gavel
BrianAJackson

SPRINGHILL, La. — Sixty-two unauthorized charges totaling about $11,413 were made on a Springhill City Court credit card over an extended period, and auditors found the court lacked basic controls needed to properly monitor and document the spending.

The audit did not identify the person responsible for the charges. It also said the status of any investigation was unknown, as was whether anyone had been identified, charged or otherwise held accountable. 

Judge Stuart McMahen represented to auditors that he contacted the Webster Parish Sheriff's Office about the unauthorized charges.

Sheriff Jason Parker told KTBS on Monday that his office did not conduct an investigation because McMahen said the charges were part of a scam and the money has since been reimbursed. 

"He never asked for an investigation or filed any formal complaint asking for an investigation," Parker said, "because they got the money reimbursed."

The charges occurred from August 2024 through January 2025 and again in August 2025, according to a Louisiana Legislative Auditor's report. The audit classified the finding as fraud or misappropriation.

The audit found the court did not have adequate controls over the use of its credit cards. In particular, there were no procedures in place to ensure charges were supported by original vendor invoices or receipts or that each purchase had documentation showing a legitimate business purpose.

"The town's internal controls were not effective in resolving the matter in question," auditors reported.

The court also notified the Louisiana Legislative Auditor's Office and District Attorney Schuyler Marvin's office in writing on Feb. 26 as required by state law.

Charges were not authorized, court says

In its response to the audit, McMahen acknowledged the problems with the credit card documentation, approval procedures and internal controls.

He said auditors identified transactions for which supporting documentation or a clearly documented public purpose could not be established.

"Based on the information available, the questioned transactions were not authorized by the court and were not incurred for court-related purposes to the court's knowledge," McMahen said in a letter to auditors.

The transactions appeared to have resulted from unauthorized access to its credit card information. All of the questioned amounts were reimbursed to the court, according to the audit.

"All questioned amounts have been fully reimbursed to the court to ensure that no public funds remain at risk," McMahen said.

Court cancels card and changes procedures

After the unauthorized transactions were discovered, the McMahen said it secured the credit card account and canceled the card to prevent further unauthorized activity.

He also said several changes were made to how credit cards are handled.

Those changes include maintaining a single authorized cardholder account, securely storing credit card information, removing stored card information from third-party applications and implementing enhanced review and approval procedures for credit card transactions.

The audit specifically identified the lack of documentation and approval controls as a deficiency that allowed the unauthorized spending to occur and not be detected in a timely manner.

The report states that the person responsible for the unauthorized charges remains unknown.

Other findings

Segregation of duties:

Auditors noted a lack of segregation of duties with regards to receipts of civil fees and fines. One of the individuals responsible for collecting the fees and fines was also responsible for depositing the funds and recording the deposits into the agency's general ledger. There was no independent review of the deposits to the subsidiary records for the civil and fines funds.

Late submission:

The audit report for the year ended June 30, 2025, was not submitted timely in accordance with the state law.