Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes

November 21st, 2009
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT

Trial begins for Lodi bookkeeper accused of bilking $890,000 from clients

By Layla Bohm
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Thursday, January 18, 2007 7:10 AM PST

The victims include a retired barber, a married couple who run a Lodi roofing business and a woman whose grandmother left her an inheritance.


Shelley Kenefick

Each one, San Joaquin County prosecutor Sherri Adams told a jury Wednesday, invested money with Lodi bookkeeper Shelley Kenefick — only to have it vanish. One juror mouthed the word "wow" as she heard the loss amounts: $275,000 for one elderly couple, $165,000 for a young Lodi business owner.

All told, the deputy district attorney said during opening statements of Kenefick's elder financial abuse and fraud trial, the victims lost a total of $890,000.

Whether it's that simple will be up to a jury of seven men and five women to decide, and Deputy Public Defender Eric Taylor said more is at play.

Taylor placed the blame on Shelley Kenefick's estranged husband, Geoff Kenefick. The two are divorcing.

Each alleged victim knew Shelley Kenefick, 43, through her bookkeeping business, and they agreed to invest money. The investments were paying roughly 10 percent, as opposed to 2 or 3 percent from a regular savings account, until fall 2005.

"The evidence will show that's the time Geoff and Shelley split up," Taylor told the jury. "Divorce will play a big part, and the evidence will show that Geoff played a big part."

Geoff Kenefick is expected to be called as a prosecution witness, and police said during the investigation that they found nothing to warrant arresting him.

The trial, which opened Wednesday after jury selection last week, will include testimony from victims who include a retired Lodi police officer, Adams said.

Dennis Cunningham spent 24 years on the police force before retiring as a sergeant in May 2005. He and his wife are both alleged victims of forgery. Cunningham's wife knew Kenefick because she baby-sat her son, and only later did they learn their names were signed on deeds of trust.

"These documents were phony, they were fake, they never existed," Adams said of the deeds, in which 69-year-old Don Howard, a former barber, agreed to invest $160,000.

A total of six victims, plus several spouses, invested money through Kenefick, who they knew through her Lodi-based business, Accounting Concepts.

Case at a glance

Shelley Kenefick, 43, of Herald, is charged with 18 felony counts including grand theft, theft from an elder, forgery and violations of security. She has pleaded not guilty.
A Lodi judge signed an arrest warrant Jan. 3, 2005, and she turned herself in at court Jan. 13, 2005. Her bookkeeping business, Accounting Concepts, had closed by the time charges were filed.
The trial continues today and is expected to last into next week in Judge Richard Mallett's Stockton courtroom.

The smallest loss was $40,000, when Caroline Valencia's husband died and she invested his estate so she could live on the money. The largest loss was $200,000, when Colleen Allen's grandmother died and left an inheritance to the granddaughter who had cared for her.

Others include Gabrielle Munoz, who, along with her husband, runs a Lodi roofing business. Kenefick handled their bookkeeping and noted that they had money in a business account that wasn't earning much money, so she suggested they invest $50,000 in a "start-up company," Adams said.

Some, like Kristina Brachna, said they only wanted to invest in real property because it would be safer, but she also wound up losing $165,000, Adams said.

Jurors raised their eyebrows several times at the high dollar amounts, but Taylor told them that lost money does not alone mean Kenefick is guilty. She is charged with 18 felony counts, but to prove grand theft and elder financial abuse, prosecutors must show intent.

"(Adams) needs to prove that at the time money changed hands, Ms. Kenefick intended to take the money and never give it back," Taylor said.

Kenefick, who has pleaded not guilty, remains out of custody on $400,000 bond; shortly after her January 2006 arrest, her mother cashed in part of her retirement to pay a bond agent. If convicted, she faces prison time.

It's not the only such case Adams has prosecuted. In October, a jury convicted Stockton resident Marietta Dabanian of taking roughly $400,000 from a 93-year-old woman in her care. She was sentenced to four years in state prison.

Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.

First published: Thursday, January 18, 2007

Reader Feedback

Pablo Juan Toldya wrote on Jan 27, 2007 8:52 AM:

" Sorry did not know this was a spelling contest,thought it was about the people involved.If you would spend more time reading then worry about spelling maybe you to would learn something.and before your to quick to judge its pablo juan toldya not pablo toldya maybe you should check your own grammer next time before you judge Sheesh." "

S&W 500 wrote on Jan 26, 2007 10:39 PM:

" kenefick should be tried, and if found guilty, she should be hung. All thieves should get the same. My dear friend says I am too harsh, he is a liberal democrat. I am not. Why should I keep having to pay to incarcerate dirt bags who steal? I should not. Simple solution: SHOOT THEM: Cost of a bullet =$2.00 500 S&W 500 Mag. Make punishment so severe, that no thieve will want to steal, end-uth punishment. Cost resolution= priceless. "

T&C wrote on Jan 25, 2007 8:21 PM:

" Just proves that the good old boys take care of their own. She should be arrested for leaving the state. If she goes to Reno, does she gamble with the money she's aaccused of stealing? "

Exodor wrote on Jan 25, 2007 1:03 PM:

" My concern is, if someone is out on bail, are they supposed to be able to just leave the state?? I know of at least 3 times, that she went to Reno, and at least once, drove to Utah, to sell goats. I also do not see how she could let her mother cash in part of her retirement, just to keep her out of jail, her mother will need that money in the future. her victims are not the only victims here, her children will bear the burden, as will her mother. "

stkngirl19 wrote on Jan 24, 2007 11:25 PM:

" It always amazes me how relatives and people in general come to these message boards and defend these criminals.defending the Kenefick family name...lmaoooo who cares about the spelling of the Kenefick family name when they're bilking people out of their hard earned savings? What about shellys victims? f her....what about her victims? what about how this little stunt of hers affects them? Our society in general always skirts around that issue.....THE VICTIM...get real people...worry about the victim...defend the victim...Not this dirtbag, what about the heirs of the poeple who shelly f'ed over???? why dont the real victims get any sympathy? "

CW wrote on Jan 24, 2007 10:11 PM:

" Iam convinced T&C throw out all of his accusations just to get a reaction. He cannot seriously think as he projects, right? "

To Lodi Girl wrote on Jan 24, 2007 9:19 PM:

" You are right ,but had the person who worked for the city of Lodi did the right thing and reported her instead of just being happy with getting his money back(yes he knew because he threatened to turn her in if he didnt get his money) the people at the bottom of the Ponzi scam would still have their money!! And u can take that to the bank!! "

System Flawed wrote on Jan 24, 2007 7:02 PM:

" I know nothing about this case but offer this opinion. I believe if you steal or decieve anyone for financial gain you should face criminal prosecution. I know so many people who are victims of "good ol boys" using there superior posistions in society to steal from the poor who don't have the financial means to do anything about it except a "good ol butt whipping". A thief is a thief and i believe all thiefs should be prosecuted as criminals and regular joe's shouldn't suffer at the hands of the wealthy. "

kenefick relative wrote on Jan 23, 2007 5:52 PM:

" to layla b: the kenefick family name has always been spelled with one "n", clear back to when the patriarch who immigrated from Ireland, jeremiah, who was my great-grand father. You may check county records, but the spelling on kennefick road is incorrect. "

to To T&C Attacks wrote on Jan 23, 2007 5:41 PM:

" I agree 100%. Quit your complaining, &C Attacks. T&C has a voice and uses it. Agree or disagree, but quit whining. Your rants are getting old and annoying. "

Lodi Girl wrote on Jan 23, 2007 5:29 PM:

" I think Shelley should rott in jail, she would steel from her own mother! Shelley should have thought about her kids they will be the ones to suffer for her crime. The people she took money from will never see that money again! Geoff had nothing to do with Shelley's crimes he lost alot of money in this deal. I don't think Shelley should be out on bail she should be locked up in jail!!! "

T 0 T&C Attatcks wrote on Jan 23, 2007 4:53 PM:

" Either read what he writes or skip ir. Quit you bitchin. "

Landlover wrote on Jan 23, 2007 3:03 PM:

" If you do not know the whole story one should not cast judgement. I have know Shelley and her family since I was a child. I am not say she did no wrong, but I do not know the whole story and will not cast judgment until I do. Shame on those who do, you are no better than the guilty..... "

to Pablo ToldYa wrote on Jan 23, 2007 12:23 PM:

" You would sound more intellectual if you worked on your grammer and spelling. NO idea, not KNOW idea. Go THROUGH, not go THREW. BYE see ya, not BY see ya. Sheesh. "

To Please Keep This In Mind wrote on Jan 21, 2007 8:31 PM:

" Maybe she should have thought about her own kids. Why should we care about them when she surely didn't. Hopefully this ***cough cough*** woman's children will learn from what their mom did and not steal from people. "

T&C Attacks wrote on Jan 20, 2007 8:41 PM:

" T&C, You are a broken record. Can we ever look for an original thought from you? "

Pablo Juan Toldya wrote on Jan 20, 2007 12:56 PM:

" The only thing the divorce has to do with this is geoff filled for it when he found out what was going on,real plain real simple.You have know idea what this has cost him also, or what he's had to do to try and save the family ranch that both his parents worked their butts off for. Its a shame what has happened to all these family's and also what Shelly's three boys have to go threw but she should have thought of that before she did it.Dont want to pay the time dont do the crime.So By See Ya "

BeenInCourt wrote on Jan 20, 2007 5:59 AM:

" I know Shelley and have met the victims. Her husband had NOTHING to do with this, they have already investigated him. I plan to be there for sentencing. I'm so sorry she got herself into this mess, she was a very very good person when I met her. "

OpenMindedlodian wrote on Jan 19, 2007 5:20 PM:

" Hopefully you have good excuses to get out of jury duty when called.Hopefully those who sit on juries take it seriously and don't make up their minds without learning the facts, good or bad. Have any of you actually sat in and heard the facts or just what you've read. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? We all know nothing is cut and dry, there's always more to the story. The truth will come out. I do believe her husband should be looked at, is he actually a wolf in lambs wool? I believe the truth will prevail. "

Please Keep In Mind.... wrote on Jan 19, 2007 5:01 PM:

" I know what Shelley is accused of doing is terrible. I feel so bad for all of the investors involved. However, please keep in mind that Shelley has three children, all under the age of 21, and regardless of how horrible of a person everyone thinks she is, she is still their mother and they love her very much and what people say about her does affect them. "

Delta Instructor wrote on Jan 19, 2007 4:44 PM:

" Maybe Shelley should sue LUSD for not teacher right from wrong. "

ToLeonard wrote on Jan 19, 2007 2:33 PM:

" I know one of the victims of Shelley's. You have no clue what is going on here so please don't post here anymore. She will be punished for her crime. No if, ans or buts about it. "

Leonard wrote on Jan 19, 2007 10:11 AM:

" S&W: Chuckle... of course, under your system, we would then have to hang you without a trial as well. "

What up followers wrote on Jan 18, 2007 8:35 PM:

" Todays article sounds to me like the public defender is trying to muddy the water instead of looking at the criminal shelly. The police stated the husband is clear "ya know the good ol boy" "

S&W 500 wrote on Jan 18, 2007 7:52 PM:

" She should be hung by the neck until death in front of city hall. If her husband was involved, he should get the same. That is what they would have done in the "old days", and that is what it will take to prevent future crimes like this from happening. Who was the P*ssy liberal judge that let her post bail? She is scum, and if she was in charge of my finances, I would be contacting my criminal defense lawyer ex-post-facto. "

TRUTH wrote on Jan 18, 2007 4:36 PM:

" It will be interesteing to see the outcome of this trial and how the husband fits into the total picture. I do believe he traveled to Texas and Kentucky to purchase very expensive show and breeding stock. Did he turn a blind eye or is he just that ignorant? "

Husband Innocent Victim wrote on Jan 18, 2007 1:44 PM:

" Anyone who actually believes that this case has anything to do with the divorce filing is completely delusional. The truth of the matter is that the bookkeeper's clients were suing her and had obtained judgments against her months before the divorce papers were even filed. No reasonable jury could ever believe that the husand had anything to do with her fraudulent actions. "

Good Ole Boy wrote on Jan 18, 2007 1:17 PM:

" T&C I think you need to find something else to gripe about other than the "good old boys". "

Jose Madre wrote on Jan 18, 2007 1:04 PM:

" Anybody who could believe that this case has anything to do with the Kenefick divorce would have to be grossly mistaken and delusional. All of the victims, except Mr. Kenefick, were already suing Shelly Kenefick before she left the ranch, and before the divorce was even filed. She stole millions, not just $890,000.00. "

Layla Bohm wrote on Jan 18, 2007 10:44 AM:

" T & C: Good question. Under state law, a judge sets bond according to the charges, not the actual amount of loss. For instance, any theft amount over $400 is a charge of grand theft, whether it's $500 or $5,000. Also, Shelley Kenefick's last name is spelled with one n, while the Kennefick family and road names have two n's. "

GoodLuckShelley wrote on Jan 18, 2007 10:22 AM:

" You are gonna need it. "

T & C wrote on Jan 18, 2007 9:10 AM:

" I'm puzzled as to why she only had to post a $400,000 bond when her theft accusations were $890,000. Am I missing something. One of the "good old boys" last names probably figures into this. Kennefick is one of the pioneers of this area. The "good old boys" always take care of one another, no matter what. "

Where are the Feds wrote on Jan 18, 2007 7:41 AM:

" Lets see. This woman stole 890k and the week kneed DA's office prosecutes the case. The feds chased poor Supervisor Bedford to the ends of the earth for nothing. The difference...politcal agenda. "

Comments on this story are now closed.



Leaf Pickup