Cranbury Township says about $26 million intended to buy property for its affordable-housing obligations was diverted in a sophisticated financial theft on Sept. 28. Investigators have frozen nearly $17.3 million in assets connected to the case, but that amount has not been reported as returned to township coffers, ABC7 New York reported. The investigation is active, and officials have not disclosed how the money was diverted.
The housing obligation behind the purchase
The intended purchase was tied to Cranbury’s duty to plan for affordable housing. The township’s adopted Fourth Round Housing Element and Fair Share Plan says New Jersey municipalities have a constitutional obligation to provide housing options for low- and moderate-income households. It lists a prospective obligation of 265 affordable homes for Cranbury in the Fourth Round, separate from obligations recorded for earlier rounds, according to the plan filed with the New Jersey courts. The plan provides context for the purpose of the transaction; it does not establish what property the township sought to buy or how the theft will affect its housing plans.
Recovery and oversight remain unresolved
Cranbury is working with insurance carriers to evaluate recovery options, while a multiagency task force led by township police and the Middlesex County Prosecutor’s Office investigates, ABC7 reported. The township has not established how much of the frozen money, if any, will ultimately be recovered. Reports also differ on whether the municipality has selected accounting support: ABC7 said officials planned to consider appointing PKF O’Connor Davies, while NJ.com reported that Cranbury had hired a municipal accounting firm without naming it. ABC7 also reported that officials planned to introduce ordinances creating assistant township administrator and assistant chief financial officer positions at the Township Committee’s Nov. 9 meeting.
A separate case shows one possible fraud route
In a separate case in Griffin, Georgia, in June 2019, the city made two payments after receiving an email requesting a vendor account change; officials later found that the email address was incorrect, BleepingComputer reported. That incident illustrates one way fraudulent payment instructions can enter municipal transactions, but Cranbury officials have not said whether email was involved in their case. The Griffin case does not establish a connection between the incidents or identify how Cranbury’s funds were diverted.
