Accused bookkeeper, husband testify against each other

A jury today is expected to begin deliberating whether Shelley Kenefick is guilty of stealing nearly $900,000 from her bookkeeping clients or if it was just part of a messy divorce.

Shelley Kenefick

Kenefick, who ran Accounting Concepts in Lodi until last year, testified Thursday that she didn't exactly know how the money disappeared, and that many parts of the paper trail have vanished. She said part of the problems involved her husband, who began divorce proceedings in October, though marital problems had started earlier.

Geoff Kenefick, in turn, testified that he left all the bookkeeping to his wife and had seen her burning documents but didn't think twice about it until police showed up.

Shelley Kenefick is charged with 18 felony counts including grand theft and theft from an elder, and her trial began last week. If convicted, she could face time in prison and be ordered to pay restitution.

Throughout the week, the San Joaquin County jury of seven men and five women have heard from witnesses who had been Shelley Kenefick's bookkeeping clients. She suggested that they invest their money in order to get higher interest rates, but the money vanished. The loss, according to investigators, ranges from $50,000 to $275,000 per client.

Prosecutor Sherri Adams questioned Shelley Kenefick about deposits and debits from various bank accounts, wondering why money was transferred from the investment account to her personal accounts.

"I borrowed money if I needed to," Shelley Kenefick said, speaking in a calm, even voice.

Adams pressed further: "So not only were you using their money to pay for your ranch, but to pay for your accounting company?"

Shelley Kenefick denied the allegation: "It was a loan and I would pay it back."

One juror raised her eyebrows, while several others scribbled notes. A few took no notes but simply sat back and watched the exchange.

Later Thursday, the defense called Shelley Kenefick's estranged husband, a move that made at least two jurors nod their heads. During opening statements, Deputy Public Defender Eric Taylor said the money troubles all began when the Keneficks began having marital troubles in 2005.

Shelley Kenefick herself placed some of the blame on Geoff Kenefick, saying he had signed some of the investment documents.

But when the rancher got into the witness seat, he said he had little involvement in the deals and never knew about them. He said he'd left all the money matters to his wife, and that included ranch matters as well as a start-up welding business and small feed business.

When shown a loan document bearing signatures of an elderly retired barber and his wife, as well as both Keneficks signatures, Geoff Kenefick said he'd never signed it. The signature was forged, he said, just like the loan application for a credit card, which he learned of when creditors came looking for money.

The two are still going through divorce proceedings, and the Kenefick ranch is in a trust until the matter is resolved. But Geoff Kenefick already had to sell an 80 acre parcel for $700,000 last summer to avoid lien foreclosures, and it netted $200,000 after debts were paid, he said.

Before the two married in 1996, the ranch consisted of 400 acres that had been in the family since 1881, Geoff Kenefick said. The ranch is now 160 acres and Geoff Kenefick said it is in the name of his and Shelley Kenefick's 11-year-old son.

However, the remainder of the ranch is still the subject of foreclosure because the victims have filed civil lawsuits. One such case resulted in a judgment of $1.2 million in November 2005 because nobody contested the claim. Geoff Kenefick said he never knew about the lawsuit and has since hired an attorney and gotten the judgment put aside.

As for where the $890,000 went, that is still not clear. Jurors have seen pages of financial documents listing purchases of feed and ranch supplies, as well as transfers into various bank accounts.

Contact reporter Layla Bohm at layla@lodinews.com.

First published: Friday, January 26, 2007

Reader Feedback

Person wrote on Jan 28, 2007 6:54 AM:

" Geoff is too innocent of all of this. Shelley was the one "taking care of the books". He trusted her just like everyone else. He, too, is a victim so get your story straight before shooting off your mouth. "

Report Abuse

Hope wrote on Jan 28, 2007 6:51 AM:

" The sad part is that this guy has had the family ranch and his family faught off indians, bears, and sweat and blood to keep it. Now because he married a liar and a thief his family legacy could be gone ! the ranch that stoplighted the family for generations will end. This is sad ! "

Report Abuse

STFU!!!!!! wrote on Jan 27, 2007 11:27 AM:

" Reporters should get their story straight before it is printed for everyone to read, especially the family who is going through this horrible experience. I've never been more sick to hear so many people answer "I don't know". This family had everything they could have wanted. Did Geoff see Shelley and her mother burn any documents at the ranch, cause he left for 3 days while they left, when they supposidly "burned the documents." People need to ask questions before they permanently put it in print. Geoff is not the innocent one in this case. "

Report Abuse

Weezer wrote on Jan 26, 2007 2:37 PM:

" She betrayed her clients' trust. Her calm demeanor during the trial proves that she's deceived herself into believing that she hasn't done anything wrong. And that's the most unfortunate thing that could happen to her. "

Report Abuse

Half Full wrote on Jan 26, 2007 2:03 PM:

" Having just served on a county jury in December I found the journalists comments or descriptions of the jurors reactions rather, well, funny. To nod one's head just because the defendants spouse was called as a witness? I'm sure in most cases spouses are called as witnesses. While the juror's are NOT allowed to talk to each other about the case, that does not mean the nodding of their heads means they did not expect it. "

Report Abuse

HowStupid wrote on Jan 26, 2007 8:07 AM:

" She had no defense. Why did she even bother to take the witness stand? Talk about bad judgement! And trying to push the blame on Geoff? He had NO IDEA what she was doing. Hopefully it won't take too long to come back with a GUILTY verdict and lock her up. What she did was just wrong. "

Report Abuse

Comments on this story are now closed.

Archives

Story Tools

Indexes

Accused bookkeeper, husband testify against each other

Reader Feedback

Special Sections

Photo Reprints

Find Ads

Weather

Services

Contact Us

Office

Newsroom

Subscriptions

Advertising

Classifieds