Kosta Diamantis was convicted of corruption in October 2025. Nearly a year later, when his attorney said he had fled to Greece instead of appearing for sentencing, his $6,615-a-month state pension still had not been revoked.
Comptroller Sean Scanlon suspended direct deposit of the benefit after Diamantis failed to appear for sentencing on Sept. 17. Attorney General William Tong said his office was “reviewing all legal options to fully enforce the law.”
Suspending a direct deposit, however, is not the same as permanently revoking retirement benefits. A guilty verdict had not settled that question.
Connecticut taxpayers could reasonably wonder what, exactly, a public employee has to do to lose a pension. The answer depends on whether the crime fits a narrow statutory definition and, even then, whether a judge decides a pension penalty is warranted.
That leaves Connecticut with an inadequate law that can allow public employees to keep their pensions even after convictions for corruption or serious crimes against people entrusted to their care.
A list the attorney general’s office provided Yankee Institute identifies 31 pension-revocation actions as of Aug. 31, 2026. Connecticut’s law took effect in October 2008, making that fewer than two filings a year over nearly 18 years. Those are lawsuits, not 31 revoked pensions.
The outcomes have varied. An October 2025 CT Insider review identified five full pension revocations, eight reductions and six cases in which judges imposed neither penalty. Nine older case dispositions were no longer available online, while two cases were pending. Without the complete record, an overall success rate cannot be determined. What can be determined, however, is that a pension lawsuit can end without any pension penalty.
John Bernardo is one example. In July 2025, a judge allowed him to retain his $5,186 monthly pension from his earlier New Haven firefighting career despite his conviction in West Haven’s COVID-relief fraud scheme involving more than $636,000.
The judge considered his distinguished prior service, restitution and comparatively limited role in the scheme. Bernardo kept his pension because Connecticut law gave the judge that option.
The law requires the attorney general to seek revocation or reduction after a qualifying conviction or guilty or no-contest plea. A judge then considers the crime’s severity, financial losses, public trust and other circumstances justice may require.
Before that discretion even comes into play, the crime must qualify. Connecticut covers public embezzlement, felony theft from government, bribery connected to public service, and other felonies involving an intent to defraud and use of the person’s public position to obtain — or attempt to obtain — a profit, gain or advantage. The last category is broader than financial gain alone, but it does not cover every felony committed on the job.
The problem is not limited to how much discretion judges have. Some of the worst misconduct committed through public employment still falls outside the pension law.
Ellis K. Hagstrom, a former Department of Developmental Services employee, was sentenced in 2014 to 16 years in prison for repeatedly sexually assaulting and abusing two disabled women he was supposed to care for.
In 2016, the attorney general’s office told Yankee Institute that his convictions did not qualify under the pension statute, barring it from seeking revocation. He remained eligible, although he had not applied for benefits at the time.
His public employment placed vulnerable women in his care. Yet his convictions did not give the attorney general grounds to pursue his pension. Sexual assault and violent abuse, standing alone, are not listed as qualifying offenses under Connecticut’s pension law.
Continued pension collection after abuse is still a major concern. Mark Cusson, a former supervisory forensic nurse at Whiting Forensic Hospital, was convicted in 2019 of crimes involving abuse of a psychiatric patient.
This June, CT Examiner reported that he receives an annual pension of over $106,000. A judge ordered him to reimburse Connecticut for more than $450,000 for the cost of his incarceration — a substantial financial consequence, but a separate one from pension forfeiture.
Other states have made different choices about both the offenses covered and when consequences begin.
Pennsylvania makes pension forfeiture mandatory for a qualifying employment-related offense beginning with a guilty verdict, judicial finding of guilt or guilty or no-contest plea. A pending appeal or delayed sentencing does not postpone forfeiture.
The law covers all Pennsylvania felonies, as well as certain misdemeanors, when committed through public employment or when the employee’s position enabled the crime.
Florida goes further than Connecticut in another way: its pension-forfeiture law specifically covers certain felony sex crimes against minors when committed through the employee’s public position.
Once the law applies, pension forfeiture is mandatory, subject to notice, a hearing and appeal rights. Benefits already received above the employee’s accumulated contributions must also be repaid.
Connecticut’s softer approach was deliberate. In 2008, lawmakers could not agree on whether judges should be able to take an entire pension from a state employee whose retirement benefits were negotiated through collective bargaining.
The bill was designed to strike a balance by putting the decision in a judge’s hands, including whether full revocation would breach a collective bargaining agreement. The bill passed 124-13 in the House and 33-0 in the Senate.
Nearly two decades later, the weaknesses in that compromise are easier to see.
Connecticut should close both gaps: expand the serious crimes committed through public employment that trigger pension forfeiture, including felony sexual assault and serious violent abuse, and make forfeiture mandatory once there is a qualifying conviction. The question should be whether the conviction falls under the law, not whether a judge decides the offender should get to keep the pension.
Lawmakers who find these outcomes unacceptable need to change the law that permits them. Condemning a disgraced official after he flees the country does nothing to close gaps that protected other employees long before his case made headlines. Stealing public money can put a pension at risk. Serious crimes committed against people the state paid an employee to protect should carry pension consequences too.
