Purchasing cards (P-cards) are widely used by local governments and school districts to streamline low-dollar purchases and reduce administrative overhead. But when oversight is weak, P-cards consistently emerge as one of the highest-risk payment methods in the public sector.

Would Superman commit P-card fraud? Probably not, but the people that often commit fraud are the last people you would expect.

‍

Over the last five years, audits, investigations, and criminal cases across the United States have uncovered millions of dollars in P-card and government credit card fraud—often spread across hundreds of small transactions and missed by traditional controls.

This article highlights:

• The Top 10 largest P-card–related fraud cases by reported dollar impact, and
• A comprehensive table of major U.S. government and school district cases from the last five years to show the broader pattern.

Top 10 P-Card Fraud Cases (By Reported Dollar Impact)

1. City of Richmond, Virginia — $5,000,000

Year: 2025 | Type: Municipal Government

A citywide audit identified more than $5 million in questionable P-card transactions, citing missing documentation, policy violations, and inadequate oversight. The findings were referred to the city’s Inspector General and triggered a major restructuring of the P-card program.

Key takeaway: “Questionable spending” alone can represent massive financial exposure—even before criminal charges.

2. City of Austin (Austin Energy), Texas — $980,000

Year: 2025 | Type: Municipal Utility

A former employee allegedly used city-issued cards and fictitious vendors to divert nearly $1 million over several years.

Key takeaway: Weak vendor validation and lack of transaction-level monitoring enable long-running schemes.

3. Glynn County Public Works, Georgia — $422,168

Year: 2024 | Type: County Government

A department supervisor used government credit cards for personal purchases, resulting in a federal conviction.

Key takeaway: Fraud risk increases sharply when supervisors are not independently reviewed.

4. Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland — $320,000

Year: 2023 | Type: School District

A transportation director misused district purchasing authority over multiple years.

Key takeaway: P-card oversight often lags behind AP and payroll controls in school systems.

5. Arizona State University — $124,093

Year: 2023 | Type: Public University

Investigators uncovered card misuse supported by falsified documentation.

Key takeaway: Documentation checks alone are ineffective without behavioral analysis.

6. Evanston/Skokie School District 65, Illinois — $110,000

Year: 2025 | Type: School District

Improper administrative P-card purchases violated district procurement policies.

Key takeaway: Policy violations often precede more serious misuse.

7. Miami-Dade County Public Schools, Florida — $100,000

Year: 2024 | Type: School District

A former school board member allegedly stole more than $100,000 through improper use of district funds.

Key takeaway: Seniority and authority do not reduce fraud risk—often they increase it.

8. Yuma Elementary School District, Arizona — $86,388

Year: 2025 | Type: School District

Auditors found personal purchases and missing documentation tied to P-cards.

Key takeaway: Smaller districts are not immune to P-card fraud.

9. City of Austin (Austin Water), Texas — $73,000

Year: 2025 | Type: Municipal Utility

A separate investigation uncovered misuse of city-issued cards within another Austin department.

Key takeaway: P-card control weaknesses are often systemic, not isolated.

10. Richland County School District One, South Carolina — $23,170

Year: 2022 | Type: School District

An employee was indicted for embezzlement using card-related transactions.

Key takeaway: Even low-dollar fraud can persist undetected for long periods.

‍

What These Cases Reveal About P-Card Risk

Across jurisdictions and organization size, the same themes repeat:

• Fraud is rarely a single large transaction
• Issues persist for years without detection
• Manual reviews and sampling consistently fail
• Trust replaces controls until it’s too late

Why This Matters for Governments and School Districts

These cases don’t represent rare failures—they represent systemic weaknesses in how P-card programs are monitored.

Organizations that rely on:

• Annual audits
• Manual receipt checks
• Small transaction samples

Are almost guaranteed to miss emerging risk.

Final Thought

Every case above had one thing in common:

The data already existed.
The insight came after the damage was done.

This is why leading governments are moving toward continuous, transaction-level monitoring of P-card activity—before fraud becomes a headline.