Attendance logs were complete, wages were paid on time each month, yet seven cleaners never once appeared on campus. This fraudulent scheme, which stretched on for over two years, ultimately unraveled thanks to a tip from a frontline employee. In June 2026, the Yinzhou District People's Procuratorate in Ningbo brought public prosecutions against Li and Mao; in early July of the same year, the district court convicted Li of duty embezzlement and sentenced him to one year in prison, while Mao received a nine-month prison term with a one-year and two-month probation period for the same offense.

Details of the case: Li served as the logistics manager at a school in Ningbo, where his duties included overseeing and evaluating the property management company's services, while Mao was the cleaning manager for the same property firm contracted by the school. After becoming familiar through daily interactions, the pair began conspiring in early 2021 to exploit systemic loopholes for illicit financial gain. As logistics manager, Li's signature was required on attendance sheets and payroll confirmations submitted by the property company before the school's finance department would release funds covering cleaning personnel costs to the property firm, which then distributed payments to individual bank cards. Recognizing that high staff turnover in cleaning positions would make inflated headcounts difficult to detect, Li partnered with Mao to engineer the deception.

Li used identity documents belonging to relatives and friends to fabricate seven cleaner positions, while Mao handled signing false labor agreements with the property company and generating bogus check-in records in the attendance system for these nonexistent "shadow employees." Li leveraged his review authority to approve the fraudulent attendance and payroll documentation, allowing the school finance office to disburse wages monthly. The salary cards opened under the names of relatives and friends were, in reality, controlled exclusively by Li. Upon receiving the monthly deposits, Li would withdraw the cash and secretly split the proceeds with Mao. Over the course of more than two years, the pair siphoned off over 600,000 yuan in school property management funds.

However, no scheme remains hidden forever. In September 2023, cleaners at the school noticed that several "colleagues" listed on the roster had never reported for work yet received the same wages as they did, sparking suspicion and resentment that ultimately led them to file a report with the school. The school's initial investigation mistakenly attributed the fraud solely to the property company and took the firm to civil court. Yet during the civil trial, when the court examined the flow of funds, it discovered that the falsely reported wages were actually being funneled into bank accounts controlled by Li. At that point, the insider was exposed, prompting the school to immediately file a criminal complaint.

Court ruling: In June 2026, the case was transferred to the Yinzhou District Procuratorate for review and prosecution. After examining bank records, the bogus labor agreements, and other evidence, prosecutors determined that Li, as a school logistics administrator who abused his approval and signature authority, colluded with Mao to unlawfully appropriate the institution's assets on a significant scale, thereby constituting the crime of duty embezzlement. Although Mao was not a school employee, his collusion with Li to jointly commit the crime by exploiting Li's official position meant he was legally treated as an accomplice. Given that both fully returned their ill-gotten gains after being apprehended, the court rendered the aforementioned verdict.

Prosecutor's warning: The lead prosecutor in the case pointed out that the crime of duty embezzlement hinges not on one's rank but on whether power is abused. The case laid bare deficiencies in oversight across recruitment, attendance review, and payroll distribution processes, underscoring the critical need for substantive supervision of outsourced services rather than merely rubber-stamping documents. At the same time, the frontline employee's report proved decisive, emphasizing that organizations should establish accessible reporting channels and safeguard whistleblower rights. The line of integrity must never be crossed, and any act of betraying one's trust for personal gain will ultimately carry legal consequences.