Soliciting non-member neighbors for Fast Offering donations

[Tacenda]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

There is another charity that guarantees 100% of the donations go to the charity.  It's called Charity: Water.  They use private donors to pay for all their overhead and administration costs so that 100% of the public donations can go to providing clean water to communities without it.

But yes, it is very very rare and I love the church's humanitarian arm for that same reason.

I donated to this charity I believe, good to know.

[Nofear]

On 2/6/2026 at 12:37 AM, The Nehor said:

I don’t think it is likely that the Church is diverting funds. Nor do I think local leaders are conspiring to move funds from one bucket to another. Local unit fraud is more likely to be embezzlement than moving fast offering funds into ward events.

I just don’t think we know what is going on at the highest levels. I don’t think anything nefarious is likely going on with the money. I am just not sure what is going on.

One of my current callings is stake auditor. Embezzling funds would require forging receipts and conspiracy with other members of the bishopric. Possible, certainly. Doing so with significant amounts will certainly be flagged for additional review though.

[Nofear]

Duplicate post.

Edited February 12 by Nofear

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Nofear said:

One of my current callings is stake auditor. Embezzling funds would require forging receipts and conspiracy with other members of the bishopric. Possible, certainly. Doing so with significant amounts will certainly be flagged for additional review though.

Usually the way you do it is more sneaky. You have the church buy goods or services from some legitimate business entity that the embezzler owns. Or you use Fast Offering funds to pay off bills or expenses owed to such businesses. The latter is easier generally.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Or you use Fast Offering funds to pay off bills or expenses owed to such businesses.

Seems odd this would not be flagged immediately.  Unless a grocery store or something like that.

Edited February 12 by Calm

[The Nehor]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Seems odd this would not be flagged immediately.  Unless a grocery store or something like that.

You can do it in a couple of ways. Car repairs to a business owned by the Bishop or clerk or (better for them) owned by a third party that funnels most of the money back to them. You can do the same thing with a pharmacy cost or rent payment or something of that nature. You can even do it without the knowledge of the member being “helped” if you set it up right and the member would never know about it so the money isn’t actually paying for anything.

You definitely aren’t going to get mega-rich doing this. There are caps on spending that trigger oversight. Still, you could pretty easily embezzle a five figure sum over a year if you are careful.

In poorer areas of the world it can be much more lucrative/tempting.

[Nofear]

51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You can do it in a couple of ways. Car repairs to a business owned by the Bishop or clerk or (better for them) owned by a third party that funnels most of the money back to them. You can do the same thing with a pharmacy cost or rent payment or something of that nature. You can even do it without the knowledge of the member being “helped” if you set it up right and the member would never know about it so the money isn’t actually paying for anything.

You definitely aren’t going to get mega-rich doing this. There are caps on spending that trigger oversight. Still, you could pretty easily embezzle a five figure sum over a year if you are careful.

In poorer areas of the world it can be much more lucrative/tempting.

Criminals are indeed very clever. That is part of the reason all transactions need two separate approvals (2 bishopric or bishopric + clerk) and you can't be the approver on anything that is to you or your family. Surmountable, certainly. A safeguard that makes systemic abuse pretty unlikely, also certainly. Things like this become more difficult: https://nebraska.tv/news/local/account-accused-of-stealing-from-church-takes-plea-deal.

[JAHS]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

7 hours ago, Nofear said:

One of my current callings is stake auditor. Embezzling funds would require forging receipts and conspiracy with other members of the bishopric. Possible, certainly. Doing so with significant amounts will certainly be flagged for additional review though.

Usually the way you do it is more sneaky. You have the church buy goods or services from some legitimate business entity that the embezzler owns. Or you use Fast Offering funds to pay off bills or expenses owed to such businesses. The latter is easier generally.

I am also a stake finance auditor. The auditing program flags any expense that could be suspicious and tells us to check it during the audit. The Bishop is supposed to get a copy of a persons rental contract for those who get help with rent so we know it is legitimate. All expenses must have two people in the Bishopric approve the expense and sign the check. Any Bishopric member who receives reimbursement funds can not be one of the check signers or approvers of the expense.  One of the questions specifically asks if the payment is being made to a Bishop or his family and must be approved by the Stake President. After the audit there are two other people who review the audit and sign off on it. Embezzling may be possible but a very difficult things to do.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Nofear said:

Criminals are indeed very clever. That is part of the reason all transactions need two separate approvals (2 bishopric or bishopric + clerk) and you can't be the approver on anything that is to you or your family. Surmountable, certainly. A safeguard that makes systemic abuse pretty unlikely, also certainly. Things like this become more difficult: https://nebraska.tv/news/local/account-accused-of-stealing-from-church-takes-plea-deal.

Yeah, you would generally need two corrupt people to pull it off.

3 hours ago, JAHS said:

I am also a stake finance auditor. The auditing program flags any expense that could be suspicious and tells us to check it during the audit. The Bishop is supposed to get a copy of a persons rental contract for those who get help with rent so we know it is legitimate. All expenses must have two people in the Bishopric approve the expense and sign the check. Any Bishopric member who receives reimbursement funds can not be one of the check signers or approvers of the expense.  One of the questions specifically asks if the payment is being made to a Bishop or his family and must be approved by the Stake President. After the audit there are two other people who review the audit and sign off on it. Embezzling may be possible but a very difficult things to do.

This is all true but the Bishop or Clerk just doesn’t disclose their interest in the company they own or have a stake in. Or use a third party business. It is also incredibly easy to gin up a fake contract or receipt.

I am not saying that fraud is pervasive. It is just not as hard as some might think. The return on investment is generally not worth the risk, especially in the United States. Then again most criminals assume they won’t get caught or can talk their way out of it if they are.

[Nofear]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, you would generally need two corrupt people to pull it off.

This is all true but the Bishop or Clerk just doesn’t disclose their interest in the company they own or have a stake in. Or use a third party business. It is also incredibly easy to gin up a fake contract or receipt.

I am not saying that fraud is pervasive. It is just not as hard as some might think. The return on investment is generally not worth the risk, especially in the United States. Then again most criminals assume they won’t get caught or can talk their way out of it if they are.

Acknowledged.