CT woman accused of scamming more than $120K in state assistance for home daycare
A Hartford woman was arrested Thursday and accused of fraudulently receiving more than $120,000 in state assistance through a home daycare she owns.
Xiomy Auqui De La Cruz, 28, faces one count of first-degree larceny for allegedly intentionally leaving her husband off her application for funds through Care4Kids, a state Department of Social Services child care program, according to the Connecticut Division of Criminal Justice.
Between May 2021 and April of this year, judicial officials said, Auqui De La Cruz received $127,461 in benefits from the Care4Kids that she would not have been entitled to, had she reported both that her husband resided in the home where she ran So Cute Daycare 1, and his income, according to judicial officials. Officials added that she also owns the business Bodeguita de la Gente with her husband.
Auqui De La Cruz was arrested Thursday by inspectors from the Statewide Prosecution Bureau of the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney and released on a $60,000 non-surety bond. She is scheduled to appear in Hartford Superior Court on Wednesday.
According to the arrest warrant affidavit, the Office of Early Childhood received a complaint in January alleging Auqui De La Cruz opened home daycares using relatives’ names but the relatives were not operating the programs. The complaint also alleged that she forged the signatures of parents on Care4Kids documents.
The investigation was then referred to the Department of Social Services Investigations Division, which prompted the investigation into Auqui De La Cruz’s personal receipt of Care4Kids benefits.
According to state judicial officials, had Auqui De La Cruz reported that her husband resided in the home as a legally liable relative, his income would have been considered and Auqui De La Cruz would have been ineligible for Care4Kids benefits.
Judicial officials further allege that when Auqui De La Cruz submitted a redetermination form requesting her Care4Kids benefits continue, she again failed to list her husband on the form. Though he was not working at the time, this again would have made her ineligible for benefits, authorities said.