Employee Misconduct Investigation: Casino Visits During Working Hours

CASE OVERVIEW

A company approached Resilient Investigations regarding a senior sales employee who regularly worked outside the office.

The employee was trusted to manage his own schedule and was not required to return to the office after every appointment. Over several months, however, his sales performance declined and he became increasingly difficult to contact during working hours.

When questioned, the employee maintained that he was attending client meetings, conducting site visits and travelling between appointments.

The company did not want to take disciplinary action based only on suspicion. Our investigators were engaged to establish how the employee was spending his working hours when he was away from the office.

FIRST DEPLOYMENT

Surveillance began shortly before the employee left home for work.

He travelled to the company’s office, remained there for approximately two hours and later departed in his vehicle. He visited a commercial building and appeared to attend a legitimate business appointment.

After lunch, he travelled to another location before returning to the office. Nothing clearly inconsistent with his work duties was observed.

The entire day was documented and reported accurately to the client. No misconduct was established during the first deployment.

SECOND DEPLOYMENT

On the second surveillance day, the employee arrived at work in the morning and left the office shortly before noon.

According to the schedule provided by the company, he was expected to attend two client appointments that afternoon.

Instead, he drove to an integrated resort and entered the casino shortly after arriving. Our investigators documented his arrival, the location where he parked and the time he entered the casino.

As photography was not conducted within the restricted gaming area, the investigation team maintained observation from lawful public areas.

The employee left the casino more than four hours later. He returned to his vehicle, used his phone for several minutes and then drove home without attending either of the scheduled client locations.

His movements were recorded using time-stamped photographs, video footage and detailed surveillance notes.

THIRD DEPLOYMENT

The company requested an additional deployment to determine whether the casino visit was an isolated incident.

On the third surveillance day, the employee reported to the office in the morning. He later informed his supervisor that he would be attending an appointment and would not be returning that day.

After leaving the office, he stopped briefly at a coffee shop before travelling to the same integrated resort.

He entered the casino during working hours and remained inside for approximately three hours. He then left the resort and travelled to a residential area, where he remained until the end of the company’s working day.

No visit to the client location listed in his work schedule was observed.

COMPARING HIS MOVEMENTS WITH COMPANY RECORDS

After the surveillance deployments were completed, the company reviewed the employee’s submitted appointment records.

On both days that he was observed entering the casino, the employee had recorded client meetings in his work schedule. One entry stated that a meeting had lasted almost three hours, even though he was documented at the casino during that period.

The investigation did not attempt to determine how much money the employee spent or what activities took place inside the gaming area. Our findings were limited to what could be directly and lawfully observed: his movements, the time he entered, the time he left and the appointments he did not attend.

THE FINDINGS

The company received a professionally organised investigation report containing:

• A chronological account of all three surveillance deployments
• Time-stamped photographs and video recordings
• The employee’s movements during working hours
• His arrival and departure times at the casino
• The duration of each casino visit
• The client locations he was scheduled to attend
• A comparison between the observed movements and the records submitted to the company
• Clear limitations concerning activities that could not be observed inside the casino

THE OUTCOME

The first deployment showed the employee carrying out normal work activities. The later deployments, however, established a repeated pattern of casino visits during hours when he claimed to be attending client appointments.

The company provided the investigation report to its management, human resources department and legal adviser before speaking to the employee.

When presented with the documented dates and times, the employee initially disputed the duration of his absences. After reviewing the evidence, he acknowledged that he had visited the casino during working hours and had entered appointments that did not take place.

The company was then able to handle the matter through its internal disciplinary process based on documented facts rather than workplace rumours or assumptions.

All names, businesses, locations and identifying details have been removed or modified to protect confidentiality.

*Exchanging client details with a competitor for extra income is unethical and potentially illegal
It violates client confidentiality, data protection laws, and professional trust. In Singapore, for example, the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) strictly prohibits sharing personal data without consent — doing so could expose you to fines, lawsuits, and reputational damage.