San Jose's Rochelle Banting was convicted in 2015 of felony grand theft, insurance fraud and forgery relating to her work in two dental offices.
In charge of the billing in two dentists offices over five years, Banting embezzled about $40,000, according to District Attorney Investigator Glenn McGovern.
“You cannot have one person be the only one who understands the billing process,” McGovern said. ” I see this more and more where they trust someone, they are the only one who understand the whole process and they get out of control.”
Banting was convicted of scamming her insurance carrier, which was not identified, by filing false claims for her, her husband or her six children, that were directly reimbursed to her. Later, at another dentist’s office, she directly pocketed cash payments from patients, McGovern said.
At the time that she was charged with these offenses, media reports indicated that she had left her family and was in hiding.
Banting, who may now be using the name "Chel Malig" and may be living in Sacramento, does have previous felony convictions in 2000 and 2001. There was an additional felony charge in 2011 that does not appear to have resulted in a conviction.
In 2019, Ms. Banting requested that we remove this post, on the basis that she had been "cleared", but the documents and court record suggest otherwise.
Rochelle Banting’s case illustrates several of the most common structural conditions that enable dental embezzlement. She was trusted with billing in two separate practices over five years — and in each, the absence of independent oversight of the billing function gave her the opportunity to exploit it. The DA investigator’s own words summarize the lesson precisely: when a single person is the only one who understands the billing process, control is lost.
Her scheme involved two distinct methods: submitting false insurance claims reimbursed directly to herself at one practice, and pocketing cash payments from patients at another. Both methods are detectable with basic reconciliation procedures — comparing insurance claim submissions against payments received, and cross-referencing cash collections against production software records. Neither reconciliation was being performed independently. That gap is what made a five-year, $40,000 theft possible.
Banting’s subsequent attempt to have this record removed — claiming she had been “cleared” when court records suggest otherwise — is an important reminder for dentists conducting reference and background checks. An employee’s account of their own history is not a substitute for a properly conducted background investigation.
Whether you're the victim of an employee's billing fraud or your practice is under scrutiny, Prosperident's forensic accountants can untangle complex insurance schemes and build the documentation needed for legal proceedings.