subject: Embezzlement Virginia 18.2-111 Federal Mail Fraud Money Laundering Charges [print this page] Embezzlement Virginia 18.2-111 Federal Mail Fraud Money Laundering Charges
Rodis v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. May 11, 2010)
Defendant, a Roman Catholic priest, solicited funds for various church purposes, which he converted to his own use. He pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of mail fraud and one count of money laundering. Defendant was then indicted in state court on 13 counts of embezzlement, three of which were nolle prosequied before trial. The trial court denied defendant's pretrail plea in bar to dismiss the indictments pursuant to Va. Code Ann. 19.2-294. The statement of facts stipulating the facts in the federal prosecution indicates Rodis opened an unauthorized bank account in September 1995, maintained sole control of a post office box beginning in 1998, and during the period from September 2002 through August 2006, he engaged in a scheme to defraud his parishioners by soliciting funds and depositing those funds in the account he maintained. Rodis also admitted diverting the funds to his personal use by wiring them to a personal bank account out of state. In the state prosecution, Rodis was convicted for ten counts of embezzlement covering ten different times periods. The earliest period began April 1, 2003 and the latest ended January 31, 2006.
The record reveals appellant was prosecuted under the federal statutes prior to the beginning of the state prosecution. "[A] conviction of one statutory offense does not bar conviction under another statutory offense if each offense could have been proved without the necessity of proving the other." To convict Rodis of "[m]ail fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1341," the government had to prove "(1) the existence of a scheme to defraud and (2) the use of the mails . . . in furtherance of the scheme. To convict Rodis of money laundering, the federal government needed to prove that (1) he conducted or attempted to conduct a financial transaction; (2) the transaction involved the proceeds of a specified illegal activity; (3) he knew at the time of the transaction that the property involved proceeds of an unlawful activity; and (4) he intended to conceal the nature or source of the funds. See 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(2)(B)(i). To establish the crime of embezzlement under Code 18.2-111, the Commonwealth must prove that the accused wrongfully appropriated to his or her own use or benefit, with the intent to deprive the owner thereof, the property entrusted or delivered to the accused. Even for the two time periods which overlap among the various charges, the embezzlement of the various funds was a different act than the acts of laundering the money and sending the funds through the mail. Although the federal charges required a showing that Rodis illegally obtained the money, the evidence necessary to prove the federal offenses was different from that required to prove the state offenses. Therefore, the acts involved in embezzling the funds in Virginiawere not the same as the federal charges oflaundering the money and engaging in mail fraud. Thus, the trial court did not err in denying the plea in bar.
Disclaimer:
These summaries are provided by the SRIS Law Group. They represent the firm's unofficial views of the Justices' opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content.
