Complainant began investigating a potential case of theft in October 2024 following a report from Bremer Bank to the Minnesota Adult Abuse Reporting Center about a series of large transactions involving the victim, [NAME REDACTED] Bremer Bank reported that over the previous 90 days Defendant FINE received $43,975 in checks from M. W. Additionally, in the previous year, M. W. Had written over $200,000 in checks, a significant portion of which went to Defendant FINE. Upon further investigation, Complainant learned that Defendant FINE also used M. W.’s credit card without consent for her own personal benefit.
Both Defendant FINE and the victim, [NAME REDACTED] were residents of Hennepin County at all times relevant to this case. Defendant FINE first began working for M. W. In or around September 2022 as a personal care assistant. M. W. Hired Defendant FINE because M. W. Has just had hip surgery and could not drive her vehicle anymore. Defendant FINE usually came to M. W.’s house five days per week and was typically there for four hours per day between 1:00 P.M. And 5:00 P.M. Defendant FINE’s job duties included bringing M. W. To her physical therapy appointments, doing the laundry, putting away groceries and dishes, and picking up M. W.’s prescriptions.
Defendant FINE did not have permission to use M. W.’s credit card for any of her job duties except for picking up M. W.’s prescriptions. M. W. Did not have a written contract with Defendant FINE. M. W. Paid Defendant FINE with a personal check. Generally, M. W. Paid Defendant FINE weekly, initially paying Defendant FINE $700 per week, and increasing it to $800 per week at some point. Defendant FINE’s pay was a flat rate based on an expected 20 hours per week. If Defendant FINE exceeded 20 hours per week, she would be paid more based on those additional hours.
Sometime in 2023, the roof on M. W.’s house leaked and caused some damage to her ceiling and a light fixture. M. W. Hired a roofing contractor to fix the roof leak. M. W. Received an invoice for the roof work and had her financial advisor pay the contractor. A different contractor repaired the damage to the ceiling and light fixture. M. W. Paid him directly with a personal check. Around this time, beginning in May 2023, Defendant FINE took advantage of the situation and began to swindle and steal from M. W. Defendant FINE lied to M. W., telling her that there was additional repair work that needed to be done on M. W.’s house and garage.
Defendant FINE told M. W. That she found the contractors and/or repairmen on the internet and that they would only accept payment in cash. Defendant FINE further represented that she had already paid the contractor or repairman and that M. W. Could just reimburse her. M. W. Would generally then write a check to M. W. For whatever amount Defendant FINE claimed she paid. Often, M. W. Or Defendant FINE would write on the memo line of these checks phrases like, “insulation”, “house junk removal”, “garage got junk”, and “garage walls spray”. At one point, Defendant FINE received a check “insulation last payment” dated July 21, 2023. Yet, in the following days and months, several checks to Defendant FINE had “insulation” in the memo line.
