SLED Arrest City of Union Employee for Embezzlement

UNION CITY HALL UNDER SCRUTINY: SLED WARRANT ALLEGES EMBEZZLEMENT DATING BACK TO 2022

City previously said its financial controls “worked as intended.” Now a SLED warrant alleges a former employee embezzled public cash during a period spanning more than four years.

UNION, S.C. — A former City of Union employee has been charged with embezzling public funds, but the newly released arrest warrant raises questions that extend well beyond the arrest itself.

The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division charged Kathy Ann Teague, 65, on October 6 with Embezzlement of Public Funds — $10,000 or More.

According to SLED, the investigation was requested by the Union Public Safety Department.

The arrest warrant alleges that between January 2022 and June 2026, Teague embezzled cash while employed by the City of Union.

That alleged offense period spans approximately four-and-a-half years.

The warrant does not publicly identify the exact amount authorities believe was taken. It establishes only that the alleged amount falls within the statutory category of $10,000 or more.

Teague was booked into the Union County Detention Center and was later released on a $5,000 bond, according to published reports.

The case will be prosecuted by the 16th Circuit Solicitor’s Office.

Teague is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

But the criminal charge is only one part of the story.

THE CITY HAD ALREADY ANNOUNCED A THEFT INVESTIGATION

Months before Teague’s arrest, the City of Union publicly announced that it had discovered suspected theft involving an employee in its Planning and Zoning Department.

In a June 24 statement, the city said the employee had allegedly engaged in the theft of public funds “over a period of several months.”

The city also said the suspected misappropriation had been detected through internal financial controls designed to quickly identify theft.

According to the city’s statement, those controls “worked as intended.”

That statement takes on new significance following the release of SLED’s warrant.

The city described suspected theft occurring over “several months.”

SLED’s warrant, however, places the alleged criminal conduct within a period beginning in January 2022 and ending in June 2026.

Those statements are not necessarily contradictory.

It is possible that the city initially discovered only a portion of the alleged activity and that investigators later identified transactions dating further back.

But that has not been publicly explained.

And it raises an important question:

When did the City of Union first detect a financial discrepancy, and how did investigators ultimately arrive at January 2022 as the beginning of the alleged offense period?

That is a question taxpayers deserve to have answered.

WHAT DOES “WORKED AS INTENDED” MEAN?

The City’s June statement was clear.

Officials said internal financial controls discovered the suspected theft and that those controls worked as intended.

But SLED’s subsequent allegation makes the details of those controls particularly important.

The public still does not know exactly what triggered the investigation.

Was there a missing deposit?

A cash reconciliation problem?

A discrepancy discovered during an audit?

A complaint?

An accounting irregularity?

A review by another city employee?

The City has not publicly explained precisely what financial control identified the suspected problem or when the first irregularity was discovered.

Nor has the City publicly explained whether the alleged activity discovered in June initially appeared limited to several months before investigators subsequently identified earlier suspected transactions.

Those details matter.

Because saying a financial control “worked as intended” is only meaningful if the public understands what the control was designed to do and how quickly it actually detected the problem.

TEAGUE HELD MULTIPLE RESPONSIBILITIES

Teague’s role with the City of Union also appears to have extended beyond the simple description of “building and zoning manager” appearing in coverage of her arrest.

Public municipal and professional records over several years identified Teague under several titles, including:

Planning and Zoning Coordinator

Business License Coordinator

Business License Supervisor

Her responsibilities placed her within city operations involving planning, zoning, permitting and business licensing.

At this stage, there is no public evidence establishing which particular revenue stream or type of payment is connected to the criminal allegation.

CC News Network is not suggesting that the allegedly embezzled money came from business-license payments, building permits, zoning fees or any other specific source.

That information has not been publicly established.

But Teague’s responsibilities make one question particularly important:

What public funds does SLED allege were taken, and how did Teague allegedly gain access to them?

Neither the arrest warrant nor SLED’s public announcement answers that question.

SHE ROSE THROUGH A STATEWIDE MUNICIPAL ORGANIZATION

Teague was also active in the South Carolina Business Licensing Officials Association, a professional organization affiliated with the Municipal Association of South Carolina.

Her involvement stretched back years.

In 2019, Teague completed specialized business-licensing training while serving the City of Union.

In 2020, she earned the organization’s Master in Business Licensing designation.

She later served in leadership positions within the statewide organization.

By 2025, Teague had become vice president.

For the 2025-2026 term, she was elected president of the South Carolina Business Licensing Officials Association.

Municipal Association records identified her during that period as a City of Union business licensing official.

That creates an extraordinary overlap in the timeline.

SLED now alleges an offense period beginning in January 2022 and continuing through June 2026.

During portions of that same period, Teague was advancing through the leadership ranks of a statewide organization representing municipal business-licensing officials.

Again, that does not prove the criminal allegations.

But it is part of the public record surrounding someone who held a position of considerable professional trust.

TEAGUE ALSO PARTICIPATED IN TRAINING OTHER OFFICIALS

Teague’s role within the organization was not merely ceremonial.

Professional training materials identify her as participating in educational programs for other municipal business-licensing officials.

One training session concerned the duties, responsibilities and state-law authority of business-licensing officials.

That means Teague had reached a professional level at which she was helping educate other municipal employees about their responsibilities within local government.

During a period now encompassed by SLED’s criminal allegation, Teague was not only working for the City of Union but was also becoming increasingly prominent within her profession.

That juxtaposition makes the unanswered questions surrounding the case even more significant.

HOW MUCH MONEY IS ACTUALLY MISSING?

Perhaps the biggest unanswered question is also the simplest:

How much money does SLED believe was embezzled?

The charge says $10,000 or more.

That is a statutory threshold, not necessarily the total alleged loss.

The amount could be slightly above $10,000.

It could be substantially higher.

Neither the arrest warrant nor SLED’s public announcement identifies the precise amount.

The City of Union has also not publicly disclosed a final loss figure that CC News Network can independently verify.

Taxpayers should know the amount authorities believe was taken.

They should also know whether any of that money has been recovered.

And if insurance or a public-official fidelity bond covered any portion of the alleged loss, that should also be disclosed.

WHERE DID THE CASH COME FROM?

SLED’s warrant specifically alleges the embezzlement of cash.

That creates another series of questions.

What city services were receiving cash?

How were those payments documented?

Who issued receipts?

Who entered transactions into the city’s accounting system?

Who reconciled those transactions?

Who prepared deposits?

Who verified deposits against receipts?

Were responsibilities divided among multiple employees, or did one employee have control over multiple stages of the process?

Those questions are fundamental to any system designed to protect taxpayer money.

At this point, CC News Network has not seen public records establishing exactly how the alleged embezzlement was carried out.

That means it would be inappropriate to speculate.

But it is entirely appropriate to ask how the City’s cash-handling system operated.

WHAT DID THE AUDITORS KNOW?

Another unanswered issue involves the City’s financial audits.

If investigators believe suspicious transactions stretch back to January 2022, the public deserves to know whether independent auditors identified any weaknesses involving:

• cash handling;
• segregation of financial duties;
• deposits;
• receipt reconciliation;
• internal controls;
• business-license collections;
• permitting revenue;
• or other departmental financial procedures.

An audit does not necessarily detect individual acts of theft.

But auditors commonly review internal controls and identify weaknesses that could increase the risk of fraud or financial loss.

Any management letters, audit findings or internal-control recommendations issued during the alleged period could therefore become highly relevant.

WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSIGHT?

A criminal prosecution focuses on whether the accused committed a crime.

Public accountability requires a broader examination.

If taxpayer money was allegedly taken, taxpayers are entitled to know not only who is accused of taking it, but also how the financial system was supposed to protect those funds.

Who supervised the department?

Who reviewed its financial activity?

Who reconciled the money?

Who reviewed deposits?

Who had access to cash?

Who had authority to alter, void or refund transactions?

And who was ultimately responsible for ensuring city revenue reached the City’s bank accounts?

There is currently no public evidence reviewed by CC News Network showing that another City employee participated in the alleged embezzlement.

Those questions should therefore not be interpreted as accusations against other employees.

They are questions about government oversight and financial safeguards.

THE TIMELINE DESERVES ATTENTION

The documented timeline provides important context:

2019: Teague completes specialized business-licensing training while working for the City of Union.

2020: Teague earns a Master in Business Licensing designation.

January 2022: SLED’s warrant identifies this as the beginning of the alleged offense period.

2023: Professional records identify Teague as a City of Union business-licensing official.

2024: Teague continues participating in statewide professional leadership.

2025: Teague becomes vice president of the South Carolina Business Licensing Officials Association.

2025-2026: Teague serves as president of the organization.

Early 2026: Professional records continue identifying Teague as a City of Union business-licensing official.

June 2026: SLED’s alleged offense period ends.

June 24, 2026: The City announces that suspected theft involving an employee has been discovered and referred to law enforcement.

October 6, 2026: SLED arrests Teague on a felony embezzlement charge.

That timeline does not prove guilt.

It does, however, demonstrate why this case deserves considerably more scrutiny than a routine arrest announcement.

TEN QUESTIONS THE CITY OF UNION SHOULD ANSWER

CC News Network is seeking answers to several questions arising directly from the public record:

1. What is the total amount of money SLED and the City believe is missing?

2. What type of City revenue or public funds are involved?

3. When did the City first identify a financial discrepancy?

4. What specific internal financial control detected the suspected problem?

5. Why did the City’s June statement describe the alleged theft as occurring over “several months” while SLED’s warrant identifies an offense period beginning in January 2022?

6. Did investigators subsequently identify suspected transactions predating what the City initially discovered?

7. Who was responsible for receiving, reconciling and depositing the public funds connected to the investigation?

8. Did any audit or management letter from 2022 through 2026 identify weaknesses involving cash handling or financial controls?

9. Has the City filed an insurance or fidelity-bond claim, and has any money been recovered?

10. What financial-control changes, if any, has the City implemented since discovering the alleged activity?

Those questions can be answered without interfering with Teague’s right to a fair trial.

They concern the administration and protection of public money.

AN ARREST DOESN’T ANSWER THE ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTIONS

It would be easy to summarize this story in a few sentences.

A former city employee was arrested.

She is accused of embezzling more than $10,000.

She posted bond.

The case now heads toward prosecution.

But that leaves much of the story untold.

SLED’s warrant identifies an alleged offense period stretching from January 2022 through June 2026.

During portions of that period, Teague was advancing professionally and eventually became president of a statewide association representing municipal business-licensing officials.

Then, in June, the City announced that suspected theft had been uncovered and said its internal financial controls had “worked as intended.”

Those facts do not establish guilt.

And they do not establish wrongdoing by anyone else at City Hall.

But they do create legitimate questions about the handling of taxpayer money, the effectiveness of internal controls and the timeline by which the alleged losses were discovered.

An arrest may identify the person prosecutors intend to hold criminally responsible.

It does not explain the system surrounding the alleged crime.

For taxpayers in Union, that part of the story still needs to be told.

CC News Network will continue seeking records and answers concerning the amount of the alleged loss, the source of the funds, the City’s financial controls and the circumstances that ultimately led to the investigation.

Editor’s Note: Kathy Ann Teague has been charged with a criminal offense. The allegations described in this report are based on SLED’s arrest warrant and other public records. A criminal charge is an accusation, and Teague is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

About the Author

James Seidel

Administrator

About the CC News Network James Seidel: Publisher, Award Winning Journalist, Author. Investigator, Podcaster, Talk Show Host, and Music Producer. The CC News Network is a distinguished media company in the world of South Carolina News, Weather, Sports and True Crime. At the beginning, James Seidel was only known as Crime and Cask and well known for his relentless pursuit of truth and justice in the Alex Murdaugh trial. As a journalist, author, investigator, radio talk show host, and record producer he has made significant contributions to uncovering some of the most complex and high-profile criminal cases of our time.

Visit Website View All Posts