Welcome to the BDM, LLC blog, where we shine a light on corporate and governmental corruption to empower individuals and businesses against fraud.
As an organization dedicated to combating financial misconduct and systemic abuse, we delve into real-world examples to educate and prevent. Today, we are exploring the Fraud Triangle—a foundational concept in fraud detection and prevention—while drawing parallels to alleged fraudulent activities in DuPage County, Illinois.
These cases, involving key figures like former County Board Chairman Dan Cronin, State’s Attorney Bob Berlin, Judge John Demling, Judge Linda Davenport, and corporate ties to Nichole Montgomery (a VP/GM at Conagra Brands and Lamb Weston), highlight how pressure, opportunity, and rationalization can converge to enable large-scale fraud.
What is the Fraud Triangle?
The Fraud Triangle, developed by criminologist Donald Cressey in the 1950s, explains the three key elements that often lead individuals to commit occupational fraud. It is a simple yet powerful model used by auditors, investigators, and anti-fraud professionals worldwide. Here is a breakdown:
- Pressure: This is the motivation or incentive to commit fraud. It could stem from financial difficulties, such as debt, lifestyle demands, or greed. In organizational or governmental settings, pressure might arise from performance targets, political ambitions, or personal vices that require funding.
- Opportunity: Fraudsters need a perceived chance to commit the act without detection. Weak internal controls, lack of oversight, conflicts of interest, or positions of power create these openings. In corrupt systems, this often involves networks of enablers who cover tracks or manipulate processes.
- Rationalization: The perpetrator justifies their actions to themselves. Common rationalizations include “I deserve this,” “It’s just borrowing,” or “The system is already broken.” This mental gymnastics allows otherwise ethical people to cross the line.
Understanding these elements helps in spotting red flags early.
Now, let us apply the Fraud Triangle to instances of fraud in DuPage County, based on public allegations and evidence from divorce proceedings, RICO claims, and related documentation.
These examples illustrate how the triangle operates in a real governmental and judicial context.
Case Study: Alleged Grand Larceny in Divorce Proceedings Involving Conagra and Lamb Weston Stocks:
In a high-profile divorce case, allegations surfaced of over $9 million in marital assets being laundered through fraudulent court actions. The case reportedly involved Nichole Montgomery (now Buckmaster Montgomery Skelton), a high-level executive at Conagra Brands and Lamb Weston, where stocks and assets were allegedly hidden or misappropriated during the dissolution of the Montgomery marriage.
- Pressure: Financial incentives appear central here. The executive’s role at major food corporations like Conagra and Lamb Weston provided access to substantial assets, potentially creating pressure from corporate ladders, personal ambitions, or the desire to retain wealth post-divorce. Broader county-level pressures, such as maintaining political or judicial influence, may have compounded this.
- Opportunity: The judicial system in DuPage County allegedly offered ample openings. Judge John Demling, presiding over family court matters, has been accused of aiding and abetting fraud, including financial manipulation in asset division. Unrebutted affidavits and secret recordings reportedly show judicial complicity, with female-led elements in the court (including prosecutors and judges) enabling the concealment of assets. This points to a systemic opportunity where court officials could override standard procedures without accountability.
- Rationalization: Allegations suggest rationalizations rooted in entitlement or systemic bias. For instance, claims of a “predatory gang” known as “The Klub,” tied to historical figures like Al Capone and Demling’s father (a former State’s Attorney), imply a culture where fraud is normalized as “business as usual.” Participants might justify actions as protecting the “greater good” of the county or personal networks.
This case exemplifies how family court can become a vehicle for financial fraud when the triangle aligns, leading to grand larceny claims studied for nearly two decades across Illinois. Broader Allegations: RICO Enterprise and Corruption Under Dan Cronin and Bob BerlinDuPage County has faced accusations of a rampant RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) and fraud enterprise orchestrated by Dan Cronin and Bob Berlin. These include molestation/trafficking claims, retaliatory actions, and ties to historical corruption.
- Pressure: Political survival and power maintenance create immense pressure. Cronin, as former board chairman, and Berlin, as State’s Attorney, allegedly operated in an environment where covering up scandals (like tax fraud or asset laundering) was necessary to sustain their positions. Personal allegations, including molestation, add layers of desperation to avoid exposure.
- Opportunity: The county’s structure provided opportunities through unchecked authority. Berlin’s role in prosecutions allegedly shielded allies, while Cronin’s board influence enabled resource misallocation. Networks involving judges like Demling created a “chop shop” for grand larceny, with over 150 cell phone calls linked to fraud techniques in one instance.
- Rationalization: A long-studied enterprise (nearly 20 years) suggests rationalizations like “It’s for the county’s stability” or “Opponents are the real threats.” Accusations of racism, discrimination, and hate crimes further indicate justifications based on bias or superiority.
The Role of Judge Linda Davenport: Gaslighting and Police Involvement in Marital Disputes
Allegations against Judge Linda Davenport center on fraud through gaslighting tactics, including orchestrating a police “squatting” call to manipulate marital asset disputes. This reportedly involved the falsification of claims to evict parties or unlawfully seize assets.
- Pressure: Judicial pressures from case backlogs or political alliances with figures like Cronin and Berlin could motivate such actions. In family matters, the drive to resolve cases quickly might push judges toward unethical shortcuts.
- Opportunity: As a judge, Davenport had direct control over proceedings, allowing for manipulation without immediate oversight. Ties to the alleged “female roles” in the predatory network amplified this.
- Rationalization: Justifications might include “protecting victims” or “maintaining order,” even if it involves fraud. The gaslighting element—using police for squatting claims—suggests a belief that ends justify means in contentious divorces.
Lessons for Prevention: Breaking the Fraud Triangle
These DuPage County examples underscore the Fraud Triangle’s relevance in public sectors. To combat such issues:
- Reduce Pressure: Implement ethical training and financial transparency for officials.
- Eliminate Opportunity: Strengthen oversight, like independent audits and term limits.
- Challenge Rationalization: Foster whistleblower protections and cultural shifts against corruption.
At BDM, LLC, we advocate for evidence-based reforms, drawing from over 20 years of sociological insights into these patterns. If you’ve encountered similar fraud, share your story responsibly—knowledge is our best defense.
Stay vigilant,
BDM, LLC Team Anti-Corporate Corruption/Fraud