BRUNSWICK, Maine — A 42-year-old Topsham woman was sentenced Monday to 33 months in federal prison for stealing more than $500,000 from Atlantic Regional Federal Credit Union, where she was employed for 23 years.

Marsha Richard, 42, of Topsham pleaded guilty to one count of felony theft from a credit union and was sentenced by Judge D. Brock Hornby in U.S. District Court in Portland to serve 33 months in the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Conn., followed by five years supervised release, according to court documents.

The amount of restitution Richard will be required to pay will be determined within 30 days, due to a pending settlement of a civil suit, Assistant U.S. Attorney Craig Wolff said Monday.

In September, Richard pleaded guilty to the federal offense following an investigation by Brunswick police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In a sentencing memorandum, U.S. Attorney Thomas Delahanty II outlined Richard’s crime:

Over approximately six years, Richard “manipulate(d) accounting entries regarding checks that members had deposited but that had been returned for insufficient funds (‘return items’),” he wrote.

When funds were collected from a member’s account, rather than crediting the appropriate account, she credited her own account or the accounts of her daughter, husband or other family members or friends, and then diverted those funds for her own use.

Richard also “manipulated several different internal accounting systems” and fabricated reports and processed stolen funds through dozens of member accounts.

When balances of the accounts were examined in August 2010, Richard’s supervisor and credit union president Roger Sirois met with Richard, and she admitted to concocting the scheme, asking how she might pay back the funds — which, according to court documents, totaled $518,217.06.

She was terminated, and according to court documents, in subsequent text messages with Sirois, Richard stated, “I’m sorry and I hope u won’t hate me forever” and then, “Hey there … I want to make this right … I just don’t know what to do.”

Brunswick police interviewed Richard and she admitted to the crimes.

In September 2011, she pleaded guilty to one count of theft by a credit union employee.

Richard faced a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million.

According to Delahanty’s memo, Richard has no prior criminal history and no physical or mental illness. Delahanty requested a sentence of 41 months in prison, followed by three years probation.

Defense attorney Richard Regan of Moncure & Barnicle asked the court to impose a sentence of 15 months in prison and two years of supervised release.

A work-related injury sustained by Richard’s husband means “it is possible that the family finances will not support payment of basic expenses if Ms. Richard is incarcerated for a lengthy period of time,” Regan wrote in a pre-sentencing memo.

According to Regan, after Richard’s husband was out of work for a time, her income was not enough to sustain “the lifestyle that her family was accustomed to with two wage earners,” and “if family members asked for things she did not have the heart to deny them.”

However, Regan wrote that neither Richard’s husband nor any other family members or friends was told of her activities.

He noted in the report that a civil action brought by the credit union and its insurer would “result in her turning over a substantial amount of assets, including property” — specifically a 401(k) account — and estimated that the cash value would be approximately $70,000 to $80,000 after assets are liquidated.

Reached Monday afternoon, Regan said that settlement agreement was signed Monday afternoon. Before March 23, when Richard must report to FCI Danbury, the exact terms — which he declined to disclose — will be finalized.

“The bottom line is, Ms. Richard is going to be turning over some assets toward restitution prior to the point at which she goes to prison,” he said.

Regan said he hoped that Richard’s sentence would be lighter, but said it was clear that Hornby “carefully weighed both sides of the argument.”

In a phone interview Monday, Sirois, of the credit union, called the sentence “appropriate” and said he is relieved the federal process has ended.

“It’s now behind us and we can now focus without its distractions on taking care of our members and providing them with the products and services they need and require, especially as everybody continues to deal with these difficult economic times,” Sirois said.

Brunswick Police Capt. Mark Waltz, who also attended Monday’s sentencing in Portland, said, “We hope the sentence sends a message that this betrayal of trust is taken seriously.”

To see more from The Times Record, visit timesrecord.com.

Join the Conversation

23 Comments

  1. If she took 1/2 million starting in approx. 2004 to make up for the loss of her husband’s income, then how “recent” could his injury have been?  He must’ve made good money if she needed close to 100 grand a year to make up for the loss.

    Boo, Hoo!  How can I make this right…..I don’t know what to do? I couldn’t refuse them! 
    You can start by not crying on my shoulder; you made your own bed!

    1. She is just upset that she forgot to give some of the money to a politician for some protection. So silly, everyone knows if you want to be a big corporate thief you gotta give to the PAC

  2. Now lets see if the Maine Turnpike employee gets nearly the sentance this woman did. I bet he sees no jail time at all.

    1. No – they’ll have her serve her time as the new bookeeper for the Turnpike Authority. Set a crook to catch a crook!

  3. Crime pays, at least in this case.  She stole $518,217 and it is estimated that the credit union’s and insurer’s civil case against her will result in a repayment of $80,000, so she nets $438,000 tax free ( I’m guessing she didn’t declare the income on her tax returns) in return for a felony conviction and a little less than three years to serve.  I’m a little surprised, though, because this is the kind of outcome I would expect in a Maine state court, not a federal court.

    1. She will have IRS problems that is for sure. She had to be convicted of stealing this money before it could be determined that she did not pay taxes on it, or avoided claiming income she had. She can expect Maine Revenue Service to be on her tail too.

      Federal Defendants are sentenced according to guidelines set forth by congress. The typical penalty for many federaal crimes is up to five years in prison with a 250000 fine. Crimes like this one fit the bill. That penalty is per count, or for each conviction the defendant recieves for each crime they comitted. That is the maximum. What happenens is that Pretrial Services of the US Department of Justice do a detail report on your crime.When that report is complete the defendant receives a certain amount of points for thier criminal behavior. Every Federal Defendant starts out with ten points at least just for the fact they have committed a crime. Points are added on for additional counts or enhancements to the crime. Prior criminal history results in additonal points as does the severity of the crime. This woman started out likely at 10 points which would have qualified her for house arrest. She recieved an enhancement for stealing more than 50 thousand dollars and then an enhancement for each additional 50 thousand she stole.  This article does not state how many counts she was found guilty of but based on what her sentence was it appears that it was more than one. There are also enhancements based on the fact that this was an ongoing crime. For each count she pled guilty to she will have to pay a 100 dollar fee.

      Review of sentences for this type of crime in Maine reveal sentences that at the maximum fall into line with thise federal sentence and some that are significantly lighter.

      1. Yes, I have a very slight understanding of federal sentencing guidelines, and it still seems to me that this woman is getting off easy.  In the cases I’ve read about, it’s usually the state that prosecutes these embezzlement cases – at least when there’s no bank involved – and the feds that follow up by prosecuting for tax evasion.   Here it might be the reverse.  If the Maine AG believes that justice has not been done in the federal case, he could follow up by prosecuting Mrs. Richard on state tax charges in state court. 

        I’m sure you’re right about the IRS and Maine Revenue Service.  In fact, I hope they’re like dogs on a meat wagon in going after back taxes, penalties, and interest here.

        1. The fact that she stole the money from a Federal Credit Union is why she was prosecuted in Federal Court.

    2. The article states that she will forfeit 70000 to 80000 dollars in her 401k as that is all the actual cash she has. It also states she will be having property forfeited too. I take this to mean things like her house, vehicles and other assets. They should be forfeited.

      1. Technically, what you’re referring to is not a forfeiture.  It’s the estimate of damages she will be paying the credit union and insurer in the civil action and is based on the anticipated proceeds from liquidation of her 401k and other personal assets. 

        The article also mentions restitution to be determined after the civil case has been settled, presumably as part of her sentence and probably based on the difference between the amount stolen and the amount paid in the civil suit.  Of course, restitution is a boiler-plate part of most theft sentences and in most cases involving large amounts of money a joke.  Unless the defendant here wins the lottery or receives some other windfall, it will never be paid.

  4. “How can I make this right?” – Well, I suppose you can start by being perpetually identified as a felon and doing some time in prison.  I assume prison for you will be horrid, but frankly you certainly could have been there until retirement. So count yourself ‘lucky’.

  5. too bad shes going to be a convicted felon. She could of ran for congress and put in an earmark of oh say $30 million on a bill for her husbands “newfound” green initiative business that she will talk him into starting, got the money for free, and  like all of the other recent crooked politicians have nothing on her record

  6. Money is the root of all evil. It is too much of a temptation. Ask the Catholic church and the GOP leaders. It’s crazy. She should have to pay every cent off by working 40 hours a week filling holes in the roads or some other work that the state cannot afford for minimum wage which will be paid to the bank.

    1. Money is not the root of all evil. It is the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil.

           Robin

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *