CORPORATE SHELTER (or C. SHELTER), an estate agent, purchased one four blocks of flats from another organisation known as BB KOMO (or BBK). The new owner of the four blocks of flats, decided to retain the security man initially emplyed by BBK, to maintain security at the building premises. The management of C. Shelters was of the view that the man employed for security at the block of flats, was already familiar with the environment where the property was situated and that there was no reason to change him at the site. Several factors were adduced to explain the benefits of retaining the security man met at the building site to maintain what management in C. Shelter called security continuity.
Tenants moved into the building and behold, cases of theft of valuables especially cash from inside all the flats were being reported. What is strange is that there was no single case in which doors or windows were broken. Indeed, the whole structures were never damaged anywhere. Then, the mystery or questions being asked was How could a husband give money to his wife in the morning before both of them left their flat in the morning for their places of work and for the wife to come back to the house and discover that the money given to her by her husband was missing? What was more suprising was that the husband was the first to get to the house and the wife met him at home looking relaxed and reading newspaper.
In other flats, money kept in jackets was missing, jeweleries kept beside the mirror were missing. Infact, couples were suspecting each other and even tenants in different flats were suspecting themselves. The movement of teenegers in the block of flats were been monitored cautiously. There is good reasons for suspicion. After all, no door was forced open and no key to any flat was missing. One tenant frustrated and very angry was quoted as saying the whole thing could be a spiritual welfare.
Suddenly, the woman with the security man, in the premises was found posing with an expensive new Blackberry phone in the compound. Investigation revealed that the security man bought the Blackberry for her. This was an eye-opener for the tenants. How could the woman with the security man, be using such an expensive phone estimated to be thrice the monthly salary of the security man? How could the security man afford such an expensive telephone for a woman?
Secretly, an investigation started, by his employer, about how much the security man was having in his bank account. This was not difficult because BBK was paying the salary of the security man into his account. At the end of the investigation, it was not discovered that the security man was having what management at C.SHELTER described as "substantial", far above his annual salary.
Policemen were invited to investigate further source(s) of income of the security man. Diligently, they found that there was a relationship between the days money was declared missing in the flats and the days the security man saved money in his account. For example, when money was missing on Monday, he saved almost the same amount on Tuesday.
Policemen drilled the security man. Under pressure, he capitulated. It was discovered that before the tenants moved into the building, the security man had duplicated all the keys to the main doors and bedrooms in each flat, so it was easy for the security man to open any door in each flat to commit crime whenever the tenants are away from their premises. Indeed, he was able to monitor the movement of the tenants and had easy access to rooms and places left open, carrying out his criminal activities, stealing money and other valuables without let or hinderance.
The security man was arrested, charged for stealing....
Comment as critically as you can for research purpose!