# Public servant steals nearly $1 million in computer parts from DND



## 211RadOp (5 Dec 2016)

Public servant steals nearly $1 million in computer parts from DND



> A former federal public servant who stole nearly $1 million in computer parts from the Department of National Defence and sold some of them on the classified website Kijiji has pleaded guilty to fraud and breach of trust.
> 
> Andrew Heggaton, 33, was a civilian member of the Canadian Forces Crypto Support Unit when he ordered the hard drives, motherboards, processors and graphics cards he would later steal over a four-year period between June 2011 and March 2015



More at link.  I remember when he was a CAF member.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/12/05/public-servant-steals-nearly-1-million-in-computer-parts-from-dnd


----------



## armyvern (5 Dec 2016)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Public servant steals nearly $1 million in computer parts from DND
> 
> More at link.  I remember when he was a CAF member.
> 
> http://www.ottawasun.com/2016/12/05/public-servant-steals-nearly-1-million-in-computer-parts-from-dnd



Well look at that.   

There's a Section 32 and Section 34 signature verification fail.  So, he ordered and scribbled signatures, but who put the actual procurement into the system of record and actioned it based upon "scribbles"?  Him?  Hire an actual sup tech dammit - after all, it IS what_ they _do....   

Note:  I'm getting the "him?" from this comment in the article:



> On Jan. 27, 2015 — four months after his employers first questioned him about a suspicious order — the CFCSU received an invoice from another supplier for the purchase of Intel Core i7 processors *that was never logged as being received*.
> 
> "That invoice was reviewed in the presence of Mr. Heggaton, who began acting in a way that is described as 'weird', *stating that it must of been a mistake due to the year-end rush and he would look into it*," said Lee-Shanok.


----------



## Remius (5 Dec 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well look at that.
> 
> There's a Section 32 and Section 34 signature verification fail.  So, he ordered and scribbled signatures, but who put the actual procurement into the system of record and actioned it based upon "scribbles"?  Him?  Hire an actual sup tech dammit - after all, it IS what_ they _do....



Not trying to be a smart ass here but how many supply techs are there to go around?  And at what rank level? Honest question...


----------



## armyvern (5 Dec 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Not trying to be a smart ass here but how many supply techs are there to go around?  And at what rank level? Honest question...



It's a civilian posn; hire an ex-sup tech to do procurement.  Just sayin'.


----------



## MJP (5 Dec 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Not trying to be a smart *** here but how many supply techs are there to go around?  And at what rank level? Honest question...



Not enough...but this is a great civilian posn.  Actually two civilian posns, one for procurement and the other for invoicing.

It honestly sounds like a case of bad process(es) to be able to defraud that much.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Dec 2016)

Fraud with DND and computers is nothing new.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/former-dnd-employee-pleads-guilty-in-100m-fraud-scheme-1.640036

http://www.obj.ca/Other/Archives/2007-09-17/article-2309140/Cholo-Manso-pleads-guilty-in-DND-fraud-case/1

http://www.obj.ca/Other/Archives/2009-11-20/article-2152318/Mellon-avoids-jail-tim..


And other, non-computer related fraud:

http://thechronicleherald.ca/canada/1377890-dnd-charges-four-in-1.3m-fraud-at-cfb-halifax

http://www.saultstar.com/2012/08/17/woman-sentenced-for-bilking-military-out-of-190000

http://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/former-canadian-forces-employee-sentenced-to-one-year-for-cfb-wainwright-thefts


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2016)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Public servant steals nearly $1 million in computer parts from DND
> 
> More at link.  I remember when he was a CAF member.



Was he a Supply Tech?  That would answer some of the questions asked so far.

Interesting to see that this is another multi-million dollar theft of computers in the NCR.  You would think that there would have been some lessons learned a decade ago when a similar theft was done.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Dec 2016)

The prior fraud was for services never delivered, not for actual hardware.  There are underlying issues that are similar (inadequate internal controls, or a failure to observe internal controls), but the nature of the frauds is different.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Dec 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The prior fraud was for services never delivered, not for actual hardware.  There are underlying issues that are similar (inadequate internal controls, or a failure to observe internal controls), but the nature of the frauds is different.



http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/champagne-wishes/


----------



## armyvern (5 Dec 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Was he a Supply Tech?  That would answer some of the questions asked so far.



He was not.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Dec 2016)

Apparently had an addiction, which might explain why he continued to defraud them, even though they had questioned his purchases already.


----------



## PuckChaser (6 Dec 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Was he a Supply Tech?  That would answer some of the questions asked so far.
> 
> Interesting to see that this is another multi-million dollar theft of computers in the NCR.  You would think that there would have been some lessons learned a decade ago when a similar theft was done.


Scuttlebutt is he is a former signaller, and abused the lack of oversight into his job.


----------



## 211RadOp (6 Dec 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Scuttlebutt is he is a former signaller, and abused the lack of oversight into his job.


Yes he was Sigs


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Mar 2017)

The latest:


> A former DND employee and Canadian Forces soldier whose $400-a-day cocaine addiction led to the theft of nearly $1 million in computer parts from the federal government was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison Friday.
> 
> And if 33-year-old Andrew Heggaton doesn’t pay back the $966,933.82 the Intel core processors, hard drives, motherboards, and graphics cards were worth within the next eight years, he could be sentenced to another three years of prison time.
> 
> ...


----------



## CBH99 (18 Mar 2017)

Legit question here....how does one pay back a huge sum of $$ like that, when 3.5 years of that time will be in prison?  Almost seems set up to fail - may as well have just sentenced him to the 7yrs right off the bat.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Mar 2017)

Stealing $1M of taxpayers money and snorting it?  Ya I agree.  THEN make him work to pay it back.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Mar 2017)

I don't feel sorry for him.


----------



## QM (20 Mar 2017)

On the bright side, him and most others like him get caught. It's not as though the system is broken and open for abuse. It can just take longer to figure out that abuse is happening.

Much of this is a direct result of downsizing and the various strategic efficiency projects over the years. Fewer layers of bureaucracy are great for effectiveness and productivity, but the downside is that it concentrates responsibility for execution into fewer hands. Supervisors for many functions either don't exist or don't have the capacity or time to manage all elements of their responsibility, so a smart, experienced and slimy staffer can run amok for a period of time without his bosses knowing something is amiss. Spot checks, attention to detail (although, good luck) and a formal audit process are the best defence these days.


----------



## c_canuk (20 Mar 2017)

Log Offr said:
			
		

> On the bright side, him and most others like him get caught. It's not as though the system is broken and open for abuse. It can just take longer to figure out that abuse is happening.
> 
> Much of this is a direct result of downsizing and the various strategic efficiency projects over the years. Fewer layers of bureaucracy are great for effectiveness and productivity, but the downside is that it concentrates responsibility for execution into fewer hands. Supervisors for many functions either don't exist or don't have the capacity or time to manage all elements of their responsibility, so a smart, experienced and slimy staffer can run amok for a period of time without his bosses knowing something is amiss. Spot checks, attention to detail (although, good luck) and a formal audit process are the best defence these days.



If you are claiming procurement has a lack of bureaucracy, I disagree.

I've seen the supply system open up to untraceable abuses specifically because further layers of bureaucracy were added.

It comes down to the direct supervisors not the levels of middle men above. If the direct supervisor is doing his job, he would have been approving each and every purchase this individual made. However, since the supervisors are busy creating reports and filling out paperwork to justify routine purchases to people so isolated from daily operations they barely comprehend what's in them in the first place, the supervisors don't have as much time to do their jobs.

I expect the outcome of this is going to be yet another level of "checks and balances" that will take ever more time from the local supervisors, further isolating them from the day to day, making it easier for the corrupt to obfuscate purchases of this sort.

This wasn't caught by a high level of bureaucracy in puzzle palace, this was immediate supervisors finding time to look into his purchases and start asking questions. No level of paperwork will replace an attentive supervisor. Paperwork is fake-able, eyes on the ground, not so much. It doesn't matter how much of a paper trail you build, if the immediate supervisor is not doing their job you can't be sure the paperwork reflects reality and at that point it's useless time and resource suck. Either you can trust the people on the ground or you can't. If you can't no amount of paperwork will fix that.

Also, seeing as kit I needed in 2015 that was cancelled 3 months before the deadline due to lack of time, which was re ordered on the 1st of April 2016, has been cancelled yet again by SSC, I don't see how you can claim procurement has a lack of bureaucracy.

We've got too much and it's impacting operations. those at the high end of the CoC who think more paperwork and bureaucracy can fix everything need to consider it's only as reliable as the people churning it out.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2017)

> had begun using illicit drugs during a seven-month tour in Afghanistan in 2003.



What a piece of shit.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2017)

What is interesting isn't that he stole so much and was caught and punished, but to see what happens when other people do this. Anyone remember the case of Paul Champagne, who defrauded DND of $100 million, yet got off extremely lightly compared to this case (look at the proportionality of the sentencing)?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/former-dnd-employee-pleads-guilty-in-100m-fraud-scheme-1.640036


----------



## QM (22 Mar 2017)

c_canuk said:
			
		

> If you are claiming procurement has a lack of bureaucracy, I disagree.
> 
> I've seen the supply system open up to untraceable abuses specifically because further layers of bureaucracy were added.
> 
> ...



Pretty sure that's what I said.


----------



## c_canuk (23 Mar 2017)

Log Offr said:
			
		

> Pretty sure that's what I said.



...



> On the bright side, him and most others like him get caught. *It's not as though the system is broken and open for abuse. It can just take longer to figure out that abuse is happening*.



Broken? Yes it is imo, thoroughly broken. And the bureaucracy as I discussed above does not help catch them, it's part of the reason it took so long in the first place, imo.



> Much of this is a *direct result of downsizing and the various strategic efficiency projects over the years. Fewer layers of bureaucracy are great for effectiveness and productivity, but the downside is that it concentrates responsibility for execution into fewer hands.*




I interpret this as stating the opposite opinion I hold: further layers of bureaucracy not only robs efficiency, it also consumes time supervisors could be using to check up on procurement substantiations. Layers of bureaucracy concentrate decision making with fewer people, further removed from actually understanding the real needs at the low end, and thus makes it easier for someone to run amok.



> Supervisors for many functions either don't exist or don't have the capacity or time to manage all elements of their responsibility, so a smart, experienced and slimy staffer can run amok for a period of time without his bosses knowing something is amiss. *Spot checks, attention to detail (although, good luck) and a formal audit process are the best defence these days*.



Here I mainly agree with you, but these are the only methods that will work. They should be the primary method used. Layers of bureaucracy remove the supervisors ability to do them. Passing around piles of paper or emails with justifications to someone in another building in another level of organization create obfuscation that allows for these sorts of abuses.

The more bureaucracy you pile on the supervisors, the less time they have to verify. Therefore they have to trust more. For every hour a day of reports and substantiations crafted for the next level to compile, to pass up the next level to compile and so on, they have one hour less to actually do their job. Therefore they have to trust their employees more because they have less time to verify.

The hours a day I put into reports and returns to be compiled into increasingly meaningless fluff, to be passed up to satisfy the demands of ever increasing levels of bureaucracy so they can have "SA", is obscene. Especially since the information I need passed down to me seems to be a lower priority than collecting the fluff and everything ends up becoming a last minute emergency because the people holding the information don't have SA on why it's important, and don't have the ability to prioritize it correctly.

Provide me with direction and your vision, and accept my status reports. No I don't have the time or desire to enter metrics into a SharePoint excel sheet that's so devoid of details that it's essentially meaningless.

It's to the point that as long as enough fluff is compiled to make a pretty pie chart on a PowerPoint showing numbers getting bigger, *any numbers*, the higher is happy. No one seems to give a frig that our efficiency is down and it's getting harder to do our jobs.

Then something fails and whoops, here comes another level of bureaucracy to add more checks and balances in the form of spreadsheets, and to hold onto vital information for another day cycle before it gets passed down to me.

We are all on the same page why the Soviet Union fell right? It was too centralized to function. Without money offered to allow suppliers to asses demand, there had to be an omnipotent central organizational bureaucracy to manage supply and demand. Since people, especially in large groups with political in fighting are far from omnipotent, failure was the only possible outcome. Why are we not remembering this.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Mar 2017)

Have him do pack drill at the gate in the morning and digging ditches in the afternoon, that will help cure the addiction and remind people of the consequences.


----------

