Harrison Isaac Jr. has been sentenced to more than four and a half years in prison for the theft of $1.9 million of public money. But that is not the end of the saga.

Mr. Isaac was sentenced in New York City for the crime, but, as we reported on Saturday, the proceedings have revealed that at the time of the theft there were serious shortcomings in the financial oversight of the Accountant General’s department that allowed the thefts to go on for much too long. Indeed, how it was that he was able to steal such a substantial sum of money without anyone noticing is deeply concerning. A combination of computer problems and delays in Government reconciling its funds were the immediate cause, but there were two deeper ones. One was a general sloppiness in accounting that allowed Mr. Isaac to be the sole person responsible for a Government account, and the second was, as Shadow Finance Minister Patricia Gordon Pamplin noted, a culture of corruption within Government that saw a series of thefts during that period.

In addition, Bermuda’s own white collar crime legislation was so out of date that it would have been difficult to prosecute Mr. Isaac in Bermuda as the law did not cover crimes committed through electronic transfers. That astonishing oversight has now been corrected.

What has not been corrected, according to Auditor General Larry Dennis, is the absolute assurance that there is now sufficient oversight to prevent the same crime from being committed again. While Government insists that it has now remediated this, and indeed, has detected at least one other theft, serious doubts remain. It is particularly worrying that Mr. Dennis felt that sufficient oversight was still not in place as recently as early this year — two years after the theft was detected.

Indeed there remains a sense that Government still does not take these kinds of abuses of the public trust as seriously as it should.

Mr. Isaac may well now assist in the prosecution of his alleged accomplice, and he seemed to be genuinely remorseful for his actions, but a line must be drawn by the Government that makes it clear that these kinds of thefts will not be tolerated.

It is not at all certain that four-and-a-half years is a sufficient deterrent.

So far, Government has lacked the necessary toughness. What the public needs to see is tougher penalties, a commitment to keeping up with changes in financial crime and a zero tolerance policy towards theft.

All those involved in this case were at pains to note that there will always be people who will be tempted to steal. But ensuring that the penalties for theft are a sufficient deterrent and that the Government’s own financial controls are strong enough to deter thieves is essential.

Only then will the public have confidence in the Government’s ability to safeguard the public purse.