A woman who embezzled her employer out of $119,000 was given a State Government job as a Families SA financial counsellor while she awaited sentencing.

A State Government official provided a letter to the Magistrates Court advising that the department knew of the criminal proceedings at the time the woman was working as a financial counsellor.

Education Minister Jennifer Rankine, whose department is responsible for Families SA, told InDaily late this morning “an internal investigation is currently underway”.

Rankine’s statement to InDaily claimed that “prior to commencing employment with Families SA in 2010, (the woman) submitted a clearance application; there is no record that pending criminal charges were disclosed at that time.”

The Minister’s office has not responded to InDaily’s query of when the internal investigation started.

In a second statement this morning, Rankine’s office said; “the Minister has been advised that there is no record of her (Green) informing the department about charges laid against her, as is required”.

Court documents state the woman’s history “is known to her employer”.

The 32-year-old woman was sentenced to 15 months’ gaol, with a non-parole period of eight months and recently won an appeal for the sentence to be suspended.

Melissa Green pleaded guilty on 5 November 2010 to 16 counts of theft relating to the embezzlement of $118,978 from her employer (a software vendor) while working as an Administration Manager between February 2006 and December 2009.

Green also provided to the court a “letter of consideration” which identified a further 54 uncharged thefts from the same victim.

The court file shows that the victim of the thefts was a small Adelaide software vendor, where she worked between February 2006 and December 2009.

She had access to the company bank accounts and accounting systems.

“Between 26 February 2006 and 6 December 2009, the appellant unlawfully took $118,978 from her employer in amounts ranging from $250 to $7000 on 70 different occasions,” the transcript shows.

“The appellant took this money through various means including electronically transferring amounts from a number of her employer’s accounts to various bank accounts in her name and then marking the respective transactions in the accounting system as payments made to other corporations or superannuation funds.

“The appellant also made irregular payments to four separate bank accounts in her name which were recorded as miscellaneous payments to other employees of the company and adjustments (unauthorised) to her salary.”

After Green’s guilty plea in November 2010, the case took another 10 months to come up for a substantive hearing, during which time court records show she had been employed by Housing SA, around six weeks after leaving the software company.

While the Magistrate considered whether or not any sentence imposed should be suspended, Green was allowed to remain on an extended period of remand “in order to afford the defendant every opportunity to rehabilitate herself and in order to prove that she has the capacity and resolve to do so”.

In mid-2012, while still on remand for the 16 charges and having pleaded guilty, Green was moved to a position in Families SA as a financial counsellor in the Financial Counselling and Support program.

According to court transcripts, the court was advised by letter from Jenna Kovacs, senior social worker, Families SA, that the department was aware of the charges being faced by Green.

In January 2013, Green was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment with eight months’ non-parole. The magistrate’s refusal to suspend the sentence was overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court by Justice Nicholson late last month.

The court was told Green is a 32 year-old mother of two children.

Her relationship with the father of the children ceased “sometime in 2005 or 2006” after her partner had been “incarcerated numerous times during his relationship with the appellant and after it ceased”.

The court was told the two children have learning disabilities and psychological issues which “coupled with…the children’s natural attachment to their mother, have created a strong dependence on the appellant by the children”.

“..her mother and father have also relied considerably on her for financial support in the past,” the court heard.

“The appellant completed year 10 at high school, after which she commenced work in the hospitality industry before moving into administration roles in various public and private offices, including the victim’s, until December 2009.

“In February 2010 the appellant gained employment in Housing SA’s Customer Service Office. Soon after, she was offered a Social Work Traineeship with Families SA (Department of Education and Child Development) in the High Risk Infant Department.

“In mid-2012 or so, the appellant was successful in obtaining a position as a Financial Counsellor within the Families SA Financial Counselling and Support Program and currently remains in this role.”

Submissions were also made to the sentencing magistrate that Green had a criminal history and her more recent offending had had an impact on the business owner who had employed her.

“In 2002 she was convicted twice for driving whilst disqualified and received a suspended prison sentence of 14 days on each occasion; in 2003 she was sentenced again for driving whilst disqualified and received a suspended six week prison sentence; and in 2005 the appellant was convicted for the fourth time of driving whilst disqualified and on this occasion she was sentenced to a two month term of imprisonment but placed on the suspended sentence bond the subject of the Crown’s application for breach in the present matter,” the court file shows.

“As a result of the appellant’s offending, her employer suffered a loss of $118,978, not all of which was recovered through insurance.

“During the period of the offending approximately 20 fellow employees did not receive all of the superannuation contributions to which they were entitled.

“Each of these employees has now had their superannuation accounts put in order, although not by way of restitution by the appellant.

In a victim impact statement a director of the victim described other non-financial effects that the appellant’s offending had on him personally.

“The offences were committed against a background of the victim company and Mr M, personally, having provided considerable support to the appellant, including: allowing her to work from home when her children were ill; adjusting her work hours and allowing her to work part time when needed; providing pay increases before she ordinarily would have been entitled to them; providing her parents with a loan; allowing her to purchase a car from the employer with a repayment plan favourable to her financial situation; and Mr M’s family offering her toys and clothing to assist with the care of the children,” the statement said.

The magistrate observed that the thefts, “understandably, were very upsetting to Mr M who must have felt a keen sense of personal betrayal. Mr M also voluntarily transferred his duties as the director in charge of the financial management of the company to another director.”

In his reasons for decision, Judge Nicholson referred to her employment prospects at Families SA.

“On the information that was before the Magistrate together with the additional information placed before the Court on appeal there is every likelihood that the appellant will retain her career opportunities with Families SA should a suspended prison sentence be ordered.

“However, it would seem clear that an immediate term would cause her to lose her job and her career with Families SA (with the obvious financial consequences for the family).

“It would seem that, given her history (which is known to her employer, Families SA) the appellant has been extremely fortunate in being able to secure this particular career path with Families SA and the educational opportunities that are now available to her that will serve to promote that career path.

“As such, the present case is one where an immediate term of imprisonment is likely to cause irreparable harm to the quite exceptional level of rehabilitation already achieved.”

Judge Nicholson said there was sufficient cause to suspend the sentence.

“I am satisfied, that the appellant’s personal circumstances as put before the Magistrate, when viewed in the light of the additional considerations I have canvassed, are such as to demonstrate good reason to suspend any prison sentence imposed and notwithstanding the undoubted need to provide for general deterrence in this area of offending and notwithstanding the undoubted seriousness of the offending itself.

“In any view, the prison term ordered, if suspended, should still have a significant general deterrent effect, particularly given the quite unusual circumstances in this case that have contributed to the decision to suspend.”

He ordered that the suspended sentence be on the conditions that Green be under the supervision of a Community Corrections Officer for the period of two years and continue with “such psychological and financial counselling as the supervising Community Corrections Officer requires”.