Fabricated Janitorial Staff: How a School Logistics Manager Orchestrated a Two-Year Payroll Fraud Worth Over 600,000 Yuan

Deep News
Sep 07

Although attendance logs were meticulously complete and salaries were disbursed punctually every month, the seven janitors listed on the payroll never once set foot on the school campus. This fraudulent scheme, which lasted more than two years, ultimately unraveled after a tip-off from a frontline employee who noticed the discrepancies.

In June 2026, the Yinzhou District People's Procuratorate filed charges against Li and Mao. By early July of the same year, the district court delivered its verdict, convicting them of embezzlement. Li received a sentence of one year's imprisonment, while Mao was sentenced to nine months behind bars, suspended for one year and two months.

Li held the position of logistics manager at a school in Ningbo, tasked with supervising and assessing the performance of the property management company. Mao, meanwhile, served as the cleaning manager for that same contracted property firm. After becoming familiar with each other through daily work interactions, the pair began scheming in early 2021 to exploit weaknesses in the system for financial gain.

Because of Li's oversight role, the property company's attendance sheets and salary confirmation forms required his personal sign-off before the school's finance department would release funds intended for cleaning wages into the property firm's account. The money would then be distributed to individual employees' bank cards. Recognizing that the high turnover rate among cleaning staff made it unlikely for additional names to draw suspicion, Li and Mao collaborated to fabricate identities.

Li used identification documents belonging to friends and relatives to invent seven nonexistent janitorial positions. Mao, in turn, executed the deception by signing false labor agreements with the property company and generating fake clock-in records for these "shadow employees" within the attendance system. Backed by Li's approval authority validating the counterfeit timesheets and payroll, the school disbursed wages on a monthly basis. The salary cards opened under the names of Li's acquaintances were entirely under his own control. Each month, once funds were credited, Li would withdraw the cash and privately split the proceeds with Mao.

Over the course of more than two years, the pair siphoned off over 600,000 yuan in school property management funds. The scheme could not remain hidden forever, however. In September 2023, a real janitor at the school noticed that several "colleagues" listed alongside them on the roster were never seen on the premises, yet appeared to be receiving identical pay, sparking suspicion and a sense of injustice that led to an internal report.

The school's preliminary investigation initially pointed the finger at the property company as the sole culprit, prompting legal action against the firm. However, during court proceedings, a review of the financial trail revealed that the fraudulently claimed wages were actually being routed into bank accounts controlled by Li. This discovery exposed the inside job, and the school immediately filed a criminal complaint.

In June 2026, public security authorities transferred the case to the Yinzhou District People's Procuratorate for review and prosecution. After examining bank statements, forged labor agreements, and other evidence, prosecutors concluded that Li, leveraging his signature authority as a school logistics supervisor, had colluded with Mao to unlawfully appropriate institutional property on a significant scale, bringing charges of embezzlement against both individuals. Although Mao was not an employee of the school, their joint conspiracy and use of Li's official position to commit the crime meant that Mao was equally liable as an accomplice. Given that both defendants made full restitution of the stolen funds after their arrest, the court handed down the aforementioned sentences in accordance with the law.

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Most Discussed

  1. 1
     
     
     
     
  2. 2
     
     
     
     
  3. 3
     
     
     
     
  4. 4
     
     
     
     
  5. 5
     
     
     
     
  6. 6
     
     
     
     
  7. 7
     
     
     
     
  8. 8
     
     
     
     
  9. 9
     
     
     
     
  10. 10