New Hope Borough Hall.
New Hope Borough said Monday that an investigation by Bucks County Prosecutor Marc Furber into a scam that targeted the borough’s “money and financial information” has been completed, and that “there has been no criminal intent identified on the part of any borough employee.”
The statement was issued in response to questions from the Free Press over when borough officials learned of the purported scheme and what they did about it.
New Hope officials first announced the existence of the scam and their investigation into it on April 29. Although they said at the time that “there hasn’t been any loss sustained…nor was any information breached or accessed,” the Bucks County First Assistant District Attorney on May 3 confirmed that an investigation of the matter by their office was underway, led by Prosecutor Marc Furber.
“The borough was subjected to the financial scam perpertrated [sic] through emails on April 24th (information previously released),” reads the borough statement. “The incident was detected within one hour and the proper steps taken to insure the borough did not incur any financial loss from this incident. Further, the staff and council have initiated appropriate measures to minimize the chances of a similar incident occurring in the future. There is a review and revision of internal policies and procedures underway, with several changes already implemented or in process.
L to R: Borough Manager Cathryn Thomas, Borough Council President Alison Kingsley, and Borough Solicitor T. J. Walsh.
“The borough has released information and will continue to do so under the advice of our legal counsel,” the statement continues. “The incident investigation by the district attorney’s office is complete, and there has been no criminal intent identified on the part of any borough employee with regard to this incident. As more information is available it will be made public.”
The borough’s statement fails to address several questions posed in recent days by the Free Press: How was the scam detected? Why was the D.A. called in on a phishing attempt? When did Borough Manager Cathryn Thomas find out and what role did she play in addressing the scheme? Was any information stored in the borough’s computer network compromised? Since several changes are being made to borough policies and procedures, which ones failed to prevent the attempt? What was discussed at the executive session of council held May 18? Why does the public need to wait until “more information is available” when the investigation is complete?
The borough’s latest press statement certainly helps fill in some of the blanks on the ongoing mystery surrounding an “internet” scam that somehow failed, yet was investigated by the county D.A.’s office. But it fails to put to rest lingering questions about what exactly occurred.
Despite completion of the investigation, Furber would not return phone calls seeking comment.
Leave a Comment