Jackson Jambalaya

How do you embezzle your own money?

Maybe connected to this? http://kingfish1935.blogspot.com/2017/03/court-rules-patrick-kelly-must-pay.html

Corporate ownership would allow for individual embezzlement. Not saying he did it, just that even a sole stockholder could embezzle from his corporation (I think).

Robbing from Patrick to pay Patrick. Doesn't sound like a crime to me. It's not like I've got stock in Mint Julep.

His employee earned a paycheck. Pursuant to a garnishment, Kelly took a percentage of money from the employee's paycheck and gave the balance of the paycheck to said employee. Instead of paying the garnished amount to proper, court ordered entity, Kelly kept it for himself. So it was not his money.

He had an investor...do y'all think a former bartender had the money to start restaurants? LOL

Anyone shocked by this is dumb. When both of those $hitholes starting folding, anyone with half a brain could tell you how this would turn out.

Thought his former in-laws were his $ investors???

He is not being held at the detention center. Someone should get their facts straight before posting to the web!

Right where he belongs

Right where he belongs

Sent from my BlackBerry?
Come on kingfish, get a Galaxy 8 with the Amoled screen.

I hoped for a day that Patrick would get back on his feet and see Julep live another day, which may still happen. He is a good-hearted person that faced unfortunate circumstances. Sad to see this.

Reading comprehension appears to be a problem for some JJ readers.
Patrick took money from one of his employees paychecks. Therefore it was NOT Patrick's money. In this case the money, by court order, belonged to MDHS. So no, he was not taking from himself or his investors.

Why is this any different from a corporate debt? Did Patrick personally fail to make this payment or was an employee responsible and just didn't send the funds to DHS? I know that the stockholders are responsible for the funds like this, sales tax and employment taxes even though they may not have known about this situation, but, is this a crime? I don't do criminal law but this seems a stretch. It looks like a civil matter.

Yes, it's a crime. He was holding money which by law belonged to MDHS. Instead he kept the money for himself, effectively stealing it from MDHS.

Interesting how when people we don't like commit a crime, it's lock them up and throw away the key. When someone we like crosses the law, it's he faced unfortunate circumstances or maybe this is a civil matter not a criminal one.

Talking money out of a persons paycheck for child support and keeping it is literally stealing food out of the mouth of a child and forcing a probably already struggling single mother to have to work even harder. He was trying to keep his restaurant open while a single mouth was trying to keep a roof over her child's head. Additionally it becomes difficult to coparent when dad says I am paying my child support and mom says no you are a deadbeat. Further dad could have had his license suspended or been arrested for failure to pay child support.

Only crooks engage in this type of behavior. All crooks, even crooks we know and like, belong in jail when they steal from kids.

I'm glad he was arrested. The last two times I ate there, my sweet potato fries were stone cold

Dad still had a suspended sentence hanging over him.

I still don't get it. We live in a free country. He should be allowed to do this. Government has gotten too big.

When an employer (Mint / Patrick in this case) withholds funds from an employee's paycheck with intention to remit to a government agency to pay a tax or a garnishment, payment of those funds to said government agency becomes the responsibility of the employer. Simple example - my employer with holds federal tax from my paycheck and remits it to the government on my behalf. If they don't remit that money to the government and use it for other purposes, and are unable to pay when the government comes looking for the money, well... I guess only Patrick and anyone else with 39211 glasses on is dense enough to not understand the crime committed here.

He was/is stupid. Did he expect nobody would figure out what he did? He took the money. It is a crime. What is so hard to understand?
The fact he was a swell guy and a bartender? Who gives a shit? He can be the token white in jail.

Somehow, you have all missed that the garnishment is for child support.

That the money goes to The Dept. of Human Services is your hint.

So, Mr. Patrick stole the money from YOU if you are a taxpayer. This is reimbursement for money that is to take care of children.

We decided in this country ...well some of us did...that fathers should support their children if they are working and able and that children shouldn't starve if their fathers are self-centered assholes who won't pay to support them. Indeed, we think both parents have to support children now.

If you anti-government folks have a better plan, please let me know.

And, those of you who think even one child can be fed, clothed, receive medical care , etc. for this paltry amount of money each month and the mother must be a welfare queen are just stupid.

It costs a minimum of $13000 per year adequately care for 1 child in the U.S. and that's actually down a bit from past years.

Of course, you do know that if you stop supporting the following myths, there would be no " welfare queens":
1. that males are at the mercy of their dicks and hormones
2. that males can't take measures to ensure they don't spawn an offspring
3. that males deserve more than women to " be happy" so they should be able to trade mates at will and start new families regardless of their ability to support offspring they already have.

These myths should insult all males as the myths assume you have no self-control and no judgment and can't learn to do math well enough to know what you can and can't afford.

He took like $37.52

Yes he should get in trouble.

He should pay a fine.

We have bigger fish to fry

Nothing burger.

The stupid is strong on this post.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/coffee%20needed.jpg

The dude did not "take" anyone's money. It's misappropriation of funds and happens very often in small business.

It's accounting. A garnishment is plugged in an employee's paycheck, just like taxes. The employee gets the balance. Once a month, a check is to be cut to entity that the withholding was for, state, local, DHS, etc.

If the business was failing, he likely did not just "take" the money, but started not paying some liabilities to get by one month hoping to make up for it when business picked up or sold or something. Get behind that eight ball and can't recover and it just perpetuates itself.

Whatever happened to Asian Brad, the bartender at Julep? That guy poured a mean drink.

Misappropriation of funds is just another way of saying theft. Both are taking money that is not yours. Maybe in some circles theft sounds bad. Misappropriation of funds sounds so much better.

@10:53 I have owned a business and/or run a business my whole life. It's not "misappropriation". It's theft. He took money that did not belong to him. That is theft. It's stealing. They should lock his ass up. For a long time.

@4:37

I don't care what you've done. It is not theft. He did not take any money. He failed to pay a liability.

If it was theft, the charges would reflect that, but the charge is embezzlement.

It doesn't absolve him of his actions, but the stupid comments, like yours, doesn't change what it is.

I can't tell if the same person keeps posting on JJ or if there are that many people who can't read. WTH? The amount was not $37.52 @9:10. How about we withhold your paycheck. Is that a "nothing burger"? The money belongs to his employees child by way of MDHS. Keeping that money is stealing, theft, misappropriation, embezzlement, whatever you want to call it, it is a crime.
@10:53 "the dude didn't take anyone's money" Did you go to JPS? That is exactly what he did. The money was earned by an employee. He was ordered to garnish a percentage and pay MDHS. You cannot use this as a short term loan for your failing business. I don't know this guy and have no opinion whatsoever on whether he is a "good" guy or not. But I know how to read and am shocked at the comments here. Dumb people everywhere.

Patrick Kelly is a crook and a failure at all of his life endeavors, personal and professional. It takes a special kind of scum to take money that was intended for a child.

Failure to pay a court ordered garnishment is not embezzlement. If accounting records reveal that the money was withheld from the employee's pay, but not remitted to the agency, there's criminal liability, but not embezzlement. If he had a business partner, I could see embezzlement, otherwise, Hmmm.

5:30 pm

The amount of money subject to garnishment is minuscule.

Why is it minuscule?

Because the employee makes very little money.

The employer has to keep a tiny % of a small amount.

In fact most employers don't even send the money to the court weekly any longer because it's pennies.

The employer waits until he has a larger share before turning it over.

That's common practice.

Now....this dude did not pay the money.

My only point is that he should be found liable....pay a fine...but jail?

He should be out working to pay the fine.

You need a drink.

The indictment says this guy took $10,000+ from a guy’s paycheck and instead of sending it to MDHS as ordered, he stuck it in his pocket or used it for his own purposes. The money belonged to his employee, not him or his company. Not giving it to His employeee is bad, not sending it to DHS is bad, and keeping it for himself is probably a crime. Once he withheld it from his employee, he was in a position to do something with it other than keep it. If he had simply failed to withhold the money from the employee, it would be a different type of violation.



§ 97-23-25 If any person shall fraudulently appropriate personal property or money which has been delivered to him on deposit, or to be carried or repaired, or on any other contract or trust by which he was bound to deliver or return the thing received or its proceeds, on conviction, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not more than ten years, or be fined not more than one thousand dollars and imprisoned in the county jail not more than one year, or either.

All anybody has to do is read the law he is accused of violating (posted by 8:36 am) and read the facts of the case written by the chancellor in the March post that is linked above. Then, if you a functioning brain, you can decide for yourself.

You don't have to listen to or believe what some anonymous people think is right or wrong when all of the information is right there.

Two Comments:

To 8:37 -- $13000 to raise one child? You must be counting all the coke you are sniffing up your nose. Or at least the meth you share with your clients. Please tell me then how these folks with six or eight kids, and no father in the house, can operate. Just using the 6, that would be more than many of the JJ readers make in a year - as well as more than 70% of Mississippians make. And yes, there are plenty of parents of that many kids that are drawing their TANF dollars, and are filing for EIC. (Yes, I know that there are many kids 'swapped' yearly for the EIC tax credits - or at least I assume they still are like they were in recent past years - but someone still would have to be making the $13k you reference.) Might make a good case for you in some federal court jurisdictions, but take that crap somewhere else for this discussion.

To all the 'its not really a crime' commentators - let me suggest this to you.
1. Start a business.
2. Withhold taxes, or garnishments (from
any garnishee) from your employees.
3. Don't remit them.
3(a). Pay special attention to the government
agencies (IRS, DOR, MDHC) that you don't
remit.
4. Bankrupt the business.
5. Come back and make your argument - after
your sentencing.

5:27 - You should stop drinking. What part of the information is so trivial that the employer should deposit it whenever he gets around to it? Are you suggesting that the owner was waiting until the $12,961 grew to a significant amount so he could then justify the postage needed to mail it to MDHS?

Miniscule - so small as to verge on insignificance.

"PATRICK KELLY, being bound as aforesaid by the aforesaid Order of Withholding to deliver the sum of $433.00 per month to the Central Receipting and Disbursement Unit of the Mississippi Department of Human Services"

Mr. Kelly withheld $12,961 from his employee's wages for child support from 2013 to 2015 but only sent $2,046 to MDHS.

And here it is.....headline news???

It's an accounting error.

The point is not that it's ok to deprive a kid of a dime...it's not.

The point is....let kelly work and pay the money owed.

This is heavy handed imo

Typically an accounting clerk or payroll clerk handles garnishments, various deductions, etc. How is it that the business owner was able to get involved personally? If he was stealing garnishments, he was also stealing FICA and other taxes withheld. And cutting himself in on group-tips, which is also illegal.

Sept 9th 10:53 is the most likely scenario here.

Owners of a failing business often decide not to pay liabilities they can get away with not paying in a desperate attempt to maintain enough money to keep the doors open.

This is especially common with restaurants because they are so cash intensive and have few liabilities they can put off paying without immediately affecting their ability to keep the doors open. Don't pay your employees and they will quickly walk. Miss a payment with a food vendor and they will put you on COD immediately.

Doesn't excuse his actions, but makes them more understandable and likely less sinister than many on here seem to want to make them.

Employers in Mississippi have 7 days to remit a child support garnishment. Some states have a shorter turnaround. In response to the question/example of garnishments for multiple children, there is a federal limit on the amount of child support garnishment that can be taken from a single paycheck (formula for calculation is available on Labor Dept website for anyone interested). If there are garnishments from multiple sources (i.e. child support, creditor, and IRS together), the formula to calculate the maximum gets a little more involved. The rules for individual states from the Administration of Children and Families website follow:

https://ocsp.acf.hhs.gov/irg/irgpdf.pdf?geoType=OGP&groupCode=EMP&addrType=EIW&addrClassType=EMP

To summarize: 7 days in Mississippi

Don't see how it can be said that he 'stole from his employee'. Once the money was garnisheed from the employee's due wages, it was no longer the employee's. In fact it had never yet belonged to the employee. It was only DUE the employee. But, prior to becoming the employee's property, the amount was 'withheld', set aside, garnisheed. Only that which appeared on a pay-ledger or direct deposit transaction or hard-copy check actually 'belonged to' the employee. At the point of garnishment it might have 'belonged' to DHS, but not the employee. So, he did not steal from the employee. He simply failed to satisfy a court order served upon his business.

The lesson here is that we should never get too attached to restaurants with trendy or cute names.

You have to understand, when its the white folks who steal the money, they come up with a fancy accounting term for it