On February 18, 2025, officers spoke with a known person (“Victim”) regarding a theft incident. Victim is the owner of C N’R Landscaping (“the Business”) which is located at [address omitted] in Eden Prairie, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Specifically, Victim found that one of his bookkeepers, Karen Marie Kerley ([DOB redacted]) (“Defendant”) had been adding funds to her paychecks. Victim discovered that Defendant had made some company related purchases such as soda beverages for the Business. However, Defendant would then make additional personal purchases for herself.
When Victim came to this discovery, he requested Defendant provide all receipts to show that the reimbursements were legitimate. Defendant provided various incomplete receipts which did not show that the additional funds were legitimately related to the Business. After Victim requested proof from Defendant, Victim found that Defendant went into the Business’s QuickBooks software and began recoding and changing some of the reasons for the additional funds that were used. Victim also found that Defendant wrote two checks to herself.
One of the checks (“the First Check”) was made on November 22, 2024, in the amount of $625.81. The other check (“the Second Check”) was cleared on December 9, 2024, in the amount of $1064.00. Defendant was terminated on February 10, 2025. On July 23, 2025, officers obtained banking records for Defendant. Officers found the First Check was Deposited into Defendant’s bank account on November 22, 2024. Officers found that the Second Check was deposited into Defendant’s bank account on December 6, 2024. Victim found that the First Check had the description of “Payment to Central Telephone.” Victim found that this check had already been legitimately made and was a duplicate to Defendant.
The Second Check had the description of “Expensed to Bad Debts.” “Bad Debts” typically means a bill that the Business had tried to collect on but was not paid. Victim found that Defendant had created a customer account, for herself, in QuickBooks, in order to make the Second Check. Victim had also recently purchased a new iPhone (“the Phone”) for Defendant to use for purposes of her job duties. Defendant was permitted to use the Phone for personal use, but the Phone was nevertheless owned by the Business and in the Business’s name.
Victim gave Defendant the option to either: (1) return the iPhone, or (2) pay it off and transfer it to Defendant’s name. Victim began receiving emails from AT&T. The emails contained codes to transfer ownership. Victim did not provide those codes to Defendant. Victim confronted Defendant about this development. Defendant told Victim that AT&T took the iPhone and that she did not have it anymore. Victim called the iPhone’s carrier which is T-Mobile. An employee from T-Mobile said they could see no reason why AT&T would take the phone and that there were no changes in the T-Mobile system regarding ownership.
