Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 12 — TAXATION · Chapter 201 — State and Local Revenue Services. Department of Revenue Services
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-6 (2026)

Audit of municipal accounts upon application of state's attorney

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The state's attorney of any judicial district may make application to the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management showing that he has reason to believe that one or more of the officials, agents or employees of a municipality or any subdivision thereof situated within such judicial district has falsified any books of account or record, or has appropriated any moneys to his own use or to the use of others who are not entitled to the same, or has drawn any order on the treasurer or custodian of the funds of such municipality, or any subdivision thereof, with intent to defraud such municipality, or such subdivision, and thereupon the secretary shall cause an audit to be made of the records of such municipality. Upon completion of any such audit, the secretary shall transmit to such state's attorney a certified copy of his report showing the results thereof. The cost of such audit shall be borne equally by such municipality and the state. The custodian of any books of account or record who hinders or refuses to deliver the same upon demand of the secretary, or of any agent or employee of said secretary thereunto duly authorized, shall be guilty of a class D misdemeanor.

(1949 Rev., S. 1682; P.A. 77-614, S. 139, 610; P.A. 78-280, S. 2, 127; P.A. 79-610, S. 2, 47; P.A. 12-80, S. 119.)

History: P.A. 77-614 substituted commissioner of revenue services for tax commissioner, effective January 1, 1979; P.A. 78-280 substituted “judicial district” for “county”; P.A. 79-610 substituted secretary of the office of policy and management for commissioner of revenue services, effective July 1, 1980; P.A. 12-80 changed penalty from a fine of not more than $200 or imprisonment of not more than 60 days or both to a class D misdemeanor.

See Sec. 12-1c re transfer of certain functions, powers and duties under this chapter to the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2021 · leading case: State v. Ball, 627 A.2d 892 (Conn. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Ball, 627 A.2d 892 (Conn. 1993). “1988) § 12-6, p. 825. *281 The legislative history of both the current statute and its predecessor indicates that the legislature intended, at least in part, to insulate hunters from expressive speech by persons opposed to hunting.”
Goldberg v. Whitman, 743 F. Supp. 943 (D. Conn. 1990). “Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 12-6 at 823 (2d ed. 1988) (hereinafter “Tribe”).”
State v. Kinston Charter Acad. (N.C. 2021). “C.G.S. § 12-6(3) inappropriate on the theory that these provisions would divert some amount of what would otherwise be public money to private citizens, given that the use of qui tam actions is an essential portion of the mechanism that has been created for the purpose of…”
State v. Kinston Charter Acad. (N.C. 2021). “C.G.S. § 12-6(3) inappropriate on the theory that these provisions would divert some amount of what would otherwise be public money to private citizens, given that the use of qui tam actions is an essential portion of the mechanism that has been created for the purpose of…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-6(3) — 2 cases
State v. Kinston Charter Acad. (N.C. 2021). “C.G.S. § 12-6(3) inappropriate on the theory that these provisions would divert some amount of what would otherwise be public money to private citizens, given that the use of qui tam actions is an essential portion of the mechanism that has been created for the purpose of…”
State v. Kinston Charter Acad. (N.C. 2021). “C.G.S. § 12-6(3) inappropriate on the theory that these provisions would divert some amount of what would otherwise be public money to private citizens, given that the use of qui tam actions is an essential portion of the mechanism that has been created for the purpose of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.