The check was deposited into the bank, but credit was not given by the Oxford Tax Collector's Office to Connecticut Light and Power for the payment. A late notice was sent to Connecticut Light and Power requesting payment and they submitted proof (check #150178) that the payment had been made. This batch was used as an example of how Guillet used the lapping scheme to significantly balance the books, while also shorting the cash deposit. The batch report and transaction deposit slip totals generated by Quality Data showed there was a total of $182,662.56 in tax credits in this batch. Of that amount, $19.98 was cash. However, Guillet's handwritten deposit slip stated there was only $17.08 in cash, leaving a cash shortage of $2.90. 40) To substantiate the lapping scheme, Hliva and Kiley compared the cancelled checks supplied to them by Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan to batch number 80-20. Per the transaction deposit slip the amount of checks that should have been deposited for batch 80-20 was $182,642.58. However, the bank deposit slip showed the amount of checks being deposited as $182,645.48. This figure added to the fabricated cash amount of $17.08 Guillet listed on the deposit slip allows the batch to equal the deposit of $182,662.56 and creates the illusion that the batch and deposit figures match. However, eighty-seven (87) taxpayers had payments credited to their tax account, but they did not make a payment on this day, so there payment is not included in this batch. This manipulation of checks and cash is consistent with
lapping.
41) On 08103/09, batch number 80-15 was created and closed on 08/04/09. This batch was chosen because it was previously believed that Quaker Farms LLC had not paid their taxes. After inquiring with Quaker Farms, it was determined that they paid their taxes and produced a cancelled check (#1057) to the comm-ttee. lJsing the bank validation codes on the back of the cancelled check, the committee was able to determine with assistance from Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan what batch and deposit the Quaker Farms check eame from. Hence batch number 80-15 was discovered. Two (2) deposits associated with this batch were made on 08/04/09. The first deposit was for $223,063.02 and the second was for $2,894.16. The batch report and transaction deposit slip totals generated by Quality Data showed there was a total of $225,961.18 in tax credits for this batch. Of that amount, $9,255.58 was cash. However, in Guillet's handwritten deposit slip stated there was only $858.54 in cash, leaving a cash shortage of
$8,397.04.
42) To substantiate the lapping schemeo
Hliva and Kiley compared the cancelled checks supplied to them by Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan to batch number 80-15. Per the transaction deposit slip the amount of checks that should have been deposited for batch 80-15 was $216,705.60. However, the bank deposit slip showed the amount of checks being deposited as $225,098.64. This figure added to the fabricated cash amount of $358.54 Guillet listed on the deposit slip allows the batch to equal the deposit of $225,961.18 and creates the illusion that the batch and deposit figures match. There was difference of $4
ffhtstspage 10Af a27
.ARRFST WARRANT APPLICATION

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec, 36-1. 36-2. 36-3 Name (Last
SUPERIOR COURT
www.jud.ct.gov
Guillet, Karen
from the batch report to the bank deposits, possibly attributable to a mathematical error. However, eight (8) taxpayers had payments credited to their tax account, but they did not make a payment on this day, so their payment is not included in this batch. Furthermore, seven (7) taxpayers that'deposited checks did not have their accounts credited in batch 80-15. This manipulation of checks and cash is consistent with lapping. 43) On 081031A9, batch number 80-18 was created and received transactions through 0t/06/0g. This batch was used as an example of how Guillet used the lapping scheme to significantly balance the books, while also shorting the cash deposit. Two (2) deposits associated with this batch were made on 0g/10/09. The first deposit was for $130,315.47 and the second was for $66,636.24. The batch report and transaction deposit slip totals generated by the Quality Data Software showed there was a {otal of $1gg,g51.71 associated with this batch. Of that amount, $420.58 was cash. However, Guillefs handwritten deposit slip stated there was only $51.71 in cash, leaving a cash shortage of $36g.57.
44) To substantiate the lapping scheme, Hliva and Kiley compared the cancelled checks supplied to them by Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan to batch number 80-18. Per the transaction aeposiislip the amount of checks that should have been deposited for batch 80-18 was $198,531.13. However, the bank deposit slip showed the amount of checks being deposited as $196,900.00. This figure added to the fabricated cash amount of $51.71 Guillet listed on the deposit slip allows the batch to Josely equal the deposit and creates the illusion that the batch and deposit figures match. There was differettce of'$2,000.00 from the batch report to the bank deposits, possibly attributable to a mathematical error. However, twelve (12) taxpayers had payments credited to their tax account, but they did not make a payment on this day, so their payment is not included in this batch. Furthermore, four i+l * payers that deposited checks did not have their-aCCounts ciedited in batch 80-18. This manipulation of checks an1 cash is consistent with lapping.
45) On 08113/09, batch number 80-22 was created and received transactions through 08117/09. This batch was chosen because-while examining batch 80-21 Kiley noticed that taxpayeqMichael ploch paid his taxes in batch 80'22, but was credited in batch 80-21. After inquiring with pioch, it was determined that he paid his taxes and produced a cancelled check (#8967) that clearly should have not corresponded to batch 80'22. One (1) deposit associated with this batch was made on 08/17109. The batch report and transaction deposit slip totals generated by Quality Data showed there was a total of $132,7g6.d7 rnlrlx credits associated with this batch. Of that amoun! $577.75 was cash. However, Guillet's handwritten deposit slip stated there was only $34.37 in cash, teaving a cash rftottugr oi Ss+g.gg. It should be noted that there appears to be a minor addition mistake on G deposit slip. It should also be noted that the valley savings and Loan counted taxpayer Danbi['s check il""".,r. IlYe|["Shis Gill does banking with Naugatuck Valley savinls and Loan. This method is internal and common practice for the bank.
t"r'$;71;.;t;r;
(This it page 71 ofa27 page 8 11 ot a 27
Jurat
l"/, ")T*')-,Tu!n"fi:"
r[try*:
me on (oarel
DEte
'nn'o'*ufu:l. 11/ KA o'n "o{*n"ff"^^W'y'W{

R
Notary Pubtic)
eviewed ( J u dg effidg e_fn a t n {n
l/-)r-r
re
Date
tl
>3 I(

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1. 36-2. 36-3 Name (Lasl
SUPERIOR COURT
www.jud.ct.gov
Geooraohical
Guillet, Karen
Area'number 5
46) To substantiate the lapping scheme, Hliva and Kiley compared the cancelled checks supplied to them by Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan to batch number 80-22. Per the transaction deposit slip the amount of checks that should have been deposited for batch 80-22 was $132,786.09. However, the bank deposit slip showed an amount of checks being deposited as $732,751.70. This figure added to the fabricated cash amount of $34.37 Guillet listed on the deposit slip allows the batch to equal the deposit of $132,786.07 and creates the illusion that the batch and deposit figures match. There was difference of $.02 cents from the batch report to the bank deposits, possibly attributable to a mathematical error. However, eight (8) taxpayers had payments credited to their tax account, but they did not make a payment on this day, so their payment is not included in this batch. Furthermore, six (6) tax payers that deposited checks did not have their accounts credited in batch 80-22. This manipulation of checks and cash is consistent with lapping.
47) On 08120/09, batch number 80-25 was created and received transactions through 08124109. This batch was chosen because two (2) large Bank of America checks (#450416 and#449783) were contained within the deposit. These checks were escrow payments from Bank of America mortgage customers. The two (2) deposits associated with this batch were made on 07129109 and08124109. The first deposit was for $577,975.32 and the second was for $45,389.18, respectively. The batch report and transaction deposit slip totals generated by Quality Data showed there was a total of $623,366.80 in tax credits. Of that amount, $1,407.89 was cash. However, Guillet's handwritten deposit slip stated there was only $7.98 in cash, leaving a cash shortage of $1,399.91.
48) To substantiate the lapping scheme, Hliva and Kiley compared the cancelled checks supplied to them by Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan to batch numbei 80-25. Per the transaction deposit slip the amount of checks that should have been deposited for batch 80-25 was $621,958.91. However, the validated bank deposit slip showed an amount of checks "being deposited as 5623,356.52. This figure added to the fabricated cash amount of $7.98 Guillet listed on the deposit slip allows the batch to equal the deposit of $623,366.80 and creates the illusion that the batch and deposit figures match. There was difference of $2.30 cents from the batch report to the bank deposits, possibly a-ttributable to a mathematical error. It should be noted that the Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan counted taxpayer Fairfield Consultants check (#0235) for $21.26 as cash because Fairfield Consultants do their banking with Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan. However, thirty-five (35) taxpayers had payments credited to their tax account, but they did not make a payment on this day, so their payment is not included in this batch. Furthermore, two (2) tax payers that deposited checks did not have their accounts credited in batch 80-25. This manipulation of checks and cash is consistentwith lapping.
49) On 08103/0g,batch number 80-20 was created. This batch was chosen because Tommy K's Plaza had received a delinquent notice for their taxes. The owner of Tommy K's sent a cancelled check (#100574)
(This
Date
is
page 12 of a
27
page
Afndav:$j
tu/,,
"fr!**f ,Y'{r.f:;"
me on rDare) Date
sisned(enan,gr{"
sitnea (t pls eE t e ^
Jurat
Ktty*'
Reviewed (Jufl{eQUdge
ll-13-l
lW
f"p':p* Y/ lff* o r, /f Tial

Referee)
ffi
61,
o 0,,
Date I
rf
lzEl
ARREST WARR,ANT APPLICATION

JD-CR-64a Rev 3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec.36-1, 36-2,36-3 ame

www.jud.ct.gov
Guillet, Karen
Affidavit - Gontinued
to the tax collector's office proving the payment of said taxes. Hliva asked Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan to provide him with all the deposits for 08112109, the day the deposits associated with this batch were made. It was discovered there were two (2) deposits made on 08112109, one (1) from the above mentioned batch and one (1) from batch 81-16. The batch report and transaction deposit slip totals generated by Quality Data showed there was a total of $212,729.30 in tax credits from these two (2) batches, $I1L,692.21 from batch 80-20 and $101,037.09 from batch 81-16. All associated paperwork from batch 81-16 corresponded with the bank deposit. The problem lies within batch 80-20. Of the $1I1,692.21 deposit, $483.02 was cash. However, Guillet's handwritten deposit slip stated there was only $49.40 in cash, leaving a cash shortage of $433.62.
50) To substantiate the lapping schemeo Hliva and Kiley compared the cancelled checks supplied to them by Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan to batch number 80-20 and 81-16. Per the transaction deposit slip the amount of checks that should have been deposited for batch 80-20 was $111,209.19. However, the bank deposit slip showed an amount of checks being deposited as $105,779.72. At additional separate deposit from a single check in the amount of $5,863.09 was made to balance out the batch report figures. This total check figure ($111,642.81) added to the fabricated cash amount of $49.40 handwritten by Guillet listed on the deposit slip allows the batch to equal the deposit of $111,692.21 and creates the illusion that the batch and deposit figures match. However, twelve (I2) taxpayers had payments credited to their tax account, but they did not make a payment on this day, so their payment is not included in this batch. Furthermore, five (5) tax payers that deposited checks did not have their accounts credited in batch 80-20. This in another example of how Scinto's batch (81-16) created the same day and deposited on the same day was not manipulated and the figures corresponded with one another. However Guillet's batch (80-20) was manipulated consistent with the other examples. This manipulation of checks and cash is consistent with lapping. 51) To prove there were no issues with Quality Data's software and to show Guillet was solely.:accountable for the tax office improprieties, Hliva and Kiley examined batch number 81-13 that was created on 08/03/11 and received transactions'tlrough 08/04/11. This batch was prepared by Sharon,scinto on the same day the previously outlined batch numbers 80-15 and 80-20 were created by Guillet. Three (3) deposits associated Scinto's batch were made on 08104109. The first deposit was for $3,260.08, the second was for $6,930.34 and the third for $322,155.23. The batch report and transaction deposit slip totals generated by Quality Data showed there was a total of $332,345.60 in tax credig on 08/04/09. Of that amount $6,180.45 was cash. The total amount of checks in this batch was $326,165.20. There was a $.05 cent discrepancy between the deposit and the batch. This was clearly attributable to a typographical error in check #567 fuom Julia Hamilton. The deposit ticket listed Hamilton's check as $330.92, and the check is actually for $330.97. All the checks supplied from Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan were deposited in Scinto's batch and all the checks and cash *.r. u..ounted for. The above example helps prove that both Quality Data's software works and Guillet was solely to blame for the lapping scheme.
(This is page 13 sf a 27

JD-CR-64a Rev.
3-'11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1, 36-2. 36-3

www.jud.ct.gov
52) Due to the size and significance of the paperwork associated with the check lapping scheme, the documents outlined above were seized and secured as evidence. The supporting documentation to the
lapping scheme was assigned Exhibit #9.
53) On 09/29111, Finance Director Jim Hliva provided me with a spreadsheet listing the taxpayer accounts that were once thought to be delinquent. Due to the apparent delinquent status, the Oxford Tax Collector's Office issued delinquent notices to the taxpayers. Since issuing the delinquent notices, the taxpayers have provided the tax collector's office with $682,582.83 in cancelled checks to prove their taxes have been paid. As outlined in the lapping scheme report, the biggest taxpayers like Yankee Gas and Connecticut Light and Power were among the alleged delinquent taxpayers.
54) Even though these accounts were shown to be delinquent, Guillet never mentioned any large outstanding debts to the Board of Finance. Also Town Attorney Teodosio asked Guillet to give him a listing of all major tax accounts that had balances due. Teodosio was going to use this information and legal means to collect the outstanding accounts. Guillet never gave any information of delinquent accounts to Teodosio. By committing the lapping scheme Guillet was able to manipulate the accounts receivable account. The lapping scheme would create the illusion that the tax office records were verified as accurate and allowed the tax office to pass their annual audit. Hence the reason there never seemed to be a problem with the tax office records throughout the years.
55) After breaking down the lapping scheme Guillet was using to embezzle funds from the tax collector's office the finance department was tasked with determining the trail of cash from the taxpayer through the tax office and ultimately to Guillet. Finance Director Jim Hliva requested a listing of posted tax payments from Quality Data where cash was the method of payment. Quality Data supplied the calendar years of 2008 and 2009. 2007 was not supplied because it was previously determined-by Hliva and his ,Lfftttut there was not an ample sample size of documents remaining in the tax collector's office to compile an adequate sampling size. Furthermore, the+month of December 2009 was not used because December 2009 was the month Guillet's scheme was uncovered and generally a very low tax collecting month
anyway.
56) The files from Quality Data were sorted by batch number and then by date. The purpose of both sorts is that batch numbers are reused in different fiscal years. The first two (2) numbers in the batch number represent the computer operator. Number 80 was used by Tax Collector Karen Guillet and 81 was used by Assistant Tax Collector Sharon Scinto. The next two (2) numbers were conseoutive numbers which identified the batch. The numbers begin from I at the beginning of each fiscal year.
57) Hliva then took random reports from the Office of the Tax Collector to veriff the cash posting,
Caurt, Notary Public)
ARRH$T WARMNT APPLICATION

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec.36-1. 36-2.36-3
First, Middle lniUal)
SUPERIOR COURT
www.jud.ct.gov
Geographical Area numbor
Guillet, Karen
coffesponding deposit tickets and validated deposit tickets. The search was random, because there was not enough documentation available to make complete records for every batch. Once a complete package was found the following was looked at to ascertain if there was a cash shortage: The amount of cash per the computer reports (Quality Data), the amount of cash as hand written on the original deposit ticket, the amount of cash as validated by the bank and that the total amount of the deposit as validated by the bank was in agreement to the computer reports.
58) It was found within the first batch reviewed that the validated cash by Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan was greater than the cash deposited per the tax collector and the computer reports. This prompted Hliva to inquire with Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan as to how this could be. Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan stated that the cash number on the validated deposit ticket is comprised of two (2) items. The first being the actual cash deposited and the second being any checks that were wriffen on Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan checks that were included in the deposit. The bank considers these checks as "honest checkso' because they know the funds are in the bank and they are treated the same as cash. This created a problem because the actual cash could not be verified. Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan was then asked to give a breakdown of the actual cash and the checks recorded as cash (honest checks). After the checks were received by Hliva, he compiled a spreadsheet containing examples of batches with the cash paying taxpayers. The different batches contained within the spreadsheet outlines the flow of cash in each batch depicted. The spreadsheets were sorted by cash shortage, by batch number and by date and were made part of the case file. The spreadsheets were labeled as Tables 6a,6b, and 6c,
respectively.
59) A total of one-hundred (100) batches were reviewed, giving an accurate depiction of all the batches. It also shows a signihcant trend of the overall casFskimming scheme being carried out by Guillet. Per Quality Data, the total cash collections from 01/01/08 to 11130109 totaled $655,099.84. The one-hundred liOO; Latches that were analyzed by Hliva had a total cash amount of $339,421.26. This means the onehundred (100) batch sample size covered $51.8% of all of the cash collected by the tax collector in the twenty-three (23) month period mentioned above.
60) The one-hundred (100) batches show there should have been cash deposits of $339,42I.26. However, the handwritten deposit tickets show only $95,024.17 was to have been deposited by Guillet. The actual cash
'
given to the bank and validated by the bank was $95,519.08. This left the Town of Oxford with a cash shortage of $243,902.18 on the batches verified. The difference betwoen the tax collector amount and the validated amount ($494.91) could possibly be athibuted to mathematical error over the one-hundred (100)
batches.
61) Of the one-hundred (100) batches examined, only sixteen (16) batches showed all the documents to tie in exactly. Of those sixteen (16) batches, fifteen (15) were prepared by Scinto. The total cash amount of
(This is page 15 of a 27 page Affidavit.)
Date
l^3/'
I SLbscribed?ftdsworn D before me on fAaF)
Sisned
(AfiianD n
(Jude;/c/o.
-f Jrtl-
{nA
U
Jurat
$i g
ned
trffi'on'*
)/
/ttlvtl',,
'
ReueweQ
l"ii-=r-
I@
( u dge/J u{ga Ti al Rafere e )
(K, yW, yg:"U1 *

o
F.n
uate t
It
l>v1

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11 c.G.s. s 54-2a
Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1. 36-?. 36-3

www.jud.ct.gov
Guillet, Karen
thesefifteen(15)batcheswas$5l,33l.g5incashwithanaveragecashperdepositof$3,422.13. There was only one (1) deposit of Guillet's that tied in exactly and the total cash deposited was $46.27 (batch
80-61). There were two (2) addition batches prepared by Guillet that had very small differences and were probably the result of a mathematical error. Batch 80-18 was over .02 cents, but the total deposit of cash only totaled $51.71.. Batch 80-20 was short $1.89, but the total deposit of cash only totaled $18.09. 62) As stated earlier, only 2008 and 2009 were used to compile the one-hundred (100) examples. This was because only a small quantity of the records could be found from 2007. However in the month of January 2007 eight (8) complete batches were found and the total missing cash was $35,303.08 Also in the month of July two (2) complete batches were found and the missing cash was $7,776.73 . The reason why these months were chosen to sample from was because January and July are generally the two (2) highest tax months in the fiscal year. A separate worksheet was generated and outlines these two (2) months. 63) On 09127111, Finance Director Jim Hliva provided me with copies of leffers sent to the Oxford taxpayers that paid cash for their Fiscal Year 2008 taxes. The letter asked the taxpayer to provide proof of their cash payment. This was done to aid in the cash skimming portion of the investigation. The town mailed approximately eight-hundred (800) letters. By 09127111, the town had received one-hundred (124) responses in which the taxpayer provided the correct information (i.e. receipt) that can be used to substantiate the payment. One-hundred thirty four (134) letters were returned by the post offtce. Twentysix (26) letters were returned with incorrect information due to a variety of reasons such as wrong dates on the receipt or the taxpayer paid in check, not cash as indicated by the tax records. Five-hundred sixteen (516) people did not respond to the request. 64) The rate of retum on the letters from the taxpayers is 18.620/o. These letters verified $89,866.65 in cash payments to the Oxford Tax Collector's Office. If there was a I00% return of all the letters, the projected lclss for Fiscal Year 2008 would have been approximately $418,670.88, based off the 15.62% retum rate.
65)Sue to the size and significance of the paperwork
associated with the cash skimming scheme, the documents outlined above were seized and secured as evidence. The supporting documentation to the lapping scheme was assigned Exhibit #10.
66) Through the course of the investigation State Police Detectives spoke with many individuals with , information to offer regarding Guillet, her lavish spending habits and the suspected larceny. In order to gain information regarding the embezzlement within Oxford Town Hall several town employees were
interviewed. 67) On 07/l2l|l, Detective Van Ness #1431 and I interviewed Joyce Eades in a meeting room located at Oxford Town Hall. During the interview Eades stated the following in part; Eades stated she has been
a.
(Ihls is page 16 of a 27 Page
ARREST WARRANT APFLICATION

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. S 54-24 Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1, 36-2, 36-3 Name (Lasl
STATE OF CONNECTICUT $UPERIOR COURT

www.jud.ct.gov
Geooraohical
Guillet, Karen
Area-number 5
working at Oxford Town Hall since 1986. She was initially hired as a part time worker in the tax collector's office. In 1987 she started working in the assessor's office and has remained in that position since. Eades stated she has known Karen Guillet since 1974, when Guillet had a day care business in Ansonia. Guillet provided child care for Eades' son. Eades stated she and Guillet became very good
friends. 68) Eades stated the tax collector's office and the assessor's office share the vault between the rooms in town hall. Eades further stated access to the vault was limited. Eades stated she would sometimes use the tlpewriter in the vault to type new homeowner cards, but she has not used the typewriter in years. 69) A number of years ago, while working in the assessor's office an employee from Quality Data informed Eades that the property assessment of 2 Douglas Drive (Guillet's residence) had been changed. Eades further stated it was strange that Guillet's assessment would change for no apparent reason. Eades stated she did not know who made the change in the system and did not know enough about the system to determine who made the changes. Eades also stated Guillet always said Quality Data's software could not accommodate the sewer assessors or the aircraft program in the system. Furthermore, Guillet kept telling the assessor's office that the assessor's office and the tax collector's offrce could not be linked to each other with Quality Data's software. Guillet's beliefs regarding the computer software were found to be false by the assessor's office. Eades went on to state no one in town hall really had any control over Guillet. Eades stated Guillet had "carte blanche at town hall for years." She also stated there was never anyone to go to over the years in town hall. Aside from First Selectnan Drayton-Rogers, if things were mentioned to a first selectman they would say "okay" but nothing was ever done. Eades stated that over the years Guillet always told everyone what they wanted to hear referring to the computer system, the town auililors, and her fellow employees. Therefore, there were never any issues.
70) Eades stated the worst day in town hall was- I llTg/09. She stated on 11/10/09, Guillet was off from work and Sharon Scinto was alone in the tax collector's office. Because Guillet was off, Scinto asked Eades to
attest her,bank deposit figures. Scinto had a deposit consisting of mostly checks ($27,695.46) and $3,093.42 in oash. On lll19l09, Scinto discovered that her deposit ticket had been altered and brought it to the attention of Eades. The deposit ticket revealed a much lesser amount of cash.
71) Eades stated Guillet always carried a lot of cash. She knew this because she would sometimes ask Guillet to borrow money and she could see how much cash Guillet had in her purse when she would open it. She further stated Guillet was always wearing expensive clothing and jewelry. Guillet athibuted her wealth to inherited money from her aunt and a trust fund from her parents. Eades ttrought Guillet's spending habits and material possessions were suspicious. During a holiday party, Eades asked Guillet's sister (Janet) about the alleged inherited jewelry that Guillet wore and the trust fund left to them by their parents. Janet stated to Eades that their aunt did not leave jewelry to Karen. In response to the trust fund Janet stated to
(Ihls
is
page 17 of a 27,

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1, 36-2, 36-3 Name {Last,

www.jud.ct"gov
Geooraohical
Guillet, Karen
Area'number 5
Eades with a funny look on her face "Like what are you talking about?" Janet went on to state there was no such trust fund for any of the kids.
72)Eades stated that in October 2010 Guillet asked Eades'former husband (Kenneth) if she could borrow $5,000 from him. Her husband lent Guillet the money. Guillet never told Kenneth Eades what the money was for and has yet to pay him back. However, Guillet told him that her sons needed money to pay their personal properly taxes in Beacon Falls, but is not sure that is actually what Guillet used the money for.
73) Eades stated while Guillet was employed by the Town of Oxford there were always credit card companies calling to collect payments from Guillet. She fuither stated the calls from the uedit card companies increased after Guillet resigned.
74) Eades recalled several incidents through the years when checks and cash were found in unusual places around the tax collector's office. Eades further stated it didn't make sense that these checks were not deposited.
75) Shortly before Guillet resigned from Oxford Town Hall, Eades stated Guillet stopped leaving the office for lunch and was spending a great deal of time in her office. Eades stated Guillet cleaned out her desk and was throwing a lot of things in the garbage and tearing up papers. Eades stated this behavior was out of the ordinary.
76)
On 07/20111, Detective Van Ness and I interviewed Alice Hardej in a meeting room at Oxford Town Hall. Hardej works in Building Department at Oxford Town Hall. During the interview Hardej stated the
following in part; Hardej told us about an incident that occurred in December 2009 during a bus trip to New York City. Hardej stated Guillet asked Hardej and her daughter to look for knee boots for her in Bloomingdale's, to purchase them and Guillet would pay her back. Hardej and her daughter found two (2) different pairs of boots costing $600 and $1,800 in Bloomingdale's. Hardej called Guillet's cell phone to inform her of the boots they had located in Bloomingdale's. Hardej was'irnable to speak to Guillet, so she left her a message. After returning to Connecticut, Hardej stated she noticed she had a missed call and voice mail from Guillet asking her to purchase the $1,800 boots for her. Hardej brought this incident to our attention because she thought it was strange for someone to spend that much money on a pair of
boots.
l7)Hafiejalso told us about the times she would filI in as a floater in the tax collector's office between 1993 and 1998. Hardej stated she noticed unpaid balances in the tax collector's computer system. Hardej
would bring the unpaid balances to Guillet's attention, at which time Guillet told her to ignore the unpaid balance and attributed it to a computer software problem. Hardej stated she did not make entries into the Quality Data software, nor did she make deposits, only Guill.et would.
(This is
18 af a 27 page
_BlrJ_
Court, Notaty Public)

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. $ec.36-1, 36-2. 36-3 {Last, FisL
STATE OF CONNECTICUT $UPERIOR COURT

!v\ /w.jud.ct.gov Geooraohical
Guillet, Karen
Area'number 5
78) Hardej stated she occasionally would use the typewriter in the tax collector's office to type names and
address on envelopes.
79) On
07lLzl|l, Detective Van Ness and I interviewed Ann Cummings in a meeting room at Oxford Town Hall. Cummings works in the Finance Department at Oxford Town Hall. During the interview Cummings stated the following in part; Cummings stated she has been working in Oxford Town Hall since 1987 as an assistant bookkeeper, then eventually bookkeeper for the town. Cummings stated from
the first day she worked in Oxford Town Hall she thought Guillet was a "phoney." She further stated she did not normally deal with the tax collector's office, but would sometimes go into the office for attendance purposes and to use the typewriter. She stated the typewriter was used for typing out checks, forms or envelopes. 80) Cummings stated Guillet lives a lifestyte quite different from anyone else who worked in town hall. She further stated Guillet was always receiving packages at town hall from high end department stores. She also stated that Guillet was very generous when giving gifts to other employees. She would buy other employees clothes, toys for their children and sometimes jewelry. When it was Guillet's turn to order tunctr for a special occasion at town hall she would have the lunch catered, rather than prepare something homemade as the other employees normally do. Cummings attributed these acts of kindness and Guillet's lavish spending to the income generated from her husband's construction company. 81) Cummings also recalled several lies Guillet has told over the years, such as her sons being deployed to Iraq, vacations abroad that she never had any pictures of; nor did she take the time-off from work to go on such vacations, lying about her age and dress size, etc.
82) Cummings stated Guillet rarely took a day days of leave that she was entitled
to.
off from work
and from 2000 to 2009 qhe has lost close

+
to
100
83) Cummings reoalled an incident in December 2009 when Scinto approached Cummings crYing, but was reluctant to tell her what was going on. When Guillet was escorted out of town hall a month later, Cummings said only then she rcalized the cause of Scinto's sadness.
84) During the course of the internal investigation launched by the Town of Oxford and the criminal investigation by the State Police, Cummings was assigned to sort through the tax collector's documents so they can be organized and made part of the investigation. Cummings stated the tax collector's office and the documents contained within were in total disarray. She further stated it took them a couple months to
get everything in order.
(Ihts is page I I of a 27
to before me on (Date)
ARREST WARRANT APPLICA.TION

,lD-CR-64a Rev.
3-11
C.G.S. $ 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec.36-1,35-2, 36-3 Name /Last First, Middle

www.jud.ct.gov
Guillet, Karen
85) On
07120111,
Detective Van Ness and I interviewed Eve Detzer at Oxford Town Hall. During the interview, De1zelr stated in part the following: Detzer stated she began working as a part time finance clerk sometime around May, 2009. Detzer stated that other than distributing paychecks, she had very little contact with Guillet. Detzer stated that after Karen left, she was asked to fill in at times in the tax collector's office, answering phones and assisting residents with bill paying. De%er stated she believed she was asked to fill in on two (2) separate days for a few hours a day. Delzer also stated that prior to Guillet's departure she had utilized the tlpewriter in Guillet's office to type checks on at least one (1)
occasion.
86) Detzer stated she had been tasked by Finance Director Jim Hliva with matching up documents taken from the tax collector's offrrce, such as deposit slips, receipt rolls, bank receipts and batch reports. Detzer stated that the documents were in various boxes, bags and containers that may have been partially labeled by months and years, but that further inspection of the contents showed that the documents did not match the labels. Detzer stated that all documents were systematically separated and put in order, but many of the documents were missing. Detzer stated that in the process of separating documents she discovered that the totals of batch reports, deposit slips, tapes and bank receipts were in balance, but that after careful review of the reports many made no sense. Detzer explained that the total cash listed on the deposit slips did not equal the total cash on the batch reports and tapes, despite the fact that the grand totals were in balance. Detzer stated upon further inspection, checks, which had been held from previous days, were recorded in the deposit slip "checks total" in place of cash that had not been deposited, in order to make up the difference. Detzer stated she also noticed that many of the bank deposit receipts had the validation data on the back typed by a typewriter, rather than printed by the bank's machines, indicating that cash deposits had been processed, when in fact they had not. De%er stated there were also checks individually listed on deposit slips which haifiot been received in batdh report for the same day, leadi@her to believe that they had been previously submitted by tax payers but held by Guillet until thery were needed by Guillet to replace cash figures and bring the"days "total deposit' in balance with the reports.
87) On 07112/11, Detective Van Ness and I interviewed Oxford Assistant Assessor TeresfGeremski in a meeting room at Oxford Town Hall. During the interview, Geremski stated the following in part; Geremski stated she has been working in the Oxford Assessor's Office since 2006. She further stated the assessor's office shares a vault with the tax collector's office. Geremski stated Guillet's office was very unorganized and very much in disanay.
88) Geremski stated when she first started working at town hall she would enter Certificates of Correction, which changes the assessed value of a properly, into her computer system in the assessor's office. She would then give the Certificate of Correction to Guillet to be changed in the tax oollector's system. Geremski found this practice strange and knew that there were statutes against tax collectors changing the assessed value of a property. After approximately six (6) months of working at town hall, Geremski

JD-CR-64a Rev.
3-'11
C.G.S. $ 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1, 36-2. 36-3 (LaEt, Firct,

www.jud.cl.gov
Guillet, Karen
questioned Guillet's practice. Geremski learned that Guillet had the software company (euality Data) turn off the bridge that automatically changes the assessed value of property a in the tax cotieitor,s system immediately after rhe value is changed in the assessor's ofhce. when c-.r.-Ji uf;;;; Griilet with this Guillet's response to Geremski's was that she never trusted anyone to make the proper in the assessor's office, so she requested the bridge be shut off. "ha.rge, 89) Geremski stated Scinto approached her on the day she discovered the improprieties with the deposit slips believed to be fabricated by Guillet. she further rtut"a the deposit slip that'Guillet had deposited did not include the cash Scinto had previously counted and closed with. Geremski overheard Scinto questioning Guillet about the deposit at which time Guillet stated she was going to the bank to ngure out what happened' Guillet left and returned approximately five (5) minutes laier and stated she wluld go to the bank the following day. Guillet never mentioned ihe incident to Scinto again, but Geremsti urgio her to report the incident to the front office. 90) on 07ll2ll1, Detective Van Ness and I also interviewed Geremski's boss, Town Assessor Eva Lintzner in a meeting room at oxford Town Hall. Lintzner stated she began working in the assessor's omr" rin". 2004' Lintzner further stated Guillet was well respected in her position u, [" oxford Tax Collector when she began working at town hall and__was also a very caring, concerned and productive member of the oxford community' she stated Guillet was always very generous to some town employees babuying gifts and catered lunches to celebrate special o""uriorrr. She further stated Guillet seemed to live a more privileged life compared to the other employees at town hall. Lintzner stated Guillet always had lovely clothes, drove new Jaguars and had money to spend. Lintzner added that Guillet stated she had a trust fund from her father.
9l) LinZner
stated Guillet complained to the Board of Finance and the Board of Selectman about the assessor's office making mistakes with their adjustrnents and creating lots of work for her. As Lintzner explained the assessor's office was doing their work correctly ano c:uittet *"r ;;;r[lr^i" ui"-i due to her poor record keeping. Lintzner statedronce her assistant (Geremski) was hired the assessor,s office was linked to the tax collector's office (Quality Data) and Guilletis complaining subsided.
92)
Timberlake Gulf Partner's property. Lintzner found that the computer system stated their taxes had not been paid and there was inJerest owed to the town. when Lintzrir quesiioned Guillet about Timberlake Gulf Parhrer's taxes not being paid Guillet staled they paid their taxes, but Guillet had not entered the payment into the system yet. Lintzner stated the situati,on was uncomfortabb this specific piece of property Lintzner ended her statement by saying "" she feels betrayed and hurt by
Lintner gave a specific example of Guillet's questionable practices when she recalled a time when the Town of oxford was sued by Timberlake Gulf Partrrers in regard to the assessment of their property. During negotiations the town attorney asked Lin,?ner to check and see if the taxes had been paid on
6;;dh; il;;j:;k
21
ofa27

JD-CR-64a Rev,3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-'1. 36-2, 36-3 ame

www.jud.ct.gov
GeooraDhil
Guillet, Karen
Area'number 5
Guillefs actions. She further stated "'We were
a
trusting community and that has been shattered."
93) On
IllI5lI1, Sergeant Kline #142 and I interviewed Crudele in his office located at Quality Data Services, Inc. Quality Data is the software company that provides tax collector and town assessor
computer services to over 130 towns in the Connecticut, including the Town of Oxford. Crudele is the president of Quality Data Services. During the interview Crudele stated he has been providing his company's services to the Town of Oxford for over twenty (20) years. Crudele stated he became aware of the issues involving Karen Guillet at Oxford Town Hall on 07105109. He further stated on this date he received a call from Guillet stating her elderly tax accounts were not balancing and asked if Crudele would take a look at the problem. Crudele went to Oxfrod Town Hall and spoke with Guillet. He told her during that time that the elderly accounts could not cause an imbalance. Furthermore, the software would not allow an imbalance. At this time Guittet told Crudele she had been drafting all of the Certihcate of Corrections (C of Cs). Crudele stated that this practice was improper and illegal. He further stated assessment changes should only be made by the assessor's office and the tax collector should only be making money changes (i.e. elderly credits, donations, et cetera). Crudele then told the assessor's office that the current practice was unacceptable and giving Guillet control over the C of Cs allowed her to do whatever she wanted with the information within the database. The assessor's office stated that this is the way it has always been, regarding Guillet handling the C of Cs. It was Crudele's understanding that this practice ceased on this day. Crudele's statements are consistent with the statements provided by Town Assessor Eva Lintzner, Assisstant Assessor Teresa Geremski, and Assessor's clerk Joyce Eades in regards to Guillefs control of the C of Cs. 94) Crudele remembers times in the past when representatives from the Town of Oxford called his company asking why Oxford's hx collections were so low. Crudele stated he considers anything below 96Yo very bad. He further stated sometime between 1992 and l994he believed the tax collection rate to be around 92/93%. Crudele stated one of his employees oalled Guillet and asked her for a possible reason why the collection rate was so low. Guillet's response was that the reason why the collection rate was so low was because an escrow check from a bank was mistakenly deposited by the finance office, bypassing hetoffice and not properly crediting the town's tax account 95) Regarding the bridge in the software between the assessor's office and the tax collector's office Crudele stated the bridge could not be turned offbecause it is one (1) database.
" '
:i: .E..
96) On
Detective Mudry and I interviewed Judith Melko. On 1ll10/11, Detective Mudry, Detective Van Ness and Sergeant Kline completed a twelve (12) page written statement with Melko. Melko is Guillet's former dog sitter and supplied detectives with intimate knowledge of Guillet's personal expenses as well as the cash and financial documents being secreted at her home in Oxford.
lll02ll1,
ARREST WARRANT AFPLICATION

JD-CR-64a Rev.
3-'11
SUPERIOR COURT
www.jud.ct.gov
C.G.S. $ 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1, 36-2, 36-3 (Lest, F rst. Middle lnitial)
Guillet, Karen
Affidavit - Continued 97) Melko stated she met Guillet when she began working as a part time receptionist at Oxford Town Hall in the 1990's. Melko later left Oxford Town Hall and was hired by Guillet to watch her dog when her husband and she would go out for the night. Eventually Guillet hired Melko to work for her everyday and paid her $100 cash/day. In addition to watching her dog Melko stated she was tasked with completing other various responsibilities such as working around the house, running errands, making bank deposits, picking up and dropping off dry cleaning and shopping for Guillet. Melko further stated Guillet also hired a cleaning lady, several gardeners, a second dog walker, a baker, and a florist that delivered fresh flowers to Guillefs home every Friday. Melko stated Guillet's husband did not know what Guillet was paying the workers because she only paid them when her husband was not around and always in cash.
98) Aside from the hired help around the house, Melko stated Guillet spent unbelievable amounts of money on clothes, beauty treatments, vacations, jewelry, home d6cor, and landscaping around the house. 99) Melko stated Guillet would have her make cash deposits to Bank of America nearly every week. Melko further stated the deposit envelopes were always sealed when she took them to the bank, but were opened and counted in her presence by the bank teller. Melko stated the deposits were always cash, mostly containing $100 denominations. She further stated the usual deposit amount was anywhere between $2,000 to $3,000 weekly. Guillet would tell Melko that the money was from her father or husband. Guillet instructed Melko to put the receipts from the deposits in the "QXR' room. '(QlKIt" was the code word for the laundry room in Guillet's house. According to Melko, the laundry room was Guillefs hiding place for financial documents. In addition to the receipts being put into the "QXR" room, Melko stated she observed Oxford town resident's tax bills in the room as well. Melko further stated she once observed a dresser drawer in Guillet's bedroom full of cash containing all different denominations of cash. Melko -tated there had tote thousands of dollars stashsd in thedresser.
l00LMelko went on to state that Guillet's husband was not giving her (Guillet) the cash she was spending.
Melko went on to give several examples of times when Guillet would attribute a costly purchase such as a ,*dinner to the money her husband gave her. Melko stated she would then ask or thank Guillefs husband for the dinner and Guillet's husband would respond by sayng he did not give her money for anything.
101) Through the course of the investigation State Police Detectives learned that Guillet used her Bank of America checking account for her payroll direct deposit. A search and seizure warrant was obtained for this account. Using the figures depicted on the deposit slips for the years of 2007,2008, 2009 they show significant cash deposits totaling $470,850.00. The total deposit figure, which includes checks and other credits, totaled $555,023.40. In addition to the significant cash deposits made to Guillet's Bank of America checking account were electronic payments made to Amirican Express from 12112/06 to 02/08110 in excess of $199,000.00. All the payments were in the name of Karen M. Guillet. Bank of America also informed me that Guillet holds a credit card through Bank of America, but the account is
flhis
is page 23 of a 27 page

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
SUPERIOR COURT
www.jud.ct.gov
c.G.s. $ 54-2a
Pr- Bk. Sec. 36-1. 36-2. 36-3 First, Middle
Guillet, Karen
maintained by FIA Card Services, N.A.
102) Two (2) additional search and seizure waffants were applied for and obtained to retrieve records for Guillet's credit card maintained by FIA Card Services and American Express. 103) On 05109/11, the results of the search and seizure warrant requesting Guillet's credit card statements through FIA Card Services for the yeus )007 through 2010 were delivered via UPS to Troop A. A spreadsheet was compiled showing Guillet's spending and payment habits over the course of the aforementioned time frame. The spreadsheet was labeled as Table #4 and incorporated into the case file.
104) The total charges and purchases for this time frame by Karen Guillet were $10,807.90. The total amount of payments Guillet made during this period was $23,942.98. None of the purchases made on the FIA Credit Card appeared to be frivolous or unnecessary.
105) On 08/30/11, the results of the search and seizure warrant requesting Guillefs American Express statements were delivered via UPS to Troop A. The statements covered a period of time that included January 2007 through July 2010. A spreadsheet was compiled showing Guillefs spending and payment habits over the course of the aforementioned time frame. The spreadsheet was labeled as Table #3 and incorporated into the case file. The statement showed AMEX account number 3713-806230-91003 to be in the name of Nil Guillet. An additional account in the name of Karen Guillet is also attached to Nil Guillet's account. Karen Guillet's account number ends in gl02g. This differentiation in card numbers allows independent tracking of the separate accounts, even though the expenditures appear on the same
statement.
106) The statement also shows accountnumbers ending in22005 and220I3linkedto However, there were no names or expenditures linked to these accounts.
Nil Guillefs
account.
107) During the aforementioned time frame, Karen Guillet was the- only person charging purchases to the AMEX card. The only charges Nil Guillet incurred over this time period were administrative charges such as yearly fees and late fees, most likely because he was the main account holder.
108) The total charges and purchases for the time period of 2007 to 2010 by Karen Guillet was $108,7 7t.07. The total amount of payments Guillet made during this period was $113,915.95. 109) The statements also depict how Guillet's payments to AMEX stopped once she resigned from the Town of Oxford. The only charges incurred since her departure from Oxford are late penalties for non-payment.
110) Guillet's spending over this time period was mostly at posh clothing and department stores, hotels,

JD-CR'64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. $ 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-'1, 36-2, 36-3
Firsf.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR GOURT

www.jud.ct.gov
GeooraDhil
Guillet, Karen
Area-number 5
casinos, spas, and salons. For example, during a period of nine (9) months in 2007, Guillet spent 99,437.35 at a salon and spa in Southbury. In March 2007, Guillet made three (3) separate purchases totaling $5,812.28 at a posh clothing store in Westport. She also made a single purchase at the same store in June 2009 for $3,537.83. During a one (1) night stay at the Foxwoods Resort and Casino in September 2009, Guillet spent $1,980.92 on lodging, jewelry and dining. During what appears to be a one (1) night stay at a luxury hotel in Keene, New Hampshire Guillet spent $2,382.76. Guillet also spent tens of thousands of dollars at high end stores such as Swarovski Crystal, Neiman Marcus, Saks Fifth Avenue, Lord & Taylor, Williams Sonoma, et cetera. These purchases are exclusive to her AMEX card. 111) On 08122111, I requested the Connecticut tax records of Nil and Karen Guillet through the State Police Central Criminal Intelligence Unit (CCU). On 09106lIl, I received Guillefs tax records from the years of 2007 through 2010. The records showed Nil (husband) and Karen Guillet's joint Federally Adjusted Gross Income to be as follows: a. 2007-$82,876.00 b.2008-$103,740.00 c. 2009-$100,752.00 d. 2010-$29,092.00
112) On 02/16/11, I obtained a written statement from the First Selectmanrs Administrative Assistant, Joe Calabrese. Calabrese stated the verification and depositing of monies from the tax collector's office was left to the discretion of the tax collector. Furthermore, deposits were also not verified by any other person prior to being brought to the bank.
113) On 09/2g/Il, I spoke with Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan Bank Manager Christina Stone. She stated she was aware of the ongoing investigation into Guillet. She further stated she was working at the Seymour brancl of Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan when the towlr_ opened the account a few years ago. Stone was later transferred to the Oxford branch. Stone stated that Guillet always dropped off the deposit bags for the tax collectorls office. She further stated other tovm=employees such as Hliva would drop offthe deposit bags for the town account but not for the tax collector's office.
1
14) Stone informed me there was a bank log that documented who dropped off deposit bags. She stated she was unable to provide me with hard copies of the log without a court order. A search warrant was then applied for and granted to seize the deposit bag drop off log. The information contained within the drop logs would substantiate Stone's statements that Guillet was the only,person she knew of that dropped off deposits for the Town of Oxford Tax Collector's Office. This information would also show that Guillet was the only person who possessed the bank deposits from town hall to Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan.
(This
is page 25
of::a
27 pageAtfrdavlt,)

JD-CR-Ma Rev- 3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1, 36-2. 36-3 Name {Lasl First, Middle lnitial)

www.jud.ct.gov
Guillet, Karen
115) On 10/14/11, Sergeant Kline and I executed the search waffant at Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan in Oxford. We seized fifteen (15) pages of the deposit bag drop off log. The dates covered in those fifteen (15) pages were 07102/08 to 0lll2ll0. The pages seized were assigned Exhibit #11. 116) Contained within the deposit bag drop off log Guillet's name appears ninety-nine (99) times during the aforementioned time period as being the person who dropped off a deposit bag. Hliva's name also appears on the log twenty (20) times, but as Hliva and Stone stated the deposits were not for the tax collector's office. There were other town employees that dropped off deposit bags as well, but there has been no indication that anyone besides Guillet dropped off deposit bags for the tax collector's office. Furthermore, Hliva has indicated other town employees besides himself have dropped off the deposit bags for the town account, but never for the tax collector's account. In addition to the evidence compiled to substantiate the aforementioned lapping scheme is evidence tracing the funds directly from the tax payer through the tax office and into the hands off Guillet, who as described above, was the only person delivering the deposit bags to Naugatuck Valley Savings and Loan. 117) On I0/03/I1, Hliva provided me with the State of Connecticut "Municipal Fiscal Indicators" reports for the years 2002 to 2009. The Municipal Fiscal Indicator Report is a publication that consists of the most current financial information available for each of Connecticut's 169 municipalities. The majority of the data has been compiled from the audited financial reports of municipalities.
118) Hliva compiled information from the Municipal Fiscal Indicators report supplied to him by the state and the past fiscal indicator information he had on file in Oxford. He then composed a spreadsheet using the information in the fiscal indicator reports. The reports show that the Town of Oxford was last or second to last (168 or 169 out of 169) in the Total Collected as a Yo of Totaloutstanding Taxes category each year for the fiscal years 1 999 to 2009.
119) This information gives considerable weight to the probability that Guillet has been embezzlingmoney from the tax collecto*soffice well before the three (3) years of larceny outlined;in this affidavit. 120)
On
02110/11, I was supplied with Guillet's attendance records. Guillet rarely took a day off from work and from 2000 to 2009 Guillet had lost nearly one-hundred (100) days of leave that she was entitled to. With regards to the aforementioned days of suspect bank transactions Guillet was present at work nearly every day. I cross referenced days of suspected criminal activity to Guillefs attendance records. In reference to dates referenced in this afhdavit I found two (2) days when Guillet did not work at least% of. the day. Those days are 05/13/08 (vacation day), and 07117108 (funeral).
121) Guillet's Bank of America statements showed there was over $199,000 in payments to American Express
26 of a 27 pageAffidavit.)

JD-CR-64a Rev.3-11
C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1, 36-2, 36-3 Name
SUPERIOR COURT
www.jud.ct.gov
Geooraohical
Guillet, Karen
Area"nrrmher 5
from 12112/06 to 021051rc. The American Express records show Guillet made $113,915.95 in payments from 02101/07 to 07102110, roughly the same time frame. Guillet's American Express statements show a pattern of excessive spending on merchandise not necessary for everyday living. As stated earlier, the spending was mostly spent at clothing and department stores, hotels, casino, spas and salons.
122) This affidavit and the investigation conducted by the State Police depicts a relatively small portion of the immense larceny, both in regards to the length of time and the amount of money stolen by Guillet. Therefore, of the one-hundred (100) sample batches manipulated and altered by Guillet, the investigation shows that at least $243,902.18 was proven to be embezzledby Guillet with supporting documentation. This is supported by the cash posting in the Quality Data Software compared to the actual bank validated deposit slips. The investigation has shown that after the entoies were made in the Quality Data Software, Guillet would alter or fabricate a fraudulent deposit slip to reflect the amount of money that she wanted to deposit while keeping a portion to herself. This is not withstanding the overall lapping scheme which was used to conceal her larceny by creating the illusion that everything'was in balance.
123) Based upon the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the affiant believes probable cause exists to show Karen Guillet embezzled approximately $243,902.18 over the course of 2008, and 2009. The affiant also believes probable cause exists to show Guillet forged at least six (6) deposit slips in 2009. The affiant requests that an arrest warrant be issued for Karen Guillet DOB 12124149 charying her with Larceny in the lst Degree (53a-I22) and six counts of Forgery in the First Degree (53a-138).
124)Thatthis affidavit has not been presented before any otherjudge or court.
(This is page 27 of a 27 page .Atfidavit.):

Guillet Warrant

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guillet Warrant

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

For Court Use Only

Supporting Affidavits sealed

CT State Police-Western District Major Crime Squad

Application For Arrest Warrant

of the above-named accused on the basis of the facts

This is page 'l of a 27 page Aftidavit.)

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT

Fr. Bk. Sec. 36.1, 36-2, 36-3 ame

First. MidCle lnitial)

with Guillet's salary to be spending that much money. Scinto

20) On 10125/ll, Forensic Science Examiner Greg Kettering

lied the affrantwith a lab report stating he

ARREST WARMNT APPLICATION

(Last Frrst Middle lnitial)

tLl ,{*t./ UudgeilafigaTiatReferee)

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

c. 1 deposit - A tansaction deposit slip dated 07/2ll}9 for

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

ARRE$T WARRANT APPLICATION

C,G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1. 36-2, 36-3 Name

STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

ARRE$T WARRANT APFLICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUFERIOR COURT

ffhtstspage 10Af a27

.ARRFST WARRANT APPLICATION

(This it page 71 ofa27 page 8 11 ot a 27

'nn'o'*ufu:l. 11/ KA o'n "o{*n"ff"^^W'y'W{

eviewed ( J u dg effidg e_fn a t n {n

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

f"p':p* Y/ lff* o r, /f Tial

ARREST WARR,ANT APPLICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

C.G.S. S 54-2a Pr. Bk. Sec. 36-1, 36-2. 36-3

STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT

Caurt, Notary Public)

ARRH$T WARMNT APPLICATION

( u dge/J u{ga Ti al Rafere e )

(K, yW, yg:"U1 *

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT

65)Sue to the size and significance of the paperwork

(Ihls is page 16 of a 27 Page

ARREST WARRANT APFLICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT $UPERIOR COURT

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT

Court, Notaty Public)

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT $UPERIOR COURT

off from work

and from 2000 to 2009 qhe has lost close

ARREST WARRANT APPLICA.TION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT SUPERIOR COURT

ARREST WARRANT APPLICATION

'nn'o'ufu:l. 11/ KA o'n "o{n"ff"^^W'y'W{