Enc. 2 to this desp? summed up in parr. 50-53 thereof.
M. Barradas was enabled to embezzle because "all the incidents connected with the Money Order business were allowed to be in his hands" rather than being properly overseen.
In Cameron, the Straits defalcation dealt with cheating to be the mode of operation. Though the mode of operation in the two cases happened differently, in both cases, the individuals involved were trusted so much that their inferiors thought it unnecessary to look after them.
I notice that two of the reported cases (in 12862/22, regarding the force in Hong Kong) highlighted that the precautions were not in place as they should have been. It was stated (h.20) in Enc. in 12062/22 that "Th. P. M. G. is to account for their collections weekly," or "paying in their collections whenever they exceed $100."
M. Travers says he was not aware of any such rule being opened (4. J of Enc. in 12867/89 and Jenc.). "All the accounts are now audited every month. There are no arrears" (par. 45 of Report within Often 3 months shows that Andish was more in arrear).
(As proposed on 13799) Write to Sw. as on Jep. 2-5, 13799, ask whether the security bond has been enforced (referring to Defalcation Feb. 1880, par. 20 of En. and Circular of 19). Observe as to the precautions mentioned in pres. Lage & send to A.O. extract from this drop (par. 4 only) & Encs. in original, together with copy of our reply for t13799.
(2) As to Mr. Travers' part in the case (see par. 52 of Report), I think he is less to blame than the late W. Lister. W. Travers followed the lax system long allowed by M. Lister, and there being no written rules, it was hard for him as locum tenens to see what went right.
I am disposed to think that his conduct in the matter ought not to be regarded as disqualifying him for the vacant Portmastership.
Enc. 2 to this desp? summed up in parr. 50-53 thereof.
M. Barradas was enabled to
Embezzle because "all the incidents connected with thee Money Orden hosniess were allowed to be in hin hands
Га
than
wa
"
in
Camer
the Straits defalcation dealt with
K
4176180
cheating
to be
The
Though
mode of
in the two cases happened different ] - and became
(as in the Straits case) he
was so will
Zarin
trusted that his inferions theyht it unnecessary to look after
I notice that two of
reported (in
12862/22
force in Hongking
force
the precautions
were
to be in
not in
it was there faid
in this case; wish (h.20)
Enc. in 12062/p2 ) that - Th. P. M. G. Ju account for their collections weekly." paying in their collections wheneve they exceed $100
"
[Zet M. Travers says he was
such rule)
not aware of any
opened (4. J of Enc. in 12867/89
and Jenc.
"All the accounts are now
Even
month. There are
audited
no arrean
[Zet par. 45 of Report within Often 3 months
shows that Andish was
mure in arrear I
? (As proposed on 13799)
Write to Sw.
as on Jep
Jep.2-5
13799, ask whether the
security band has been
634
Enforced (referring to
in Defaleation 7cb. 1880 m this
par. 20 of En
Circular of 19
point) L'observe
as
to th
precautions mentioned in pres. Lage
& send to A.O. extract from this drop (par. 4 only) &
Encres in original, togethe with copy of on
reply for
t13799
wift with reference
(2)
Aito Mr. Travers' part in
the case
see par. 52 of Report -
I think he is less to blame than the late W. Lister. W. Travers followed the lax system
long allowed by M Lister,
no written rules
that
was
& there being it was hard for him
locum tenens to see
went right.
That Everything
I am disposed to think that his conduct in the matter aught not to be regarded
disqualifzing
his for the vacant Portmastershif
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.