ILNews

2 indicted for defrauding company of $1.6M

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Fishers, Ind. man, along with a businessman in California, have been charged in the Southern District of Indiana with stealing more than a million dollars from the Indianapolis-area branch of power tool manufacturer Stanley Black and Decker.

The indictment alleges that Derek Bresky, 28, and Dennis Furst, 37, conspired to create invoices for work that was never completed by Furst’s California company, 365 Electrician.

Bresky, as accounts payable supervisor at the Indianapolis-area office of Stanley Black and Decker, would use other employees’ login information to remotely access the Stanley accounts system from California. He would process the false invoices from 365 Electrician and deposit the money into that company’s business account.

The indictment alleges that the two men defrauded Stanley Black and Decker of more than $1.6 million between April and August.

Bresky and Furst face up to 20 years in prison if they are found guilty. The government will also seek seizure of property that can be traced back to the alleged fraud, including a car, watches and bank accounts. Assistant U.S. Attorney Bradley P. Shepard said that federal authorities have already recovered assets of approximately $1 million in an effort to track funds they believe were the result of the alleged fraud.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT