A former Massachusetts state trooper convicted as part of the department’s wide-ranging overtime fraud scandal will lose $1 million in retirement payouts after the state’s highest court ruled that stripping away his pension was not excessive given his “significant breach of the public trust.”
The Supreme Judicial Court on Thursday rejected Gregory Raftery’s argument that the state Retirement Board’s order went too far in forfeiting his $72,205-a-year pension. The court ruled that the punishment was “not grossly disproportionate” to his crime, nor did it constitute a “cruel or unusual punishment.”
Raftery was convicted in 2018 after prosecutors said he engaged in a years-long embezzlement scheme, in which he falsely reported working more than 700 overtime hours and stole more than $50,000 in unearned overtime pay.
Nearly 50 troopers were implicated in the overtime fraud scandal, and Raftery was one of 10 who were convicted on federal or state charges. He retired at 47, roughly three months before he pleaded guilty.
Raftery was sentenced to three months in prison, followed by one year of supervised release. State officials estimate his pension is worth roughly $1.025 million, not including health insurance benefits.
The harm caused by his actions, however, was “significant,” the court ruled, and “go far beyond a single lapse in judgment.”
“To limit the creditable harm in this case only to the actual amount of overtime pay illegally obtained by the plaintiff would be to devalue the true gravity of the offense,” Justice Scott L. Kafker wrote for the court.
“The plaintiff also fabricated motor vehicle citations to conceal his theft, further dishonoring his responsibilities as a State police trooper,” Kafker wrote. “All these actions constituted a significant breach of the public trust.”
Generally speaking, state officials can only revoke pensions of those convicted of crimes related to their public employment. And even those cases aren’t always slam dunks, legal experts have told the Globe.
In 2016, for example, the SJC ruled that a retired Peabody police lieutenant could collect his pension despite a criminal conviction for a job-related offense. In that case, Edward A. Bettencourt was convicted of 21 counts of unauthorized use of a computer system for logging on to a state database in 2004 to check civil service scores of 21 officers, including four who were competing with him for an open captain’s position.
He was fined $10,500 for the misdemeanor offenses but received no jail time or probation.
The SJC ruled at the time that stripping Bettencourt of his entire pension is “not proportional to the gravity of the underlying offenses of which he was convicted.”
In Thursday’s ruling, however, the court drew sharp distinctions between Bettencourt and Raftery. Bettencourt, the court noted, was convicted of misdemeanors for “snooping” and his actions resulted in “no gain to him ‘other than the satisfaction of his curiosity.’”
In Raftery’s case, Kafker wrote, “the plaintiff engaged in a prolonged fraud upon his employer and did so from a position of trust.”
Andrew Napolitano, a spokesperson for the state Retirement Board, said officials there are “pleased that the Supreme Judicial Court’s decision recognizes and upholds the Board’s authority to enforce pension forfeiture in instances that involve criminal conduct related to a member’s official duties.”
“We remain committed to protecting the integrity of the retirement system and ensuring accountability across public service,” Napolitano said.
Thomas Kiley, an attorney for Raftery, declined to comment Thursday.
Nick Poser, a public employee retirement lawyer who worked on Raftery’s case but did not represent him, said the decision followed a “through-line” with other pension forfeiture cases: Those who’ve stolen state funds and are convicted of felonies have little success in winning their retirement benefits back.
The courts “don’t just look, legally speaking, at the amount of money that was stolen and the amount of money that they would lose” by forfeiting their pension, Poser said. “They’re really focusing on the severity of the crime.
“There’s not a lot of love for the troopers and other people who are stealing from the Commonwealth,” he added. “I don’t think the court wanted to give any quarter.”
In 2023, a District Court judge overturned the state Retirement Board’s forfeiture order for another former state trooper who pleaded guilty in the overtime scandal.
In that case, Judge Mark J. Pasquariello ruled that stripping John Giulino of his pension violated his constitutional rights to protection from excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment. Giulino had been sentenced to two years probation and was ordered to pay back the more than $29,000 he stole in overtime hours he did not work.
Pasquariello noted in his decision that at his age — Giulino was 72 at the time of the hearing — and with a felony conviction, Giulino was essentially “unemployable.” He also sold his home, reported virtually no income of his own, and was living in a modest, one-bedroom apartment above the garage of his daughter’s home, the judge wrote.
“In this case, unlike others, I have had the benefit of considering evidence concerning the financial impact which forfeiture has had on the plaintiff and his family,” Pasquariello wrote.
A Suffolk Superior Court later reversed his decision in March, and Giulino has since appealed, according to the state Retirement Board and court records.
Tim Burke, Giulino’s attorney, said the impact of stripping away a pension on a spouse or relative should be considered. “It can’t just be unilaterally applied to the husband,” he said, “where it has an adverse effect on the family.”
Matt Stout can be reached at matt.stout@globe.com. Follow him @mattpstout.