Wang Zhendong, former chairman of Yingkou Donghua Trading Group Co., was found guilty of fraud and executed for bilking $416 million out of investors. In China, the death penalty is used for violent crimes, but it can also be applied to nonviolent offenses that involves large sums of money or if crimes threaten the social order.

The Xinhua News Agency reported that Wang had promised returns of up to 60% for more than 10,000 investors who purchased ant-breeding kits from his company. Many species of ants that are used in Chinese medicinal remedies can go for a high selling price.

Wang had purchased the kits for only $25 each, but sold them to investors for at least $1,300 per kit.

Of the estimated $416 million, only $1.28 million has been recovered by authorities.

Wayne and Valerie Davis, managers of a Toolking Plus shop in Hamilton, New Zealand, successfully argued they were unfairly fired from their positions. After store director Neil Edge approached the duo about their performance, Wayne launched into a heated exchange that ended with him saying Edge could “stick his job up his arse.”

According to the local authority, a fair and reasonable employer would have realized the Davises didn’t intend to immediately resign from their positions. To be sure their resignation was clear, Edge should have approached the couple the next day to clarify their intentions.

Because Edge didn’t warn the Davises about the performance concerns beforehand and no disciplinary process was followed, their termination was unjustified. The authority awarded Wayne Davis $8,450 in lost earnings and $6,000 compensation for distress, while Valerie Davis was given $2,739 for lost earnings and $6,000 for distress.

It’s a difficult time for most businesses, but this Lithuanian debt collector didn’t think twice before hiring Vilija Lobaciuviene, that nation’s most famous witch.

Amantas Celkonas, director of the Debt Collection Bureau, said the new hire couldn’t have come at a better time. “There are certain people who are using this crisis and refuse to pay back banks or other companies. Our new employee will help them to understand the situation, reconsider what is right or wrong and act accordingly,” said the director.

Lobaciuviene, described as “Lithuania’s leading witch,” is well-known for providing magical services such as casting spells and predicting the future. She claims she’ll be able to use herbal medicines, hypnosis and “the bio-energy field” to coerce people into paying off their debts.

Lithuanian media are having a field day with the event. “This is a return to the Dark Ages,” said columnist Monika Bonckute. “If they really believe that this woman may help someone get money back, then there’s something very wrong with this country.”

Resumes are supposed to reveal a lot about a candidate, but this employee claims she was fired for not mentioning she worked at a restaurant featuring skimpy uniforms.

Heather Kearney, a former criminal intelligence analyst at Iowa’s Department of Public Safety, says she was terminated for falsification of her job application. Kearney had worked for several years at Hooters, a restaurant chain where servers wear tight t-shirts and revealing shorts.

When she applied for her analysts position at DPS, Kearney said she omitted her position at Hooters on her resume because her experience there wasn’t relevant to the new job. However, she did mention her job as a server during her job interview.

Kearney has filed a lawsuit against the department claiming gender discrimination. Two men with less education were hired at the same time as Kearney, yet she’d been passed up several times for promotion. (Kearney has a bachelor’s degree in public administration, a master’s degree in international relations and 12 years of military experience under her belt.)

In court, the trial will come down to whether Kearney’s omission is the same thing as falsification. What do you think? Is leaving a position off of a resume the same thing as lying about it, or should Kearney have included the position on her resume? Let us know your thoughts in the comments section below.

Canadian resident Joel Ifergan is suing the Loto-Quebec Corp. because he didn’t win the jackpot of $27 million. It may sound like an argument we’d all like to make with lottery company’s, but Ifergan’s suit has some merit: The company’s fault machines were to blame.

He arrived at a local convenience store and purchased two lottery tickers at 8:59 p.m., thinking he’d just beaten the gun for the 9 p.m. drawing for $27 million. His first ticket (which was not a winner) printed before the cutoff, but a seven-second tech delay caused the second, winning ticket to print after 9 p.m.

Ifergan’s suit claims Loto-Quebec technicians admitted to delays of up to 10 seconds when making a ticket purchase, especially when jackpots are in the millions.

He also claims when the ticket was printed shouldn’t matter — he’d paid for the tickets before the cutoff time. “It’s not my fault their technology is slow,” said Ifergan.

Residents in Framingham, MA, are fuming after the local police union requested extra pay for its officers. At the officers’ request, laptops were installed into patrol cars to help ease filing and paperwork-related duties. Now the union is claiming that the installation of computers is an unlawful change in the officers’ working conditions.

The Massachusetts Police Association (MPA) claims that being paid to learn the new tech is commonplace — in nearby Natick, MA, officers receive a 2% annual stipend “in recognition of the advanced technological skills.” Police in Newton earn an extra $1,215 a year, as well as overtime pay for computer training.

Framingham citizens claim the request takes advantage of the system. “What police officer today doesn’t know how to use a computer?” asked one resident.

MPA president Jim Machado claims, “It’s not only doing the reports. It’s the record-keeping and the retrieval and things of that nature which go into the total package, the total technological package.”

Dr. Robert Paxton, former president of Iowa’s Fort Dodge Community College, resigned from his position after a photo was released which showed him pouring beer into a young woman’s mouth. The photo, which was snapped and submitted to The Des Moines Register anonymously, shows Paxton with a group of young people — many of whom are students — on a boat.

Paxton initially denied doing anything wrong, claiming the miniature keg he was holding above the young woman was broken and not dispensing beer. A few days later, he admitted the photo “reflected poorly on the college.”

The former president had signed a new three-year contract only days before the photo was taken. As part of the severance package laid out in the contract, Paxton will be paid for two of those years — more than $400,000 — and will also receive health benefits for several months.

Arthur Stevens, the former CEO of a public relations firm, sold his business to a French global communications company and remained as chairman and CEO of the new company. Eventually, his performance began to suffer, and Stevens went to a meeting with company representatives where he was presented with two options. He could either:

1. Resign from his position with the firm, or
2. Continue on, but with new responsibilities.

After the meeting, a company representative e-mailed Stevens with the info they’d discussed in the meeting, but the new responsibilities were fleshed out in more details. Stevens replied to the e-mail saying he was excited about new job responsibilities, and signed his name at the bottom of the message.

The company representative wrote back saying he, too, was pleased with the decision, and also signed his name.

When Stevens later decided he didn’t actually like the new responsibilities set forth, the company claimed the e-mail exchange was enough to modify his employment contract. A court agreed, noting that both parties expressed their acceptance of the changes. The fact that it was in an electronic format instead of on paper had no bearing.

Cite: Stevens v. Publicis S.A., NY Appellate Crt., No 02880.

What’s the next step after someone steals from your company? If you said “paying the crook,” you and this employee are both winners.

Former facilities manager Gary Lean was placed on paid administrative leave from Montana’s Butte Civic Center when the state started investigating theft allegations against him. Nearly two years later and after receiving $118,835 in administrative pay, Lean was formally charged and pleaded guilty to eight counts of felony theft and tampering with public records.

During his three active years of employment with the Center, Lean stole more than $40,000 from taxpayers and non-profit funds associated with the facility.

After he was found guilty, the county sought to have Lean’s administrative pay returned. His response? He counter-sued the county, claiming it owed him an additional $92,000 in compensatory time, sick leave, annual leave and longevity pay.

Peter Meloy, Lean’s lawyer, claims the county doesn’t have “clean hands” and can’t deny the accrued pay — even though Lean openly admitted to stealing.

When Dominant Systems, a computer networking company located in Ann Arbor, MI, was plagued by constant power outages, it decided to move the bulk of its equipment to a different facility. The resulting drop in energy-usage raised a few red flags at Dominant’s utility vendor, DTE Energy.

After seeing the amount of energy used drop by more than two-thirds, DET’s fraud department ruled the meter at Dominant must have been faulty, so the electricity-provider back-billed the company for $7,193.

The company’s paybles department was in the middle of disputing that charge when another bill showed up for $136,524.40. Dominant refused to pay the invoice, and the company received a demand for $36,275, accompanied by a shut-off notice (unless the bill was paid).

Although the argument between the companies is in full swing, a DTE spokesman said the utility would further review Dominant’s claims before shutting off the power.