Romeo Hitlall emerged from his Queens home around 7 a.m. - only to find that someone had ransacked his black Acura parked in front of the house.

Someone had stolen his beloved $6,500 diamond bracelet, which was a gift from his wife, along with his credit cards, his wallet and $200 in cash, Hitlall said.

“Everything inside was all messed up,” the real estate agent recalled about the crime on May 14, 2012 in Ozone Park. “I felt really terrible. I felt violated, worried. I had to get new credit cards, a new license. I lost the bracelet that my wife gave me for my birthday.”

Hitlall dropped his daughter off at school and then filed a grand larceny report at the 106th Precinct stationhouse.

The thief used Hitlall’s credit card at a Lefferts Blvd. deli right away - a detail he provided to police. But as time passed, the investigation never seemed to go anywhere, he said.

“I called them several times asking if they found anything,” the 41-year-old dad said. “The cops never got back to me.”

Unknown to him, there was a sinister reason. The case detective, Thomas Rice, had closed the “investigation,” and his lieutenant approved it just four days later.

It got worse.

Theft victim Romeo Hitlall describes reporting the crime to police. (Andrew Savulich/New York Daily News)

Rice claimed in his closing report on May 19, 2012 to have interviewed four witnesses - “Raul Singh,” “Raminder Supaul,” “Raminder Mohammend” and “Sonjna Rampersad.”

None of those “witnesses” existed, and the addresses at which he claimed to have interviewed them were fake, a subsequent NYPD investigation found.

Rice claimed he visited one address on 149th Ave. that actually existed, but the resident he claimed to have interviewed - “Sellall Roupaul” - didn’t exist.

Maria Firmino, the actual resident, told the Daily News she was never interviewed by police.

Firmino confirmed that no one with the name “Sellall Roupaul” has ever lived at her home.

“Never,” she said. “I’m the owner of the house for many years. I’ve been here since 1987. I’ve never had anyone with that name live here.”

Hitlall, a Queens Community Board 10 member, was surprised to hear how police mishandled his case.

“I’m shocked,” he said. “I’m disappointed with the cops.”

READ MORE: Three of Thomas Rice's victims tell their stories

Hitlall wasn’t alone. Rice, 44, made up fake names and addresses to improperly close at least 21 other grand larceny and auto theft cases over a 12-month period in 2011 and 2012, while assigned to the 106th Precinct detective squad, an NYPD investigation found.

Grand larceny and auto theft are two of the so-called index crimes used by the NYPD to gauge serious crime in the city.

Rice closed all the cases as “investigative leads exhausted” within just a few days of the initial crimes. That fact alone should have been a red flag to his bosses, said a retired detective sergeant with no ties to the case.

“You are supposed to make several attempts to reach witnesses, and you can’t do that in two or three days. It’s physically impossible,” he said. “Leads are never totally exhausted. You can always canvas. You can always show photos of suspects in other crimes.”

Rice often used the same fake names and made-up addresses across multiple reports and cut-and-pasted the exact same statements, including typos, into reports.

He often closed the cases within only two or three days - while ignoring the victims who unknowingly waited and hoped for weeks or months that their property would be found or that someone would be arrested.

Four different supervisors in the 106th Precinct, including Rice’s lieutenant, signed off on his fraudulent reports, an internal investigation found.

Same names, many places These names each appeared on multiple reports at addresses that were sometimes houses, sometimes vacant lots and sometimes not real addresses. Investigators determined that none of the names represented real people.

It’s not clear if any of the supervisors were disciplined.

But even after he was caught, Rice got to keep his job and his rank. Since 2013, he has been a detective in the 67th Precinct, still handling law enforcement duties.

The 19-year veteran made $113,000 in 2017, including $2,829.27 in overtime, records show. On the side, he runs his own pressure washing company on Long Island with NYPD approval.

A broader investigation of his cases and an examination of the prevalence of the practice in other detective squads was blocked by top NYPD brass, sources told The News.

And the very existence of the case, the sources said, was buried deep in the department’s secretive disciplinary system - even though Rice could have faced criminal charges for official misconduct, falsifying reports and lying on official documents.

“If someone is going to go to the extent of fabricating names and addresses, they just don’t care about the people they are supposed to be serving,” said retired NYPD Chief of Patrol and former city Transportation Commissioner Wilbur Chapman.

Attorney Andrew Stoll, pictured at Houston & Mercer Streets in 2014. (Steve Meyer for the New York Daily News)

“This shows a complete breakdown in the squad. He was able to accomplish this because no one was paying attention. It’s an insult to all the detectives who are out there working very hard to solve cases.”

Legal observers said the NYPD’s decision to leave Rice in a law enforcement role exposes any arrest he was associated with to challenges from defense lawyers.

“You don’t build a house on a shaky foundation, and any case that relied on his sworn statements should be reopened,” said Brooklyn lawyer Andrew Stoll.

“A real question is whether this information was turned over to defense lawyers in cases he was involved in.”

Rice emerged Monday from his well-appointed Long Island home. Strolling past an NYPD flag hanging on the porch, he looked at ease in a green Jets sweatshirt and red flannel pajama bottoms decorated with the character Ralphie from “A Christmas Story.”

New York police Det. Thomas Rice, assigned to the 67th Precinct, walks in front of his house on Jan. 22, 2018, on Long Island. (Marcus Santos/New York Daily News)

“Oh my God!” he said, freezing when he spotted a photographer from The News. He turned and ran back into his house like he had seen a ghost.

His lawyer, James Moschella, told The News that Rice settled his disciplinary case, but never admitted wrongdoing.

“He denied intentionally fabricating information,” Moschella said. “He pleaded guilty, and saved the department the cost of a trial. It’s been to the department’s benefit to keep him.”

Michael Palladino, the head of the Detectives’ Endowment Association, added, “It’s six years old and the Queens District Attorney was not involved because it was an administrative matter, not a criminal one. (Detective) Rice took his punishment and moved on; so should everyone else.”

Police officials said that when Rice’s misconduct was uncovered, he was charged with falsifying documents, improper investigation and other offenses and lost 20 vacation days.

“He was flopped out of the squad,” a high-ranking police official said. “This is a disciplinary case, not the kind you report to the District Attorney. It doesn’t rise to the level of official misconduct.”

Asked whether he wanted to say anything to the victims, the Chief of Detectives when the misconduct took place, Phil Pulaski, did not reply, but he insisted that controls he put in place caught the misconduct.

The current Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce said he was unaware of the case, but the controls he put in place would have caught the misconduct. “He wasn’t doing his job, but this is not the norm,” he said. “I would expect if you catch a felony, you go out and do a full investigation.”

Rice had already been a detective for a decade, having worked in the Vice Enforcement Division and the 103rd Precinct detective squad before the alleged misconduct happened at the 106th Precinct.

He often didn’t even leave the squad offices when he was supposed to be out canvassing for witnesses, police records show. Instead, he was falsifying names and addresses across multiple reports from his desk.

Two crime reports, same witnesses Selections from the official police reports that Thomas Rice submitted. Case No. 2011 – 2138 REDACTED 127 Street - Nardine Albirt - 718 835 REDACTED states that she was inside sleeping and did not see or hear anything REDACTED 127 Street - Sonjna Rampersad states that she was not home and does not have a video camera system REDACTED 127 Street - Ann Marie Ramdeo - 718 323 REDACTED states that she was inside sleeping and did not see or hear anything, no camera system Case No. 2012 – 237 REDACTED 135 Place - Nardine Albirt - 718 835 REDACTED states that she was inside sleeping and did not see or hear anything REDACTED 135 Place - Sonjna Rampersad states that she was not home and does not have a video camera system REDACTED 135 Place - Ann Marie Ramdeo - 718 323 REDACTED states that she was inside sleeping and did not see or hear anything, no camera system

In all, he entered 47 fake addresses in the reports. Out of 100 witnesses mentioned in Rice’s reports, 94 people were nonexistent, an internal investigation found. Just six were actual people.

For example, he listed “Mrs. Polanco” as a witness living at six different addresses between December 2011 and May 2012, an internal investigation found.

He listed “Anwar Ali” at five different addresses, and cut-and-pasted the same witness summary statement into five crime reports between December 2011 and May 2012.

“States that he is the landlord of the home and was inside sleeping and did not hear anything suspicious or see anything outside,” each of the entries read verbatim.

He listed “Bhukan Rajpattie” at four different addresses between October and December 2012, and lifted the same exact statement in all four reports.

“Stated that she did not see or hear anything and does not have a video camera,” Rice wrote.

He claimed to have interviewed “Sonjna Rampersad” seven times, at seven different fake addresses, between December 2011 and May 2012.

All seven entries contain the exact same statement: “States that she was not home and does not have a video camera system.”

Rice was so blatant that he literally copied all of the same fake names and fake statements from one report to another.

For example, after thieves separately victimized Chao Sung and Gurdeep Singh in January 2012, he entered the same statements from the same fake witnesses in both reports. He even duplicated the same typo - spelling “video” as “viedo.”

Sung, 52, of Lynbrook, L.I., said she called police on Jan. 8, 2012 after her son’s gray Honda Civic was stolen in South Ozone Park.

“We reported it,” she said.

Chao Sung, 52, was the victim of a robbery that she reported to the 106th Precinct in Queens when her Honda Civic was stolen in 2012. (Jefferson Siegel/New York Daily News)

The police took a report, but it was the family who found the car abandoned a few days later.

“I had full insurance so they took care of everything,” she said. “I didn’t have any issues at all. But they never found out who stole it.”

One reason might be that Rice - from his office - closed the case one day after the crime on Jan. 9.

Duplicated Typos Case No. 2012 – 605 1. On April 18, 2012, at approximately 1800 hrs the undersigned along with Det. REDACTED did conduct a residential and viedo camera surveillance survey of 135 Avenue and was met with the following results Case No. 2012 – 851 1. On May 21, 2012, at approximately 1100 hrs the undersigned along with Det. REDACTED did conduct a residential and viedo camera surveillance survey of Rosita Road and was met with the following results Case No. 2012 – 16 1. On January 4, 2012, at approximately 1415 hrs the undersigned did conduct a residential and viedo camera surveillance survey of 103 Road and was met with the following results

In his report, he claimed he interviewed four witnesses, at four different addresses, who had seen nothing and had no video. However, the witnesses and three of the addresses were fake, an internal investigation found.

The fourth was real, but the resident said “Mrs. Polanco,” the woman Rice claimed he interviewed, never lived there. And the real resident was never interviewed.

While he was falsifying witness names, Rice also failed to interview the actual residents of the real addresses he entered in his reports.

In one instance, Rice claimed to have interviewed a “Mary Helferick” following an October 2012 theft on Sutter Ave. Helferick was a phantom, and the real resident, Frank Kershaw, a retired city police officer, was never interviewed, an internal investigation found.

Similarly, following a May 2012 theft on 133rd Ave., Rice claimed to have interviewed “Richard Harris,” but the actual resident said no one with that name ever lived there.

In all, 40 actual people at the addresses Rice listed told investigators they were never interviewed by him, and didn’t recognize the names of people he claimed lived there.

In two cases, Rice had fake witnesses claim there was no security video at their homes, when the real occupants later told investigators they did in fact have video surveillance equipment.

One of those cases involved nursing assistant Sadhana Looknauth, 52, who walked to her gray 2006 BMW parked on 107th St. on the morning of Dec. 17, 2012 and found that someone had ripped the navigation system out of it and swiped her purse.

“Everything was open and the seats were pushed back,” she said. “They also took two credit cards, which I had to cancel. I had my medical insurance that was missing. They took a little purse that had all these things in it and maybe 20-something dollars.”

Upset, she called 911. Detectives took a report for grand larceny. That was the last she saw of them.

Just three days after the incident, Rice closed out the investigation. In his report, he claimed he couldn’t do anything else after three witnesses on 107th St. told him they saw nothing. In this case, he did use real addresses.

PART TWO: How NYPD brass buried deceitful detective’s misconduct case for years

He claimed “Bhukan Rajpattie” said she did not see or hear anything. But such a person had never lived at that address, and the real occupant was never interviewed.

He claimed “Mary Helferick” also didn’t see anything or have an operable security camera. But the actual resident of her supposed home later told investigators there in fact was a working camera.

“The detectives never really followed up with me,” Looknauth said. “Because I didn’t lose that much, it didn’t bother me that much. If I had lost a lot of valuable things, then it would really bother me.”

Marcia Bishop was inside her mother-in-law’s home picking up her young daughter on Jan. 3, 2012, when someone broke into her car and snatched her purse.

“I came outside and all the windows were smashed in,” she told The News.

Rice was assigned the case a day later and closed it the same day from the office - once again, having “exhausted all investigative leads.”

In his report, he claimed he interviewed four people at four addresses - none of whom saw anything or had a video security system.

Different address, no name, same phrase Case No. 2012 – 37 135 Avenue - Refused to provide name - states that he was not home last night and was at work and got home a little while ago Case No. 2012 – 47 134 Street - Refused to provide name - states that he was not home last night and was at work and got home a little while ago Case No. 2012 – 151 90 Street - Refused to provide name - states that he was not home last night and was at work and got home a little while ago

None of those addresses existed, and the witnesses - “Pat Janet,” “Mohammed Persaud,” and “Sonjna Rampersad” - were made up, an NYPD investigation found.

In January 2012, retired construction executive Gert Koerner, 77, noticed something was wrong with his company car right away. He was standing outside the temporary apartment his company gave him while he worked on projects at LaGuardia and Kennedy Airports, when he noticed something was wrong with his company car.

“I came and looked at it and thought, it looks strange,” the Pennsylvania man recalled. “I said to myself, ’Why is the car so low?’ And then I saw that the wheels were missing.”

Indeed, thieves had crept in overnight and snatched his tires and their four rims - a total value of approximately $4,000.

The theft didn’t cost Koerner anything; his company’s insurance paid.

“I accepted it and moved on,” he said.

Rice got the case on Jan. 27, and closed it just four days later. In the closing report he typed in his office, he entered four fake addresses of supposed witnesses.

He claimed a fifth fake witness, “Henry Wishton,” the landlord, was sleeping and had no video camera. But the woman who actually lived there said cops never spoke to her and she didn’t know anyone named Wishton.

“For me, a few thousand dollars wouldn’t make much difference,” Koerner said. “But if it had been someone else just scraping by, it would have been a different story.”

Five retired NYPD detectives contacted by The News reacted with disgust at what Rice was caught doing.

“It’s shocking,” one retired detective said. “It’s perjury. It’s a monstrously stupid thing to do.”

Said another, “Rice was just s--tcanning cases because he’s either lazy or doesn’t think he can solve the crimes.”

Molloy College criminologist John Eterno believes it had something to do with the NYPD’s Compstat crime-fighting initiative, which some say pressures commanders to show positive numbers.

“If you close out a certain number of cases, then you’ve done your job as far as the department is concerned,” Eterno said. “If the case is still open, they will harp on it: Why haven’t you done this or that? By closing, you at least get them off you back.”

Added a retired lieutenant: “Never underestimate incompetence.”

With additional reporting by Roshan Abraham and Edgar Sandoval

READ MORE: Three of Thomas Rice's victims tell their stories

PART TWO: How NYPD brass buried deceitful detective’s misconduct case for years