FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Minnesota Man Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $4 Million from Employer

Paul Joseph Kroes, 42, of Shorewood, pleaded guilty to wire fraud in connection with a scheme to steal and sell products from his employer.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 27, 2026, 5:24 p.m. ET
Paul Joseph Kroes, 42, of Shorewood, Minnesota, guilty on August 27, 2026, to one count of wire fraud, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota. The plea was entered before U.S. District Judge Paul A. Magnuson, and sentencing will be scheduled later. From approximately November 2019 to March 2025, Kroes embezzled approximately $4 million from his employer, identified as Victim Company, a retailer of transport temperature control systems for refrigerated trucks and containers. Kroes, who held various roles at the company since 2007 and last served as a Product Manager, sold company products to third-party buyers and kept the proceeds. He concealed the missing inventory by pulling products himself or directing another employee to do so. U.S. Attorney Daniel N. Rosen said, "The defendant exploited his access and authority to cause significant financial harm to his employer. Today's guilty plea is one step closer to holding Kroes accountable for his actions." FBI Minneapolis Field Office Special Agent in Charge Christopher D. Dotson added, "Paul Kroes abused his position over multiple years to systematically siphon millions of dollars from his employer. White collar criminals may think they can hide behind clever accounting and their knowledge of internal systems, but financial fraud always leaves a trail." The case was investigated by the FBI and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Austin L. Bowyer and Rebecca E. Kline.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 127 Aug 2026, 21:24current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.