UCLA Fraud and the Missing Money

UCLA Fraud

“Public employees have a financial responsibility to the people they serve. This criminal conduct drained resources from the history department that could have been used to benefit students and fulfill the university’s academic mission.”  — Los Angeles District Attorney Gascón

I posted the quote by the D.A. first, to make a point.  The important point being that Diana Fonseca, former UCLA fund manager, is now referred to as “this criminal.” She faces sentencing on November 1, 2021, and unless her lawyer is a magician and miracle worker, the woman will probably face jail. She is 37 and has admitted to six felony counts of grand theft. This falls within “aggravated, white-collar crime.”

Not a Reality TV Show

What Fonseca is facing is about as real as you can get. She absconded with $336,000 from UCLA’s History Department. She has already admitted guilt; with a “no contest” admission. She stole funds from the endowed department by fabricating purchase orders and payments for travel.

The theft of funds occurred over nearly five years, from May 2013 to October 2017 under more than 40 fraudulent payments. The payments were deposited in her personal checking account. Her embezzlement was discovered by university officials in July 2018 when purchase orders appeared for electronic equipment the university never received.

Diana Fonseca believed that there would be no consequences for her choices. The only piece of luck she has had so far, was that she was able to scrape up $336,000 and reimburse the university for what she stole. Unlike a comedy, returning the stolen money does not constitute a quid pro quo. It was never her money to steal, she deprived students from the use of the money for legitimate educational pursuits and there is no proof she would have ever returned the funds had she not been caught.

The Elements of Fraud

This is a classic case of fraud and it saddens me that more educational institutions are not fully aware of where such fraud can lead.

The lack of oversite in this UCLA fraud is chilling. Do I believe that Diana Fonseca is an inherently evil person? No, I don’t. I am sure that in her initial employment period, she was serious in doing a good job. However, the longer she worked for the UCLA history department and presumably the more trust that was place in her, she realized that no one was looking over her shoulder to provide checks and balances. Ethically inclined people might not have needed such supervision but Fonseca did.

The need for money (and power?). It is difficult to get inside the woman’s head long distance. At some point, she felt entitled to the funds. She wanted the money and the power and prestige that went along with it. As no one was looking, she grabbed it. She could buy nicer things and live above her means. Impress her friends and such.

Rationalizing fraud is a complex issue. There are multiple reasons as to why an educated woman in her early thirties would steal hundreds of thousands of dollars. Was it for excitement? Because she felt entitled? Because she didn’t like someone in the history department? The list of possible reasons can continue.

The elements of fraud are unchanging. It will take years, decades before her reputation will return. Those that know her will mostly forget her; those who love her will move on. None of this is a game. She played with her very soul, and lost.

LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS!