A woman was recently arrested for stealing from her employer — and using the money to pay back an employer she’d stolen from previously.

Got that? Here are the details:

Kathy Foer-Morse worked as a paralegal for a law firm in Norristown, Pennsylvania. She was recently fired, arrested and charged with stealing $100,937 from the firm. Allegedly, she’d been writing herself fraudulent checks from estate accounts the firm managed, the Pottstown Mercury reports.

Police said Foer-Morse was sending the money to her previous employer, a law firm in New York City. She owed them restitution after she was caught stealing $285,000 while she worked there.

No word on whether the firm knew about her past when it hired her, but we’re guessing she found a way to hide it from them.

• Changed dates of past employment – Up to 34% of job applicants fudge the dates of their previous jobs to cover gaps in their employment. The good news: This is one of the easiest fibs to catch through reference checks.
• Inflated salaries – One way some dishonest candidates attempt to bargain for better starting pay: lying about how much they’re currently making. For that reason, some companies ask candidates for a previous W-2 form or pay stub before they’re hired.
• Phony degrees – About 20% of resumes have some discrepancy regarding education and other qualifications. They range from degrees listed that candidates never completely earned to degrees purchased from so-called online “diploma mills.”
  
• Criminal records – About 11% of all candidate background checks turn up a criminal conviction. Also, the firm warns, many convicted criminals apply for jobs exclusively at smaller companies, since they’re the least likely to perform full background checks.
• Illicit drug use – Roughly 42% of Americans admit to using an illegal drug during their lifetimes. That’s why many experts recommend drug screening for applicants, especially where safety is a concern.

What’s the biggest or craziest resume lie you’ve ever caught?

That’s the conclusion of a recent BusinessWeek article, which lists some anecdotal evidence about the trouble with background checks.

One story involved a former pharmacy employee who was fired for stealing. An unemployment compensation board ruled that he was wrongly accused — but the company had already given his name to a database that tracks employee thefts.

Since then, the man has been unable to find a decent job, the story says.

Worth the risk?

Given the rising revenues for background check firms, it’s clear many companies think the risk of inaccuracy is worth it to screen out workers who might steal or harm the business in other ways. Also, statistically speaking, problems appear to be rare.

We’d like to hear from you. Do you rely on an outside firm to conduct background screens? Ever had any problems? Let us know in the comments section.