Tuesday, June 23, 2009

California Couple Get Off With Probation & Restitution In $165+K Embezzlement Case

Perrin Vidal Clark, 29, and his wife Rachel Jane Clark of Sacramento, California, were ordered to spend five years on probation and must pay restitution for embezzling at least $165,000 from Sonoma Sausage LLC in Napa, California where they were both employed. Specifically, they plead guilty last week to one count of grand theft by embezzlement; 26 counts of forgery, two counts of receiving stolen property; one count of burglary; and two special allegations of stealing more than $65,000 and $100,000, respectively. Perrin was employed as a sales director and Rachel as office manager. The Clarks reportedly forged Vance Sharp's, name, who is the owner of Sonoma Sausage, on unauthorized credit card transactions, among other things. The thefts reportedly occurred between 2007 and 2008.

Read the story here.


Anonymous said...

This case was investigated by a personal friend of Vance Sharp, Dt. McDonald of Napa Police Dept. Vance Sharp's son Patrick is a police officer in Napa and formerly worked in Sonoma. The Clark's hired a private attorney who withdrew from the case requesting more money. They were represented by a public defender who did not use any witnesses or subpoena any evidence to support their defense. The amount currently is 90,000.00 dollars, not 165K. The Clark's were unable to cut this amount down because the Napa Police department took ALL of their records and were uncooperative or deceptive in providing all evidence to the defense. Three weeks after the initial arrest, the Clark's personal computer was stolen from their house. This computer had evidence of e-mail exchanges which verified Mr. Sharp's knowledge and authorization of many disputed transactions. Mrs. Clark reported to friends, after she had worked for Sonoma Sausage for THREE months, that the business was constantly losing money and that Mr. Sharp seemed uninterested until she would tell him there was no money to pay employees or bills. He would then come in and give her 50K up to 75k, often in cash. Her friends advised her to quit at this time because it appeared to have traits of criminal money laundering. Mr. Clark refused to sign any documents authorizing payments, including payroll, which was often off the books and in cash. Mr. Sharp rarely would sign any contracts, documents, or purchase orders. He evidently knew what he was doing. He falsified information to the I.R.S. about compensation. When the Clarks decided to quit the business in Dec. 2008, Mr. Sharp said he "would make them pay." He has. Our justice system favors the rich and connected. Is there any lawyer who is willing to take on Mr. Sharp and vindicate the Clarks? Warning! You might uncover something really big. Germany - grey market cars, laundering, police corruption? Incidentally, Mr. and Mrs. Clark presented over 35 character letters to Judge Stone. Many of them from ministers and employers who have known them for many years. They have no criminal history and have worked with financial institutions before with not even a hint of dishonesty. If it sounds too unjust to be true and if you care, just do the research yourself. If you want a payoff in a corruption case, all you have to do is work this one. There may even be a book in it.
Friend of the Clarks.

Anonymous said...

Correction and additional info:
Vance Clark's son Patrick currently works in the Sonoma Police Department but possibly has moonlighted doing detective work in Napa.
Twenty eight counts are based on signed checks which couldn't be proven by the Clarks to be authorized by Mr. Sharp (since he never signed formal permission for Mrs. Clark to sign checks, but expected her to do so anyway, this would be easy to "pin" on her). The Clarks returned company computers after quitting. Only a handle of a meat slicer was found by Det. McDonald, who had a former landlord search their trash for evidence. Their personal bank account showed no evidence of an extra 150K dollars passing through. The biggest portion of the disputed amount was Mr. Clark's remuneration (which, again, was a verbal agreement). Mr. Sharp claims he was only entitled around 25K but reported around 12K to the I.R.S. A former salesmen received a salary similar to Mr. Clark's true pay.