A former bookkeeper from Mukilteo has been sentenced to three years in federal prison for her role in a fraudulent scheme that defrauded a local flooring company of over $400,000. Jodi Hamrick was convicted of multiple counts of wire fraud and conspiracy, highlighting the serious consequences of financial misconduct in the workplace.
Key Takeaways
- Jodi Hamrick sentenced to three years in federal prison.
- Convicted of four counts of wire fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft.
- Embezzled over $400,000 from a Mukilteo flooring company.
- Co-conspirator David Gluth received a two-year sentence and ordered to pay restitution.
Background of the Case
The case against Jodi Hamrick began when she was hired as a bookkeeper for a Mukilteo contract flooring company in 2011. Alongside David Gluth, the company’s co-owner, Hamrick engaged in a scheme that involved diverting company funds into secret bank accounts. This fraudulent activity continued until 2016, when the company ultimately went bankrupt.
The Scheme Unfolds
- Duration: 2011 to 2016
- Co-Conspirators: Jodi Hamrick and David Gluth
- Total Embezzled: Over $400,000
The duo opened at least three bank accounts without the knowledge of Gluth’s business partner, allowing them to siphon off funds for personal expenses, including:
- Groceries
- Credit card bills
- Medical expenses
- Vacations
- Clothing
Legal Proceedings
In January, a jury found Hamrick guilty on several charges, including:
- Four counts of wire fraud
- One count of aggravated identity theft
- One count of conspiracy
Gluth had previously pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud in 2021 and was sentenced to two years in prison, along with a restitution order of $325,000. Prosecutors recommended a three-year sentence for Hamrick, which was upheld by U.S. District Judge Richard Jones.
Sentencing Remarks
During the sentencing, U.S. District Attorney Tessa Gorman emphasized Hamrick’s role as an enthusiastic co-conspirator, stating that she showed no remorse for her actions. Judge Jones remarked on Hamrick’s previous history of theft, indicating that she had not learned from her past mistakes.
Defense Arguments
Hamrick’s defense attorney, Gilbert Levy, argued for a two-year sentence, suggesting that there was more to Hamrick than what was presented in court. He highlighted her positive relationships with friends and family, attempting to portray her in a more favorable light. However, the judge’s comments reflected a stark contrast to this narrative, focusing on her calculated actions in the fraud scheme.
Conclusion
The sentencing of Jodi Hamrick serves as a reminder of the severe repercussions of financial fraud in business settings. As companies continue to face challenges related to trust and integrity, this case underscores the importance of vigilance and accountability in financial practices. The legal outcomes for both Hamrick and Gluth illustrate the judicial system’s commitment to addressing and penalizing fraudulent behavior in the workplace.
