IBJNews

Dodson Group CFO to plead guilty to wire fraud

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former chief financial officer for The Dodson Group has agreed to plead guilty to wire fraud after admitting to stealing $422,539 from the Indianapolis-based firm.

David Sullivan’s plea agreement was filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana. He could face a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

Judge Larry J. McKinney is set to rule on whether to accept the plea agreement Sept. 24.

According to court documents, Sullivan began accessing the Indianapolis-based company’s payroll accounts in 2005 to transfer funds to his personal bank account.

He used his position as CFO to manipulate the accounting software to hide the unauthorized payments, the court documents said.

The company discovered the fraud in September of last year during a routine analysis of aging unpaid invoices. After owner Jim Dodson asked Sullivan to check it out, his CFO of 11 years failed to show up for work the next morning.

Dodson contacted authorities, triggering an investigation.

The Indianapolis-based Dodson Group helps businesses look for lower prices on office supplies, long-distance phone service and other products. It does most of its business under the brand name SaveItNow!

Sullivan’s attorney, Richard Kammen, could not be reached for comment late this morning.
 

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I always giggle when I read comments from people complaining that a market is "too saturated" with one thing or another. What does that even mean? If someone is able to open and sustain a new business, whether you think there is room enough for them or not, more power to them. Personally, I love visiting as many of the new local breweries as possible. You do realize that most of these establishments include a dining component and therefore are pretty similar to restaurants, right? When was the last time I heard someone say "You know, I think we have too many locally owned restaurants"? Um, never...

  2. It's good to hear that the festival is continuing to move forward beyond some of the narrow views that seemed to characterize the festival and that I and others had to deal with during our time there.

  3. Corner Bakery announced in March that it had signed agreements to open its first restaurants in Indianapolis by the end of the year. I have not heard anything since but will do some checking.

  4. "The project still is awaiting approval of a waiver filed with the Federal Aviation Administration that would authorize the use of the land for revenue-producing and non-aeronautical purposes." I wonder if the airport will still try to keep from paying taxes on these land tracts, even though they are designated as "non aeronatical?"

  5. How is this frivolous? All they are asking for is medical screenings to test the effects of their exposure. Sounds like the most reasonable lawsuit I've read about in a while. "may not have commited it" which is probably why they're suing to find out the truth. Otherwise they could just ask Walmart, were you negligent? No? OK, thanks for being honest.

ADVERTISEMENT