Envelope 1
The Surface
Public story, governance structure, resignation, and the state audit that triggered the case.
Start Here
Your assignment
A 2023 state audit found $4.7 million in expenditures that could not be properly accounted for at The Giving Hand Foundation. The criminal investigation was later dropped. In 2026, a leaked case file reached your desk.
Document 01Case Rule
How to play
- Open the envelopes in order. Do not jump to the solution.
- Mark contradictions, dates, names, approvals, vendor links, and unexplained money movement.
- Use the worksheets in Envelope 4 to build a theory before checking the sealed solution.
- There may be more than one bad actor. Not every suspicious person is criminally involved.
- The $4.7M audit figure is not necessarily the amount stolen — your job is to separate theft from bad accounting.
ReminderCase Rule
Treat every document as evidence
But do not assume every document is truthful. Statements may be incomplete, self-serving, negligent, or deliberately misleading.
Determine what actually happened, how the money moved, and who — if anyone — you would charge.
Physical / PDF Materials
Four envelopes
Work through your printed or PDF case file in this order. Check each off here to track where your group left off.
Envelope 2
Follow the Money
Bank records, vendors, expense reports, renovation costs, and tax filings — the financial spine of the case.
Envelope 3
The Human Trail
Interviews, email, voicemail, texts, and board minutes. Compare what people said to what the records show.
Envelope 4
Build Your Case
Stop collecting, start proving. Map the money, classify each suspect, commit to a charging theory.
Digital Exhibits
Exhibit locker
Audio recordings recovered for this case. Play each exhibit, or read the transcript on file.
Exhibit A · Voicemail
Elena Marchetti → Margaret "Peggy" Song
Apr 1, 2023 · 00:42 · Recovered from Peggy Song's phone records
"Peggy, it's Elena. I need to talk to you before tomorrow. I know what the audit found and... look, you and I both know Darren was running things his way. I tried to rein him in but... just call me back. We need to get our story straight before this goes further."
Interpretation question: is Elena deflecting blame to Darren, or describing a CFO she failed to control?
Exhibit B · Witness Interview
Jasmine Ford, Program Director
Jun 12, 2023
INVESTIGATOR: When did you first think something was wrong?
FORD: Probably 2020. We were being told program budgets were tight, but I kept seeing office and vendor expenses I didn't recognize.
INVESTIGATOR: Did you report that concern?
FORD: I asked Elena about it. I also sent an email in 2021 about Summit because I had never seen anyone from that company.
INVESTIGATOR: Did you create false receipts or direct payments to Bright Horizon or Summit?
FORD: No. I submitted program expenses. Elena approved them and Darren processed them. I never had access to the operating account.
Exhibit C · Witness Interview
Darren Cole, Chief Financial Officer
Jun 15, 2023
INVESTIGATOR: Who selected the outside vendors?
COLE: Elena directed the relationships. I processed what was approved.
INVESTIGATOR: The company was registered by Daniel DeHaven.
COLE: I don't handle corporate registrations for vendors.
INVESTIGATOR: Daniel is your brother-in-law.
COLE: I'm not answering questions about my wife's family without counsel.
INVESTIGATOR: You prepared the board reports, maintained vendor records, and controlled bank access. Are you saying you had no responsibility to verify the vendors?
COLE: I'm saying the executive director approved the relationships and the board approved the budgets. I processed authorized transactions.
Records Search
Vendor records lookup
Run a name through the corporate and address checks pulled for this case.
Try:
Stuck?
Request hints
Hints unlock one at a time and get more specific. Use as few as your group needs.
- 01
Locked
- 02
Locked
- 03
Locked
- 04
Locked
- 05
Locked
Envelope 4 · Case Summary
Submit your findings
Commit to a theory before the full solution unseals. You'll get feedback on each answer first.
Sealed — SolutionCase AH-IIU-23-0417-R
The scheme: a two-person embezzlement operation run by Darren Cole as mastermind and Elena Marchetti as a willing accomplice, with Victor Banks running a separate but connected overbilling / conflict-of-interest scheme. Peggy Song was negligent, not criminal. Jasmine Ford was a witness who failed to escalate.
Estimated actual theft: $990,000. The $4.7M audit figure included legitimate accounting failures and unsupported records — it was not the theft total.
Darren Cole — Mastermind
Created shell-company channels: Bright Horizon through brother-in-law Daniel DeHaven; Summit through a second intermediary. Funneled approximately $552,000 through fake vendor invoices over four years. Controlled financial access and blocked stronger external oversight. Texts with Daniel directly connect him to invoice timing and amount control. Repeated $4,900 withdrawals support a structuring / concealment pattern.
Charges: embezzlement, wire fraud, money laundering, structuring.
Elena Marchetti — Accomplice
Approved fraudulent invoices and knew of vendor concerns by at least 2021; Jasmine's email shows she deflected inquiry rather than investigating. Voicemail to Peggy shows knowledge of the audit findings and an effort to coordinate a story before resignation. Resignation timing supports consciousness of exposure, though timing alone is not proof.
Charges: accessory to embezzlement, fraud, obstruction.
Victor Banks — Opportunist
His company received $340,000 for work independently valued at about $175,000–$190,000. He proposed the project while serving on the board; no competing bids were located. The evidence proves conflict and overbilling. A kickback is suggested but not proven in the file.
Charges: fraud / conflict-of-interest violations; kickback conspiracy only if additional evidence supports it.
Peggy Song — Negligent, not criminal
Failed in governance oversight and approved expenses without adequate invoice review. Her friendship with Elena compromised independence, but the file does not prove she joined the theft. Likely civil fiduciary exposure rather than criminal charges.
Jasmine Ford — Witness
Raised concerns, had no bank execution authority, and did not create the shell companies. Her raise may have been intended to quiet her, but the evidence does not prove she knowingly participated. Not charged; key prosecution witness.