BALTIMORE — Maryland's State Department of Assessments and Taxation (DAT) is vowing to crackdown on how their employees use agency issued corporate purchasing cards.
This comes after a legislative audit revealed a former employee potentially spent tens-of-thousands of state dollars on personal luxury items.
Auditors launched an investigation based off a tip provided via a fraud, waste, and abuse hotline.
The employee in question was permitted to make purchases with their corporate card between May 2019 and August 2024.
DAT policy requires supervisors to review and approve logs that ensure charges are for legitimate work related expenses.
A State audit found the employee's supervisors signed off on 23 months worth of logs despite lacking proper documentation.
During that period, the employee purportedly processed at least 230 payments totaling $41,400 without any sort of itemized receipts.
It appears management may have been involved in some of the employee's suspicious transactions.
In a recently issued report, auditors uncovered how two managers directed the employee to use the business card for two vacation rental properties in Ocean City.
The $6,800 charge was apparently for a 2022 conference that was to be held from August 17-20.
Records, however, indicate the employee booked the rentals from August 13-20, an additional four nights, all on the department's dime.
On top of that, the rental properties were supposedly reserved for two adults and children, suggesting personal usage.
Other items the card was used to buy over time included steaks, dog food, tumblers, and nail polish.
DAT told auditors the employee was terminated after $300 in expenses were flagged between July 2023-2024, all of which happened well after the Ocean City conference.
Following the employee's termination, DAT failed to dig further into their past of unlawful spending.
"DAT management further advised us that it did not expand the investigation following the cardholder’s termination because the cardholder and the cardholder’s prior supervisors were no longer employed at DAT and unable to provide context for the transactions," the audit states.
That decision concerned auditors, who determined DAT's termination was insufficient because they didn't do so with prejudice, meaning the employee could've been rehired later by another State Agency.
As of March 2025, there were no records implying the employee was rehired anywhere within state government.
Auditors also questioned why the former employee wasn't referred to the Attorney General's Office for further criminal investigation.
DAT responded to the report saying they would make that referral, while implementing new training and procedures to avoid future misconduct.
