Dependencies are not, by definition, Independent

...nor are they a license for the locals allowed to run the government on a day-to-day basis to loot the treasury.

The Turks and Caicos are a dependency of the United Kingdom. That means, when push comes to shove, the Governor-General is the final arbitrator over sovereign matters. In a reasonable situation, of course, the Governor-General keeps hands off matters of governance... but what happens when the local administration appears to be engaged in blatant malfeasance (like using the national treasury as a personal piggy bank) for which the sovereign obligation resides in the "mother" country?

This has been building for over a month now, with the investigation completed back on February 11th of this year. It is a pretty clear example of kleptocracy by the local administration.

So...

It falls upon Her Majesty's government to intervene.

The local Premier, one Michael Misick, and his cronies are already crying "Colonialism".

That is what being a dependency is. Wilfully remaining in a subject relationship.

At least the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a measured tone about the matter:

The Foreign Office denied any colonial ambitions. “This would not be direct rule, nor would it be indefinite. It would be a smart, targeted, intervention for an interim period by the governor whose responsibilities not only include representing the Crown in the islands, but also the interests of the people of the Turks and Caicos islands.”

Most correct. And if that fails, then Direct Rule would also be correct.

If the people of the Turks and Caicos don't agree, then end the dependency (and the accompanying special benefits).