BAR THEFT.com
How Bartenders Steal & How We Catch Them
Home

BARTENDER THEFT: Stolen Money Laundered through Tip Jar

November 28, 2012 20:31 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

The agent observed the following bartenders the evening of June 29th:

-xxxxxx Bar

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian female, 5’10’, medium build, straight dark brown hair pulled back in a bun

                                                                      

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian male, 6’0”, medium build, short dark hair

·       Xxxxx: Caucasian male, 6’2”, medium build, short dark hair    )

-xxxxx Bar

·       Bartender 4: Caucasian male, 6’2”, medium build, short dark hair

 

 

 

 

The agent initially sat at the indoor bar at 23:23.  At that time, all three bartenders were doing what they could to drum up business where possible, though there was about one bartender for every three to four guests.  This meant that a fair amount of conversing was happening, both among bartenders, and between bartenders and guests.

Even so, Xxxxx approached the agent immediately, extending a warm greeting and offering something to drink.

As soon as the agent placed an order, Xxxxx set about making it, using the ice scoop to prepare the drinks and using beverage napkins.  These were the practices each time a drink was made at the inside bar.  She also rang the order in immediately and correctly, which was also standard practice at the indoor bar.

The only shortcoming observed among all bartenders was a failure to attempt to upsell to a more expensive liquor.  This is an easy way of raising check totals without adding significant additional effort that all staff should be encouraged to do.

When the agent approached the outdoor bar farthest from the main entrance, Bartender 4 was not quite so quick to greet the agent, taking four minutes to do so.  Also, Bartender 4 was never seen to use a beverage napkin, and was once observed scooping ice directly into a plastic cup which is a health concern.

Also, Bartender 4 was a bit slow about offering additional drinks to those guests whose had gone empty.  For example, at 10:54, the agent’s glass was empty, but Bartender 4 didn’t offer another drink until 11:03.

Another way in which bar performance was less than ideal was the way bartenders rang in drinks.  For example, they usually rang drinks in immediately after making them.  When extremely busy, though, they even tended to leave one meta-tab open for cash orders, in which they would add each guest’s round, then input the amount of cash handed over.  This method shows a screen with very small text stating the amount of change due, and creates an excellent opportunity for padding the cost by a few dollars in order to illegally increase tips.  Agent found this alarming.

This would not have been a  huge concern but for the fact that the agent observed Bartender 4 ring in multiple “no sales” at times when he produced drinks and put cash in the drawer, including at 11:13 and 11:35.  What’s more, both the “no sale” rings were when Bartender 4 was given cash and told to keep the change. It is suspected that the drawer may be used to launder stolen money.

Also alarming, the agent never received a receipt from any bartenders the entire evening, and even though both bartenders served the agent a draft beer and a well drink, the quoted price was $11.25 inside and $11.50 outside.

                  

The agent also never observed any bartender securing a credit card in order to assure the payment of a tab without the guest offering the card first.

No bartender was ever seen to check the identification of a single guest.  This was in spite of the fact that much of the crowd that evening was young, including several people that were clearly under 30.

Similarly, the  outside bar area had a group of three obviously intoxicated people, who  were slurring, red, and sweating profusely.

Obviously, it goes without saying that this is a serious source of liability to the establishment, as any damages caused to either any individual or any property by a minor who has been served in a restaurant can be considered as grounds for revoking an establishment’s liquor license.  Certainly, this development would be disastrous for ownership, but it is the agent’s opinion that it is worth mentioning this to the staff and reminding them that such a scenario would involve them losing their livelihood too.   Additionally, under New Jersey’s dram shop legislation, such a scenario would also leave the establishment and the individual employee that served a minor or intoxicated person personally liable for damages caused by that person.

Similarly, there were some small problems with correct pouring controls by Bartender 4.  On one occasion at 11:03, Bartender 4 was making a rum and Coke for a guest, and poured it with a 6-count (4 count = 1 1/2 oz).  When the guest asked what the well rum was, Bartender 4 asked “Why?  You don’t like it?”  Then said “There’s a solution to that,” as he added another 3-count of Bacardi to the drink.  This was never rung in as a comp, and when all was said and done, the guest had more than a double for the cost of a shot of well liquor.  Moreover, this is a dangerous amount of alcohol for one drink and possesses a liquor liability issue.

Similarly, at 12:10, Xxxxx told a guest that a soft drink was on her, but was never seen to ring it in as a comp.

It did not seem that Bartender 4 knew the guest, rather, this excessive pour seemed to be a result of inattention and willingness to give away product.  This is a problem that could be remedied by making sure that all bottles, even those who which have irregular  sizes and shapes, have precision metered  pour spouts for the sake of accuracy.

What’s more, a staff member (pictured) was sitting at the bar from 10:52 until after the agent left the area at 11:07.  The entire time that she was there, Bartender 4 was pouring her eight ounce pours of  red wine from Salmon Run,  which he would place on the side of the bar nearest him, so that she would have to reach over the bar to take each drink and put it back each time, as seen in the photo at left.  This made the agent think that they had some reason to hide this activity, and the fact that the agent placed the drink there without it being requested made the agent think this was something that they had done before.  Before the agent left, Bartender 4 filled her drink a total of  three times, a total of nearly five glasses of wine. The agent never observed Bartender 4 accounting for these drinks in a comp or shift-drink ticket on the

POS.

 

At one point, another staff member (pictured) was sitting with them, and was drinking a soft drink, though it was impossible to tell if anything alcoholic had been mixed in.  At one point, a third employee approached them, saying “Alex, are you checked out yet,” to which one of the two employees responded “No.”     

At 11:27, Bartender 4 was seen drinking something a bit lighter than the color of cola from a plastic pint.  He kept the drink on the service well station.  Agent suspects an alcohol drink was being consumed; however, cannot substantiate this claim.

Similarly, there was an irregularity between bartenders and servers at the service well, as at 10:31 a server walked behind the bar, an unnecessary breakdown of the bar controls, and one that bartenders should be motivated to avoid, as any blame for a problem arising from a server behind the bar would ultimately be their fault.

                                            

Additionally, all bartenders’ appearance was always professional and hygienic, with the only exception being that they were never seen washing their hands.

Food and Beverage Summary

The agent and associate started off at the indoor bar with a Sierra Nevada Pale Ale and a well gin and tonic. The former was served in a stemmed, fluted Pilsener glass, and the latter in a stemmed goblet with plenty of ice and lime, but no straw or drink stirrer.  The gin and tonic was made with the appropriate proportions, and was extremely refreshing and flavorful.  The pale ale also tasted just as expected, and was poured perfectly by Xxxxx.  IT was clearly fresh and well handled.

The agent’s party left the indoors and seated themselves at the bar farthest from the main entrance.   nearest the TouchTunes machine.  The agent was waited on by Server 1, who seemed to be the only server on duty.  There, they ordered a Harpoon India Pale Ale and a rum and Diet Coke. Both drinks came in translucent plastic pints, the beer with a perfect head, and the cocktail with ample ice.  IPA also tasted very fresh and flavorful, and showed no signs of age or oxidation.  It was excellent.

The cocktail was the rum and coke described in the “Bartenders” section above.  Aside from being stronger than expected, the drink tasted strongly of artificial vanilla flavor, which was why the agent asked about the well rum offering. That was when Bartender 4 “[solved] the problem” by pouring in nearly another full serving of Bacardi.

If they are giving away alcohol to strangers, and one who happens to be a bar theft integrity spotter, management can interpolate the problem from there.

All beverages were traditionally presented in intact glassware, at the proper temperatures and with all expected flavor characteristics.  What’s more, the agent was satisfied with both the breadth of the establishment’s selection, and especially with the value that it offered.

Because of the traffic the agent encountered on the way to the evaluation, by the time the outdoor bar nearest the main entrance was was approached, it was 11:30, and they were already closing.

 

Manager Summary

·       Bar Manager : Caucasian male, 6’0”, short dark hair, average build, yellow short-sleeved collared shirt  and black slacks (pictured at right)

·       Patio Manager: Caucasian male, 6’0”, short dark hair and goatee , average build, black short-sleeved collared shirt labeled “Xxxxx,”  and black slacks (pictured at left)

·       General Manager: Caucasian female, 5’9”, short graying brown hair, medium build, sky blue short-sleeved collared shirt and black slacks (pictured at right)

 


 

 

In general, the agent’s observations of the managers were brief and fleeting.  The first and only glimpse of the Bar manager was at 10:28.  At that time, the manager was standing beside the indoor bar, drinking a Long Trail Belgian White Ale (pictured at right).  Immediately after finishing it within two minutes, the Bar Manager stepped behind the bar, ringing something up in the POS.  This is a cause for concern, as it is a best practice not to have anyone who has been drinking behind the bar.  In a dram shop suit or identification compliance sting, this would not reflect well on the establishment.

The Patio Manager was seen several times outside, and was generally either talking to employees or just taking the scene in.  He was not present for the period in which Bartender 4 was pouring free house wine for an employee on the patio.

Finally, the General Manager was observed at 11:57 when she brought out a new cash drawer to Xxxxx, with whom she exchanged it for the older drawer.

The only major criticism of the managers was that they completely failed to address the two problems of obviously intoxicated guests being served and employees drinking at the establishment.  In fact, the Bar manager was himself drinking the only time the agent saw him.

There were no guest problems at any point that required manager intervention, but it is also worth mentioning that the agent never observed any of the managers communicating with any guests.

At 11:34, the agent returned to the indoor bar, ordering a Long Trail White Ale and a Diet Coke.  Both were served in fluted, stemmed Pilseners, and the soft drink came with ice.  Both beverages tasted pleasant and expected. Xxxxx declined to charge the agent for the soft drink

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Not ringing in drinks, Liquor Law Violations, auto up-selling

November 28, 2012 20:11 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

·       Bar 1:  Caucasian female approximately 5’4 with short black hair and pink highlights and multiple facial piercings wearing a blue zip up sweater and jeans.

·       Bar 2:  Caucasian male approximately 6’ with short spiked brown hair and multiple tattoos on his arms wearing a cross necklace.

The agent and associate approached the bar top and were greeted with a slight delay by Bar 1.  She was surprisingly staring rather blankly off into space and didn’t seem to notice new guests had approached her bar top (see food and beverage summary for details).  She came over and asked “you didn’t need anything to drink did you?”  The agent was perplexed by her non-upselling greet as it was not inviting or good service in the agent’s opinion.

A drink order was placed (see food and beverage summary for details).  She brought the drinks in a timely manner and placed them on top of coasters.  She reported to the POS to start our tab.

She did not introduce herself by name in case we needed anything further.

Later in the evaluation Bar 2 came onto shift.  He greeted us with a smile and asked if we were doing ok which is good service in the agent’s opinion.  He was only observed for a short time but appeared to be friendly and attentive in the agent’s opinion.

The agent presented payment for Bar 1 to process as it appeared she was getting ready to come off her shift.  Payment was processed quickly.  She did not return it in a check presenter and an itemized receipt was not included.  She thanked us while walking away which impersonal and in genuine in the agent’s opinion.

Overall the agent was not impressed with Bar 1’s service.  She moved around the bar without any sense of urgency which made her appear to be bored, tired and unenthused to be at work which is unpleasant in the agent’s opinion.  She was not observed conversing personally with any guests and only spoke when an order was being exchanged which is impersonal and not a quality that a bartender should posses in the agent’s opinion.

She was only observed pouring one mixed drink and it was poured using a 3 count pour.  She placed the pint glass directly into the ice well when making this drink which is a Health Code violation.  Most of the drinks she served were bottled and draft beer.  Draft beer was served with ¼ inch of head and in a cold glass.  Drinks made for servers were accompanied with a ticket and no server call outs were observed.  

There was one instance where she did not report to the POS after making a beverage for a walk up guest.  At approximately 4:50PM she served a guest she personally knew by name a pint of beer and did not report to the POS.  The agent did not see this drink accounted for on any tab.

Also, at approximately 5:02PM she served a single walk up guest a large pitcher of Blue Moon which is a violation of the liquor law as the pitcher is likely 64 ounces and a single customer can only be served 32 ounces of beer at one time.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

23. For an on-sale retailer or employee to conduct drinking contests, to sell or deliver to a person an unlimited number of spirituous liquor beverages during any set period of time for a fixed price, to deliver more than thirty-two ounces of beer, one liter of wine or four ounces of distilled spirits in any spirituous liquor drink to one person at one time for that person's consumption or to advertise any practice prohibited by this paragraph.

Food and Beverage Summary

·       Host 1:  Caucasian female approximately 5’6 with reddish hair in a ponytail wearing a pink sweater and jeans.

There was a host on duty upstairs when we arrived at the establishment.  She did not greet us in a friendly manner instead asked “2 of you?” without smiling or welcoming us into the establishment.  It was very unwelcoming. Server 1 was at the host stand and since we were going to be her table, she led us to our table in the dining room.  Host 1 was not seen seating any tables and appeared to have gone off duty shortly after the evaluation began so the section was not scored.

Shortly after we sat down, two guests sat themselves in the dining room at a table nearby.  The agent watched as Server 1 and Bar 1 obviously walked past this table numerous times without greeting them or even noticing they hadn’t been acknowledged by staff members.  The agent observed them looking around as they were desperately trying to get a staff member to come to the table.  Finally, approximately 15-20 minutes after they sat down, the male patron went up to the bar and asked for menus and also asked to have a server sent to the table which is unacceptable in the agent’s opinion.  Server 2 approached shortly after to greet the table.

The agent was disconcerted by the lack of organization displayed by staff.  The agent feels staff need to be diligent about watching the front door and watching for new tables to be sat if a host is not on duty.  Also, the agent feels the slow business level at the time was such that the staff members should’ve been able to notice these new guests immediately.  In fact, the agent was surprised they did not walk out.

At the table the agent ordered an iced tea.  The tea tasted fresh brewed and was served with plenty of ice.  The agent requested sweetener.  The caddie it was delivered in was grimy and only half full.  The associate ordered a Michelob Ultra bottle.  The beer was cold and refreshing.

For an appetizer the chicken strips were ordered.  The breading was flimsy and was falling of the chicken which made a mess on the table.  The chicken was tender however neither the agent nor the associate cared for the flavor of the breading.  BBQ sauce and ranch was requested on the side.  Neither the agent nor the associate cared for the flavor of the BBQ sauce.

The agent ordered the Buffalo Chicken pizza with light chicken.  The agent was brought a pizza with tomatoes and onions on top.  At first the agent wondered if they made the mistake in ordering as neither vegetable is cared for by the agent and they would’ve been requested to be left off the pizza.  The agent then tasted the brown sauce on the pizza and realized it was the same BBQ sauce that had been served with the chicken and not enjoyed.  The agent believed the wrong pizza was brought so called over Server 1.

The agent asked Server 1 if the wing sauce was supposed to taste like BBQ sauce and if the pizza in front of the agent was the Buffalo Chicken pizza.  She stated it was the Buffalo pizza.  The agent stated they didn’t want that pizza and asked for a menu.  The agent then read the menu description of the BBQ pizza to Server 1 and stated that was obviously the pizza that had been delivered.  Server 1 then went to the POS to look at the ticket and realized she had rung in the wrong pizza.  She apologized and stated the correct pizza would be out soon.  She was genuinely apologetic and asked if the agent needed anything while waiting for the pizza which was appreciated by the agent.

The agent feels this mistake should’ve been caught at the window and the pizza should not have been delivered to the agent.  The fact that it was not realized until the menu description was read to her signifies to the agent Server 1 lacks menu knowledge.

 

The Buffalo Chicken pizza was served 19 minutes later and was definitely worth the wait - great stuff.  The cheddar and mozzarella cheese was perfectly melted and abundantly spread over the chicken.  The wing sauce had a great aroma and was spread along the bottom of the ingredients instead of a traditional red sauce.  The chicken was tender and paired well with the rest of the ingredients.  The crust was soft and had a great flavor and consistency.  The side of ranch served on the side was a cool contrast to the zipp of the wing sauce.

The BBQ Pizza was present on the check instead of the Buffalo Pizza.  The agent did not point out the mistake because the price for the two items is equivalent.  However, the agent feels the incorrect item should have been comped off and the correct item should have been accounted for due to inventory purposes.

The associate ordered the create your own pizza with Italian sausage, pepperoni, ham and bacon.  The meat was abundant and well seasoned.  The cheese was perfectly melted and the marinara had a great flavor.

The associate requested a box when the agent’s pizza was delivered and the agent asked for two boxes to be brought.  They were not delivered until 10 minutes later which is a significant delay in the agent’s opinion.

At the bar the agent ordered a Kilt Lifter draft.  The glass the beer was served in was approximately 22 ounces.  Even though the agent did not specify the size that was wanted the agent feels an upsize should be upsold as opposed to up served. Auto-upselling is a form of bartender theft in the Agent's opinion.

The beer was over flowing onto the bar top and the spill was not cleaned up by Bar 1 which is poor guest service.  The beer was delicious and refreshing.  The associate ordered a Michelob Ultra bottle.  The beer was equally cold and refreshing as the beer served at the table.  The agent is unsure if all items were properly charges for as an itemized receipt was not provided.

·       MOD 1:  Caucasian male approximately 6’ with brown hair and slightly balding wearing a sweater and jeans.

The agent is unsure if the MOD was properly identified.  This male was seen sitting at the curved bar top by the kitchen for the majority of the evaluation.  He was seen going behind the DJ booth which signified to the agent he was possibly a supervisor.  The agent feels that of he was the MOD he did a poor job of circulating through the facility.  He remained stationed at the side bar top and was not observed talking to guests.

The agent feels after the food mistake by Server 1 should’ve resulted in a table visit by the manager.


Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Free Drinks, storing stolen money in the POS, making drinks with dirty glassware

November 27, 2012 23:42 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary:

There were five bartenders on duty on this Friday evening evaluation – three at the Xxxxx bar adjacent to the restaurant and two at the Xxxxx bar that serves as a xxxx by day. There were three barbacks observed simultaneously – two at the Xxxxx bar and one at the Xxxxx bar.

Xxxxx Bar:

  • Bartender Xxxxx: Caucasian male, 5’10’’, short-cut light brown hair

  • Bartender Xxxxx: African American male, 6’3’’, glasses

  • Bartender Xxxxx: Caucasian female, 5’2’’, brown hair worn straight with bangs

  • Barback 1: Caucasian male, 5’10’’, brown hair worn combed smooth

  • Barback 2: Caucasian male, 5’11, brown hair worn spiky, glasses


Xxxxx Bar:

  • Bartender A: Caucasian male, 5’8’, light brown hair worn slightly wavy/curly

  • Bartender B: Caucasian male, 6’0’’, dark brown or black hair

  • Barback 3: Caucasian male, 5’8’’, light brown hair worn wavy/curly



Xxxxx Bar:

The agent and my associate approached the bar and were able to slide into a standing place at the bar. Since we were standing at the bar directly in front of the Xxxxx POS, we were in clear view of bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx. Although Xxxxx and Xxxxx were making conversation with nearby patrons, neither demonstrated urgency to look over to help us out and take our initial order.

After we were there for approximately 3 minutes without acknowledgement, Xxxxx asked what she could get for us; the agent asked for a drink menu, which was not placed on the bar for easy access of patrons. She gave us a clipboard with the small sheets of paper with the drink menu and went back to talking to the patrons at the end of the bar and did not follow up with us. The entire experience so far was very unwelcoming.

During this time, Xxxxx had moved from the end of the bar chatting with patrons to the Xxxxx POS, where he appeared to be trying to figure out something with another patron’s tab.  After approximately 4 minutes since we had received the menu and made decisions on drinks, Xxxxx looked up from the POS and asked what he could get for us.

We placed our drink order with Xxxxx, which he took while standing at the POS – still mulling over a tab. After we placed our order, Xxxxx continued to stand at the POS and did not move to make our drinks.

After another 2 minutes, Xxxxx then returned to us and asked what we would like. We again placed our drink order, which Xxxxx then moved to make. Xxxxx, who was still at the POS nearby, was very apologetic and thanked us two different times for being so patient.

One of the patrons at the end of the Xxxxx Bar, where both Xxxxx and Xxxxx were spending their time when the agent and my associate were patiently awaiting initial service, appeared to be over served. The patron, a woman in her late 40s and possibly Latina, had bloodshot eyes, appeared to be unsteady on her feet, and was seen loudly singing and dancing at the end of the bar. She appeared to be personally known to the bartenders, which could have resulted in her over intoxication. This is a dram shop liquor liability issue that should be addressed by management immediately.

Another one of the patrons at the end of the bar who were captivating the attention of both bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx on this very busy evening at the bar with countless patrons waiting for drinks, a White male in his mid to late 20s was seen specifically honing in on Xxxxx. As the very busy bar continued to get busier, Xxxxx exited from behind the bar and was seen standing on the lounge floor talking to this patron. Both behind and outside the bar, this patron took her focus away from the many other patrons who needed service.

This lack of urgency was observed throughout the time at the bar. The bartenders seemed oblivious or impervious to the fact that patrons were stacked up three deep waiting for drinks. Besides Xxxxx chatting with this patron outside the bar, the bartenders, bar backs and managers casually chatted with one another behind the bar, in addition to casually chatting to patrons who appeared to be regulars. There appeared to be no individualized attention given to other patrons at the bar.

Whereas the lack of urgency on the bartenders led to longer wait times for patrons needing drinks, the lack of urgency on the behalf of the bar backs led to a messy and unmaintained bar area and a shortage of clean glassware. During our time at the Xxxxx Bar, many empty glasses and bottles sat on the bar surface for the entire time that we were present – unbussed, uncleared, unclean.

Besides the empty glasses and bottles that remained on the bar for the extend of our time there, the more pressing issue from the barbacks’ lack of urgency was the lack of clean glassware. The lack of clean glassware led to a variety of problems and solutions, depending on the employee.

To create a solution for the problem, one server (Caucasian female, 5’6’’, light red hair) came behind the bar to clean burgundy glasses that were needed at her table; this was resourceful and necessary for her service, but it also led to unneeded informal chatting between this server and the bar backs and bartenders.

To exacerbate the problem with a much larger, more concerning issue, Bartender Xxxxx took the lack of clean glasses into his own hands. Xxxxx was seen to take a dirty glass that was at the service well (placed there by the service staff from the cocktail lounge area), rinse it out with water from the gun, and make a new drink directly into this dirty glass. The agent cannot even begin to describe the hygiene and health issues with this troubling observation. Needless to say, my associate and I did not order anything else made in glassware for the rest of the evaluation.

Other than the unfortunate incidence with the curt rinsing of a dirty and used glass, Xxxxx seemed to do an adequate job behind the bar. He primarily tended to the service well, making the drinks for the dinner and cocktail crowd being serviced by the waitresses around the establishment.

In addition to making all of the drinks for the service well at the Xxxxx Bar, Xxxxx also helped out bar patrons who were patiently and impatiently waiting for drinks from Bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx. Xxxxx helped out the agent and my associate on one occasion. He was professional, friendly, and had integrity with the recording and charging of the two drinks ordered.

Despite his apparent integrity for only making and delivering drinks that are bought and paid for, both at the service well with chit sheets and at the bar with patron tabs and cash payments, Bartender Xxxxx consistently pours a heavy drink. He was seen to pour on average an approximate five count (4 count =  1 1/2 oz) for all drinks at the service well. Some drinks were closer to a five and half or six count.

Pouring additional alcohol more than what management prescribes for increased gratuities and/or social standing is a form of bartender theft. Agent further suggests that management pour test all the bartenders to ensure uniform accuracy.

All of the bartenders at this Xxxxx Bar had some issues with integrity. Outside of Xxxxx’s heavy pour count, Xxxxx was seen not charging the full or appropriate amounts for drinks, whereas Xxxxx was seen to top off one drink with more than the fair share of alcohol, again without charging or recording on any spill/comp sheet.

Xxxxx made a drink in a champagne glass for a female patron that included brandy and a sugar cube. She served the drink and the patrons stated that there was no brandy in the drink. Xxxxx replied that there was indeed brandy (which there was a four count that the agent had observed her pour), but the patrons were insistent that they could not taste it.

Without argument, Xxxxx grabbed the bottle of brandy and poured a three count into the glass that sat on the bar in front of the patron. Xxxxx did not charge for this extra shot, or record the liquor on any spill/comp sheet.  

Other than this occasion of not charging for the additional top off, she did not appear to have other integrity issues.

Xxxxx, on the other hand, was observed engaging in some questionable behavior at the POS. At approximately 9:51 PM, Xxxxx was seen to ring out an attractive, young female patron who had just ordered a vodka and tonic. Her tab read just over $3.00, which the agent believes is not the accurate price for even well vodka at this establishment. The patron left $6.00 as a tip, which further interpolates to the agent that the bartender had charged less than the going price for her drink.

There were two other occasions that the agent was unsure about Xxxxx’s actions at the POS. On two occasions, both in which patrons paid cash, he did not appear to punch anything into the POS before he sought out change and returned it to the patron. It appeared, to both the agent and my associate, that Xxxxx put cash into the till without ringing in the drinks on these two occasions.

Agent strongly suspects that this bartender his hiding stolen money in the POS Drawer. If this is the case, the money is being laundered via transfer of money through say the tip jar (watch for an abacus system of tracking the stolen money i.e. straws, toothpicks, pennies/nickels/dimes, storing info on cell phone).  It also could be taken out at the end of the night if these bartenders are allowed to "Z" their own registers. In this case, Agent suggests management have them do blind bank drops to detect any overages and stolen money. In both scenarios, Agent suggests that management start performing mid-shift random POS drawer pulls to detect possible stolen money in the POS drawer.

There is a possibility that this happened on more than these two occasions, but the setup of the POS behind the bar does not allow for ample visibility to monitor for theft and integrity. While the agent appreciate that each individual employee must swipe his or her card to access the POS, thus providing record of individual transactions specific to each bartender, the position of the POS flat to the bar surface does not allow any visibility beyond that of the individual bartender recording the drinks. Moving the machines to the back ledge would provide a more public view of what is rung in, thus holding bartenders more accountable.

In addition to the problematic nature of the POS screens being difficult to view from any person other than the person who is ringing in the drink, the current system is also difficult to track for integrity due to the fact that bartenders apparently leave their tips in the till. There is no actual tip jar, and no tips were ever seen. While this deters bartenders from counting or displaying tips to the public, this confounds the lack of clarity of integrity when money enters the drawer without clear recording. Moreover, if they are comingling tips with $0 ring and cash deposits, management probably has a real theft issue on their hands.

The issues with the integrity related to the tabs are further exacerbated when the bartenders do not consistently provide the itemized tab statement. Xxxxx was the only bartender during our visit to give us an itemized tab; the other bartenders either provided only the credit card slip to sign (i.e., Xxxxx, Xxxxx) or took the cash and provided change with no documentation (i.e, Xxxxx, Bartender B). The itemized tab should consistently be provided to patrons.

Bartenders Xxxxx and Xxxxx appeared appropriately dressed, yet Xxxxx did not appear as pulled together. Although he originally appeared to fit in well with the other bartenders in their full black apparel, there was some sort of white shirt or boxers clearly showing under his uniform. To add to the unprofessional nature of his appearance, Xxxxx continued to attempt to use flair quite unsuccessfully.
                                              

Xxxxx Bar:

We visited the Xxxxx Bar in the second half of the evaluation, when the patronage at the establishment had picked up substantially. Whereas we had a good locale to observe the goings on at the Xxxxx Bar in the early portion of the visit, the Xxxxx Bar proved much more difficult. There were no seats at the bar, and patrons were squeezing and pushing their way up to the bar in order to get served drinks.

Unlike the Xxxxx Bar, the Xxxxx Bar appeared to have a better balance between bar duties. Bartender A took primary responsibility for the service well, whereas Bartender B helped the patrons at the busy, standing room only bar. Although there was still a very busy crowd and an extensive wait for drinks, the clear divide seemed helpful for bar and service staff.

Despite having all of the patrons waiting at the bar area, Bartender B had no urgency or enthusiasm. The agent and my associate slowly inched our way up through the hefty crowd to the bar. Without counting in the time that it took to move up to the actual bar itself, we continued to wait for more than 10 minutes for the bartender to offer us drinks.

When my associate finally was able to get his attention, although we were standing directly at the small bar, he barely changed his affect when we posed questions about drinks available at this bar. When we tried to order a round similar to what we had just ordered at the Xxxxx Bar, Bartender B retorted that they didn’t have draft beer, as if we should have known the distinctions in offerings between bars.

As my associate turned to ask me what I wanted instead, Bartender B was gone. This was highly irritating, and if not on duty I would have left.

It took another 4 minutes to get his attention again, and my associate placed our drink order. He sought out the drinks, moved to the POS to enter the drinks, and gave the appropriate amount of cash in return to the agent.

At this point, the agent overhead a disgruntled couple who was waiting for a pen to sign their credit card tab; the pen never came from Bartender B.

In addition to Bartender B behind the Xxxxx Bar, Bartender A poured a consistently heavy pour count at an approximate six count. There were times that he was observed pouring closer to a seven count of alcohol in drinks. This is far to much alcohol and is a dram shop issue. Nevertheless, besides the heavy pour count, he seemed to consistently accompany a drink order at the service well with a chit sheet that came through the POS system.

Although Bartender A appeared to be doing a decent job of keeping up with the service requests for drinks in the well, there was one occasion when a server did not have the patience to wait for her drinks. On this occasion, one server (Caucasian female, 5’6’’, shoulder length, straight blonde hair) came behind bar to get her own drink near service well; she appeared to pour two glasses of champagne from a bottle that was already open at the service well. Agent cannot substantiate if these were properly accounted for and therefore scores it as a theft/integrity occurrence.

Unlike the two bar backs observed in the Xxxxx Bar who moved without urgency and rush, Bar back 3 appeared to be quite attentive and helpful. He moved around quickly behind the bar and appeared to serve the bartenders quite well.

Across both of the bars, there were quite a few negative trends. The bars were overcrowded and the bartenders appeared to have no real urgency to quickly attend to the patrons in need of drinks. Bartenders appeared to be friendly and chatty to one another, yet appeared to be incredibly unhelpful and unfriendly to patrons. Many patrons, at both the Xxxxx and Xxxxx Bars, were heard to complain extensively about the wait times and poor service of the bartenders.

Agent observed first hand one group of patrons actually left without getting initial service from the Xxxxx Bar. One patron was overheard saying, "I can't wait to Yelp! about this."

Additionally, throughout the entire evaluation, there was no observation of any food sales or even offering of menus. The agent understands that bartenders need to focus on alcohol and drink sales in the bar and cocktail areas at this later time of evening on a Saturday night; however, if the establishment values this extra push for additional revenue, perhaps appetizer menus or something could be regularly placed around the bar, rather than have bartenders have another thing on their plate to serve on an already overloaded plate to serve. Liquor liability experts also suggest that food be pushed in high volume alcohol serving areas to help possibly slow down rates of intoxication.

Most importantly, there was no carding across all bartenders of a very young crowd on this Saturday evening. Without door men or a security team ensuring that only patrons of age enter the establishment, bartenders must take the initiative to card patrons who might be underage. There were a large amount of patrons who did not only appear around 21, but appeared under 21. Carding was not observed at all. This is a major dram shop liquor liability issue that needs to be rectified, considering the younger crowd that grew as the night went on.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Free Drinks, Stolen Money Put Directly In Tip Jar

November 10, 2012 16:42 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary –

•    Bar 1 - xxx xxxxx, mid xx, light colored hair with xxxxx xxxxxx xxx xxxxx.

•    Bar 2 - xxxx xxxx, early 30s, xxxxxxx xxxx xxxx, xxxxx logo T-shirt.   

Both bartenders were observed greeting patrons in a reasonable amount of time. While they appeared to be friendly and sociable, especially with their friends and regulars, neither introduced themselves by name at any time during the visit. Neither were overly friendly to anyone they did not already know. As newbie customers, we felt rather alienated.

Agent would suggest management speak to these bartenders and remind them that every regular was at one time a newbie, they liked the place enough to come back because of this. When your particularly unfriendly to new guests, it short circuits this renewed clientele cycle, and revenue volumes will start to steadily decrease. Agent notes this at the beginning of the report as it was a central theme throughout the audit period

Coasters were used but not consistently and the ice scoop was not used at all by Bar 1. Agent was rather surprised that a bartender at this level of restaurant would make such a rookie move as to scoop ice in this manner. It's dangerous, it's unhygienic and is also an Health Code Violation. Bar 2 used the ice scoop occasionally but not consistently, also using the metal shaker.

Moreover, Bar 1, after scooping the ice with the metal shaker in one hand he would use his other hand to guide the ice into the glass. His hands touched the ice of every single drinking made which was rather disgusting to watch, especially after I viewed him touch his nose several times with his fingers. If there was too much ice in the glass he would scoop it out with his fingers. This is not only a health code violation, but just really not pleasant to see. It made us want to tab out and leave.

After Bar 1 scooped the ice with the metal shaker he would spin it in his hand before setting it back on the bar top.

Bar 1 and Bar 2 were observed offering food and drink menus to patrons as well as reviewing with them.

Both bartenders were observed making drinks and then moving to the POS although no one guest at the bar had a receipt in front of them.

Agent observed several people running tabs and neither bartender asked for any credentials from the patron or a credit card to hold the tab open.


This is a very poor business practice which is enhanced when there are two bartenders. In the event that one and bartender forgets or delays (grouping orders) to ring up a drink and the other bartender prints out the tab for the patron, drinks could be missed being charged. Agent recommends that the bartenders place an updated receipt in front of each guest in a small rocks glass, and following a strict "make a drink - ring a drink policy." Agent also recommends securing tabs with a credit card.

at 10:45 PM Agent observed Bar 1 greet 3 males at the bar each one giving them a fist bump, which signified to the bar spotter that they were well acquainted with each other. They spoke for a moment and then Bar 1 proceeded to make SIX double shot Grey Goose and Red Bull drinks. Each man then threw up a $10.00 bill and they all fist bumped again before the men departed. Bar 1 gathered up the $30.00 in cash, paused a moment to look around, and then deposited all the cash directly into the tip jar.

Both bartenders made and served shots to many of the patrons at the bar and then move to the POS but it is difficult to tell whether or not they actually rang them up or ring them up accurately as no receipts were produced. Agent has been bar spotting for a long time and highly suspects an integrity bartender theft issue but was unable to fully substantiate the claim. Agent suggests follow up on this from further Hospitality Checkpoint Agents.

Bar 1 was observed mixing drinks with the standard four count pour method but always topped off each drink with another tail of a pour, so therefore delving additional alcohol for each drink. Delivering additional alcohol of more than what is prescribed by management for financial and/or social gain is considered bartender theft.

Bar 2 was consistent with a four count pour.

Both bartenders poured beers with the appropriate collar.

Both bartenders were observed being attentive to the patrons at the bar and offering additional drinks at the appropriate times.

The bar top and the back bar appeared to be clean and neat and well-organized.

Agent thought that both bartenders were a little lax in the way they were dressed, especially Bar 1 who was wearing a baseball cap on backwards. Agent understands the look/feel of a casual bar/restaurant; however, this looked more like he was headed to a ball game or party as opposed to being at work. Agent recommends the bartenders appearance should be uniform in the type and color of shirts they wear.

Michael Zenner - CEO      

hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT: Spotting the Fingerprints of Theft

May 16, 2012 22:09 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Great Article about bartender theft written by industry leading author Robert Plotkin. If you haven’t read any of Plotkin’s book, you should. They are very informative and a must read. Here is his website: http://www.barmedia.com/

Spotting the Fingerprints of Theft
May 8, 2012 By: Robert Plotkin

Do you have a problem with theft behind the bar? Many in the bar business do. But if you’re waiting for a rise in your pour cost to alert you to a potential problem, you may be out of luck.


Tracking pour cost has long been the accepted way of detecting bartender theft. However, there are more ways to steal from a bar that won’t have the  slightest affect on pour cost. In fact, a clever thief can steal from your bar and actually make your pour cost percentage drop.


Pour cost analyzes the relationship between cost and sales. If a bartender serves a drink and pockets the cash proceeds, he’s basically increasing cost without increasing sales, which will cause pour cost to rise. While the increase may be imperceptible, pour cost will rise. If the bartender then replaces the stolen ounce of liquor with an equal amount of water, pour cost will remain unaffected.


Substitutions are examples of a type of theft that won’t cause pour cost to rise. The scam involves a bartender making drinks with well liquor instead of call brands, charging customers call prices and pocketing the difference. Because the bartender poured well liquor and registered the transaction as a well sale, pour cost remains unaffected.


Underpo
uring schemes are another example. A bartender short pours a series of four drinks by a quarter of an ounce, thereby creating a surplus ounce of liquor. The bartender then sells that shot of liquor and pockets the cash. Again, pour cost is unaffected.

While measuring your pour cost is a smart thing to do, it’s not enough. If the early detection of internal theft is important to you, there’s more you should know.


With n
early all types of theft behind the bar, one thing is certain: The cash proceeds are not ending up in the register. Regardless of the scam, the money winds up in the bartenders’ pockets. So to spot the first signs of theft, look at sales.

Bar productivity measures bartender sales per hour and is computed by dividing the shift’s gross sales by the number of hours the bartender worked. There are two aspects to tracking productivity: calculating the staff’s average sales per hour figured on a weekly basis and computing the daily sales per hour figures for each shift.

Calculating the staff’s productivity involves totaling the bar’s gross sales and dividing them by the total bartenders’ payroll hours for the week. It’s advisable to calculate the day shift’s average sales per hour separately from the night staff’s average. Because there is often a considerable difference between the two figures, calculating the day shift’s productivity separately from the night shift’s makes the analysis more relevant.

For example, if the two night bartenders rang in $6,935 in sales for the week and clocked in a combined 83 payroll hours, the staff average for the night crew works out to $83.55 per hour. During the day, the bartending staff rang-in $2,250 is sales and worked 40.5 hours for a staff average of $55.55 per hour.
The second aspect of productivity is tracking sales per hour for each shift during the week. To illustrate, two bartenders work on Thursday night. “Jim” works six hours a

nd rings in sales of $542 or $90.34 per hour. Adam, working six and a half hours at the same bar on the same night, registers sales of $442, which translates to $68.15 per hour.

Keep a journal or spreadsheet and track productivity figures for each shift on an on-going basis. After several weeks, patterns will emerge. It soon will become evident who are your sales leaders and who fall consistently short of the staff average.


Explanations for Low Productivity


If a bartender’s sales per hour come in consistently below the staff average, five things are possible. One, he may move too slowly and literally can’t keep up with de

mand. Two, he could make lousy drinks, so people don’t stick around. Three, his personality and attitude could be so off-putting that customers leave early. Four, his sales ability could be so unrefined that he consistently undersells. Or five, he could be stealing.

How do you know which it is? Take some time and observe the person. Does he move quickly and with purpose? Or is he more laid back and sluggish? If the person can’t keep up behind the bar, then you’ve identified an area in which he needs to improve.


If that’s not a problem, does it appear as if he has the necessary skills for the job? Do his drinks look good, or are they frequently returned? Does the bartender have a good personality for the job? Does it seem as if he has a positive working attitude? Does he exhibit good sales ability?
If none of these things seem to be a problem, he may be stealing. Regardless of the scam, theft takes a toll on productivity. Tracking productivity can prove to be an invaluabl
e management tool. Between pour cost and bar productivity, there isn’t a scam or fraud that you can’t catch.


Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint

hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299

Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


Using the "NO SALE" button to effectively embezzle money as Bartender Theft.

April 25, 2012 01:05 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Using the "NO SALE" button to effectively embezzle money as Bartender Theft.

The article below an example how bartenders will use the "no sale" key to mask bartender theft issues. The embezzlement takes place when the bartender accepts cash goes to the register or terminal and presses "no sale" to open the drawer and make it appear they are going to the register to appease anyone watching and/or cameras. From here the stealing occurs by them putting the money in their pocket or tip jar AND/OR they may store the stolen money in the register itself to take out at a later time. Watch for any abacus system they may be using to track the stolen embezzled money in the register (pennies/nickels/dimes in the drawer, colored M&M's, straws, toothpicks, cell phones etc). Many times they will use the ruse of changing out one dollar bills from the tip jar placing two $40 in one's in the register and taking out a $100 in $20's and making it appear legitimate when in actuality they have in fact effectively laundered the stolen money. An additional counter to this is to perform frequent random drawer pulls mid-shift to discover if they are gregariously over in the drawer and match against the "no sale" frequency. On that note, we also recommend not letting them "Z" a register and using a blind bank drop instead (e-mail our office for a form and further information info@hospitalitycheckpoint.com). Lastly, if at all possible, disable the "no sale" button completely. If they need to make change for say pool tables or something of that nature, have a separate bank in say a zipper money bag with $50 in quarters for them to exchange. Anybody who complains about this should send up a red flag for you.

 Michael Zenner - CEO      
hospitality checkpoints Inc.
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)

'Clam' Bartender Arrested for Theft

By Tracy Proulx

The owner of The Drunken Clam bar on Greenville Avenue reported a bartender for pocketing the money he'd collected from customers. Johnston Police charged Adam W. Cesario, 26, of 8 Greenville Ave., Johnston, with two felony counts of embezzlement of more than $100 on Apr. 8 after the owner of The Drunken Clam bar, located downstairs in the same building, alleged that Cesario had pocketed the money paid by customers on two separate nights.

Thomas Paolantonio, owner of The Drunken Clam, called local officers on Apr. 8 and requested that they impose a no-trespass order on Cesario for the bar. When the officers arrived, Ptlm. Joseph McGinn reported, Paolantonio told them that he had fired Cesario after reviewing sales receipts from Apr. 4 and 5 and discovering a $400 difference in reported sales and the actual money collected.According to the police report, Paolantonio also explained that he reviewed the surveillance tapes and saw Cesario serving drinks, then pressing the “no sale” button on the cash register.

Paolantonio also told the officers that Cesario took the money from the customers, but placed the money into his pants pocket or the tip jar. When Paolantonio confronted Cesario with the information, he told McGinn, Cesario admitted he pocketed the money and agreed to pay Paolantonio back. Cesario estimated the amount owed to The Drunken Clam was about $300, and described his actions as “wrong” and stemming from “immature frustration,” according to McGinn's report.

Officers arrested Cesario with two counts of embezzlement, one each for Apr. 4 and 5, and presented him for arraignment at police headquarters, where he was released on $5,000 personal recognizance until a scheduled June 8 court hearing.


BARTENDER BAR THEFT:

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Hospitality Checkpoint..
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


BARTENDER THEFT - Bartender not ringing drinks, ADLLC Violations, Dram Shop Liquor Liability Issues, employee alcohol consumption, free drinksfor friends.

February 2, 2012 16:16 by administrator

BARTENDER THEFT:

Bartender Summary

  • Bartender 1:  Caucasian female approximately 5’4” with xxxxxxxxx brown hair and xxxx xxx tattoos on her zzz wearing a red tank top, short jean shorts and xxxxxxxxx.
  • Bartender 2:  Caucasian female approximately 5’7” with brown hair and a xxxx piercing near xxxxx wearing a white midriff baring tank top, short jean shorts and a xxxxxxxxxxx.  She was overheard being called Xxxxx.

The Agent and Associate took a seat at the bar and weren’t greeted until three minutes later which was unreasonable in the Agent’s opinion to due to the lull in business at the time we sat at the bar.  Bartender 1 approached and asked if we had been helped.  We stated we had not.  She placed beverage napkins in front of us and asked what we wanted to drink.  A drink order was placed (see food and beverage summary for details).  She returned with the drinks quickly and asked if we wanted to start a tab.  The Agent provided a card to secure the tab and it was placed behind the bar in an xxxxxxxxxxx which made the Agent feel that the card would be secure and not easily misplaced. 

Bartender 1 cleared a xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx from in front of us but did not wipe the bar top down which left peanut shell remnants from the previous patron scattered along the bar top where we were now trying to enjoy our beverages which was unsightly and unpleasant in the Agent’s opinion.

The Associate’s beverage was empty for six minutes before being offered a new one by Bartender 2.  She made the drink quickly and added it to our tab (see food and beverage summary for details).  Later in the evaluation another round was placed with Bartender 1.  The drinks were made quickly and the Agent requested the tab be closed (see food and beverage summary for details).  She ran the card for payment and delivered the receipt quickly.  No itemized receipt was present.  She thanked us with a slight smile.

Overall, the Agent feels the bartenders were pleasant but not very friendly.  Neither bartender introduced herself by name in case we needed anything.  Also, they seemed to only personally converse with regulars and patrons they already knew which is ineffective towards building new clientele for the establishment in the Agent’s opinion.  Both bartenders lacked in attentiveness in the Agent’s opinion.  Guests would often have to request a new beverage as opposed to the staff offering new beverages when levels were low.  Also, glassware remained on the bar for significant amounts of time after guests were finished before it was eventually cleared.

Both girls were observed on their cell phones during the evaluation.  They kept them near the terminal and were texting and checking them often. 

The Agent witnessed several possible theft and integrity issues with both bartenders during the evaluation.

At 4:53 PM Bartender 2 served a guest a bottle of beer and did not report to the POS.  This guest will be referred to as guest A as he will be mentioned again regarding staff not ringing in drinks.

At 5:00 PM a guest approached the bar top and stated they were not satisfied with their Bloody Mary.  Bartender 1 made her a new cocktail and did not report to the POS to account for the new beverage or place the unwanted beverage on a spill or comp tab.

At 5:01 PM Bartender 1 served two guests who had already closed out two shots of Rumplemintz.  When they got ready to leave, they asked what they owed her for the shots and she stated they were good.  Also, these shot glasses remained in the bar top for 15 minutes before being cleared which is excessive in the Agent’s opinion.

At 5:12 PM Bartender 2 made a shot for a guest on the patio side of the bar and did not report to the POS.

At 5:16 PM Bartender 2 served one patron two pints of beer and two bottles of beer which is a violation of the liquor law as one person cannot be served more than 32 ounces of beer at one time.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

23. For an on-sale retailer or employee to conduct drinking contests, to sell or deliver to a person an unlimited number of spirituous liquor beverages during any set period of time for a fixed price, to deliver more than thirty-two ounces of beer, one liter of wine or four ounces of distilled spirits in any spirituous liquor drink to one person at one time for that person's consumption or to advertise any practice prohibited by this paragraph.

At 5:17 PM Bartender 2 served guest A a bottle of beer and did not report to the POS.

At 5:21 PM Bartender 2 was observed pouring a six count of Crown Royal into a Styrofoam cup for a guest, She did not collect money for the beverage which is a bar theft occurrence. The guest then left the premise with the alcohol drink in hand, which is a violation of the AZ liquor Law.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

31. For a licensee or employee to knowingly permit spirituous liquor to be removed from the licensed premises, except in the original unbroken package. This paragraph shall not apply to a person who removes a bottle of wine which has been partially consumed in conjunction with a purchased meal from the licensed premises if the cork is reinserted flush with the top of the bottle.

Providing alcohol for customers to leave the premise with is a dram shop liquor liability issue that should be addressed by management immediately.

At 5:22 PM the door greeter asked Bartender 2 to pour three shots of Jack for guests he seemed to know personally.  She served the guests the shots and they gave her a ten dollar bill which went into the tip jar.  She blew them kisses as they left.  No move was made to the POS to account for the drinks on a comp tab.

At 5:34 PM Bartender 2 served guest A a bottle of beer and did not report to the POS.

At 5:39 PM the door greeter had brought in a check presenter from outside.  Bartender 1 and Bartender 2 were discussing the tip and the Agent overheard the received a $20 tip on a $6 dollar tab which is suspicious in the Agent’s opinion.  Then, Bartender 2 was overheard stating, “Great, we’re going to get shit for this one.”

At 5:45 PM Bartender 1 poured a seven count Jack Daniels into a Styrofoam cup and gave the cup to a female guest that was on the patio.  She did not report to the POS. Customer left premise with the beverage shortly afterwards.

TITLE 4, CHAPTER 3

4-244. Unlawful acts

31. For a licensee or employee to knowingly permit spirituous liquor to be removed from the licensed premises, except in the original unbroken package. This paragraph shall not apply to a person who removes a bottle of wine which has been partially consumed in conjunction with a purchased meal from the licensed premises if the cork is reinserted flush with the top of the bottle

At 5:56 PM Bartender 1 served a vodka cranberry to a female companion of guest A and did not report to the POS.

At 6:02 PM a Hispanic female in a Xxxxx Xxxxx shirt came behind the bar.  The Agent did not have a view of what she was doing but left the from behind the bar with a Styrofoam cup.  She was observed giving a “lock it up and throw away the key” gesture to Bartender 2.  The instance seemed suspicious.  Also, the Agent recommends only on duty bartenders and barbacks be allowed to come behind the bar.

At 6:06 PM Bartender 2 made the same Hispanic female three shots and did not report to the POS.

Both girls were using the center terminal at the north end of the bar which the Agent had an unobstructed view of.  The Agent is unsure if any of the aforementioned drinks were eventually accounted for on guest or comp tabs.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Hospitality Checkpoint..
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2012


Company posing as hospitality checkpoint attempts to scam applicants with phony FedEx mailed bogus check.

July 15, 2011 20:09 by administrator

This morning I got a call from a gal asking what she should do with the $2750.00 check that hospitality checkpoints had FedEx'ed her today. Confused by this I called her back asking for clarification and uncovered that this woman was being scammed by a fraudulent entity posing as our company. She had applied for a job for us and somehow had been sent this phishing scam.Here is a YouTube Video of the actual telephone conversation I had with the victim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sijXSKFW-U

This is the first e-mail she received and unfortunately she responded to it which divulged her personal information, as well as, set her up for the continued scam.

W: MORE INFORMATION ABOUT JOB!!!!!!!!!PLS REPLY!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 13 Jul 2011 11:15:35 -0700
Subject: MORE INFORMATION ABOUT JOB!!!!!!!!!PLS REPLY!!!!!!!!
From: michaeladams444@gmail.com
Hello,
Thank you for the interest for the customer service job on craigslist,We get hired to go to other peoples companies and act like customers in order to know how the staffs are handling their services in relation to their customers. Once we have a contract to do so, you would be directed to the company or outlet, and you would be given the funds you need to do the job(either purchase products or required services), after which you would write a comment on the staffs activities and give a detailed record of your xperience. Most companies employ our assistance when people give complains about their services, or when they feel there are needs for them to improve their customer service. your Identity would be kept confidential as the job states (secret customer) you would be paid $400 for every duty you carry out, and bonus on your transportation allowance, and funds would be given to you if you have to dine as part of the duty Your job will be to evaluate and comment on customer service in a wide variety of shops, stores, restaurant and services in your area. No commitment is made on this job, and you would have flexible hours as it suits you. If you are interested, do send in these information:
FULL NAME:
CONTACT ADDRESS:
CITY:
STATE:
ZIP-CODE:
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
MOBILE NUMBER:
AGE:
OCCUPATION:
EMAIL:
So we can look at your distance from the locations which you have to put your service into, and your address would also be need for your payments.

Once she responded with an interest, the scammers then sent her the check in the mail instructing her to deposit and withdraw $2350.00 and then proceed to a Western Union and "Mystery Shop" them by sending the money to a person in Florida. What will happen is in a week or so, her bank will return the check as fraudulent and debit her account the full $2750.00 leaving her responsible for the entire amount.

Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2011 08:31:44 -0700
Subject: First assignment to be delivered today via fedex!!!!!!pls reply!!!
From: michaeladams555@gmail.com
To: mskdooley@live.com
Hello Kelly,
How are you today, we re sorry with the delay with payments,I am happy to inform you that you will be receiving the first secret shopping assignment from the company today through fedex courier service with tracking number 794972679246 , you can track it on www.fedex.com. You will receive the total amount of $2750. You are to put in funds and take out funds to send,or deposit for 24 hours , then you deduct your $250 salary, you will have $2500 left so I want you to send $2350 to the secret shopper in another location via western union money transfer. The remaining $150 will be for the western union transfer charges (money in a minutes)and your transportation allowance.

Here is the name below:
Fullname: Quincy Skinner
ADDRESS: 9442 W Sample Rd
CITY: Coral Springs
STATE: Florida
Zipcode: 33065

YOUR FIRST ASSIGNMENT:
During this assignment which requires you to have the check cashed at  your bank before proceeding to wire the remaining funds at any local western union money transfer location in your area, You are expected to secretly perform the following shopping operation:
1. How fast and Efficient is the Western Union Money Transfer Service?
2. How long does it take you to have the funds wired?
3. How Close is the Western Union Money Transfer Location to your area?
4. Is the Senders Request Form too short or Long?
5. Is the neighboring environment safe for handling Western Union Money Transfer Service.
6. What is the name of the Local Western Union Money Transfer Agent where you have the funds wired?
7. General Comment
You are expected to have this done today and email us back your results with the following information after you have
1. Name and Address of Sender
2. Money Transfer Control Numbers (MTCN)
3. Amount Wired
 I will be waiting to read from you ASAP with the requested transfer details.
Regards hh

BE AWARE!!! No legitimate company will EVER send you a check in this manner; nor will they EVER ask for money to transact like this. This really gives our industry a bad name. Below are links to the FBI that explain about the scam, as well as, what to do and who to contact should you be a potential victim.

http://www.fbi.gov/scams-safety/e-scams/e-scams
http://www.ic3.gov/default.aspx

Mystery/Secret Shopper Schemes

01/20/10—The IC3 has been alerted to an increase in employment schemes pertaining to mystery/secret shopper positions. Many retail and service corporations hire evaluators to perform secret or random checks on themselves or their competitors, and fraudsters are capitalizing on this employment opportunity.

Victims have reported to the IC3 they were contacted via e-mail and U.S. mail to apply to be a mystery shopper. Applicants are asked to send a resume and are purportedly subject to an extensive background check before being accepted as a mystery shopper. The employees are sent a check with instructions to shop at a specified retailer for a specific length of time and spend a specific amount on merchandise from the store. The employees receive instructions to take note of the store's environment, color, payment procedures, gift items, and shopping/carrier bags and report back to the employer. The second evaluation is the ease and accuracy of wiring money from the retail location. The money to be wired is also included in the check sent to the employee. The remaining balance is the employee's payment for the completion of the assignment. After merchandise is purchased and money is wired, the employees are advised by the bank the check cashed was counterfeit, and they are responsible for the money lost in addition to bank fees incurred.

In other versions of the scheme, applicants are requested to provide bank account information to have money directly deposited into their accounts. The fraudster then has acquired access to these victims' accounts and can withdraw money, which makes the applicant a victim of identity theft.

Tips

Here are some tips you can use to avoid becoming a victim of employment schemes associated with mystery/secret shopping:

  • Do not respond to unsolicited (spam) e-mail.
  • Do not click on links contained within an unsolicited e-mail.
  • Be cautious of e-mail claiming to contain pictures in attached files, as the files may contain viruses. Only open attachments from known senders. Virus scan all attachments, if possible.
  • Avoid filling out forms contained in e-mail messages that ask for personal information.
  • Always compare the link in the e-mail to the link you are actually directed to and determine if they match and will lead you to a legitimate site.
  • There are legitimate mystery/secret shopper programs available. Research the legitimacy on companies hiring mystery shoppers. Legitimate companies will not charge an application fee and will accept applications online.
  • No legitimate mystery/secret shopper program will send payment in advance and ask the employee to send a portion of it back.

Individuals who believe they have information pertaining to mystery/secret shopper schemes are encouraged to file a complaint at www.IC3.gov.

Secret Shopper Scam

Being a Mystery Shopper Could Cost you Money

By , About.com Guide

Arizona consumers are being warned about a new scam involving phony advertisements for employment as a secret shopper, mystery shopper, or investigative shopper. Whether or not you live in Arizona, these tips about mystery shopper jobs could save you money and heartache later on.

The scam might work this way: People respond to an ad looking for a mystery shopper or a secret shopper. When they contact the company about the position, they are told they can earn money by purchasing items at different stores or dining at different restaurants. The company then sends an employment packet. The packet includes business evaluation forms, a training assignment, and a cashier's check, often ranging between $2,000 and $4,000. The training assignment is to cash the check, pose as a customer, and wire the money to an address in Canada. The scam is that the check is fake. The check bounces after the person wires the money, leaving the person liable for the fake check. People who apply for the secret shopper or mystery shopper jobs are told by the company that they have only 48 hours to complete the assignment or they will lose the job.

Arizona's Attorney General says, "Consumers need to know that a legitimate company will never send you a cashier's check out of the blue or require you to send money to someone you have never met. The scam artists use realistic looking documents, the 'secret' nature of the job, and the 48-hour deadline to pressure consumers into cashing the check and wiring the money quickly before the bank or the consumer can determine it was a fake check. By then, it's too late."

There are legitimate mystery shopper jobs. So how do you tell if the one you are looking at is real or a scam? The Attorney General's Office advises that you should be skeptical of any secret shopper, mystery shopper, or investigative shopper companies that:

  • Advertise jobs for shoppers on the radio, in a newspaper's classified or "help wanted" section or through unsolicited email. Legitimate secret shopper companies generally do not advertise for jobs in this manner.
  • "Guarantee" a job as a mystery, secret, or investigative shopper.
  • Charge a fee just for applying or charge a fee for access to secret shopping job opportunities. You should not pay any fee to apply or to obtain job information.
  • Appear to be located in places outside the country, such as Canada. If the company does not have an established office nearby that you can visit in person, be very cautious.
  • It is always a good idea to check with the Better Business Bureau and investigate any business offering this sort of employment.

Fake cashiers check scams come in many forms. Generally,

  • Do not depend on the funds from a cashier's check from a source you do not know.
  • There is usually no legitimate reason for someone who is giving you money to ask for money to be wired back or wired to a third party. Don't do it.
  • Do not rely on the fact that the check was accepted for deposit by their financial institution as evidence of the check's authenticity. It can take up to a week or much longer for a financial institution to determine whether a check is good, especially if the check is from an institution located outside the United States.
  • Consumers are responsible for the deposited fake check, even if it was a cashier's check. When the check bounces, the bank deducts from the consumer's account the amount that was credited with the fake check--often with charges added. The bank will not take the loss.

If you believe you have been a victim of fraud in Arizona, please contact the Attorney General's Office in Phoenix at 602-542-5763, or visit them online.

The information in this article was obtained from the Office of the Arizona Attorney General.

Beware! You may see advertisements for Secret Shoppers or Mystery Shoppers on this page, because that's the topic of the article. Just because you see an ad here, that doesn't make it a legitimate company!

BARTENDER THEFT:

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com

bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com

PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© hospitality checkpoints Inc. 2011