OP is saying that she “stole” from the bank, and it seems that there is no evidence to say that she even fiddled her expenses.
Your comment implies that the BBC didn’t bother to look for said evidence, but I’m not convinced. How do they even know that there was an investigation? It wouldn’t be public information. Somebody inside the bank must have told them. Wouldn’t that person also have told them what the outcome was?
For that matter, if the bank concluded that she’d been fiddling her expenses, wouldn’t it have dismissed her?
They specifically say that they do not know whether the bank concluded that the expenses were improper.
Quite the investigation, then, wasn’t it?
OP is saying that she “stole” from the bank, and it seems that there is no evidence to say that she even fiddled her expenses.
Your comment implies that the BBC didn’t bother to look for said evidence, but I’m not convinced. How do they even know that there was an investigation? It wouldn’t be public information. Somebody inside the bank must have told them. Wouldn’t that person also have told them what the outcome was?
For that matter, if the bank concluded that she’d been fiddling her expenses, wouldn’t it have dismissed her?