Business Finance
Case Analysis

Question Description

Kenneth Harvey was a civilian employee with U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), which entered into a contract with Program Contract Services, Inc. (PCS). PCS was wholly owned and controlled by Michael Kronstein, a long-time friend of Harvey. In setting up the contract between INSCOM and PCS, Harvey made numerous misrepresentations about PCS’s ability to handle the job. Harvey stated that PCS had the personnel to handle the job when the company did not even have the minimum number of necessary employees. Harvey also said that PCS was the only company capable of handling the job in the area; there were actually hundreds of other capable companies.
Throughout the duration of the contract, PCS received $4,795,265.79 from INSCOM. Beginning in the fall of 1999, money was transferred from PCS accounts to a convenience store owned by Kronstein. Transfers were also made from PCS to businesses owned by Harvey in amounts totaling $43,000. In 2006, Harvey left INSCOM, allegedly to work for another company. In reality, Harvey began working directly for PCS.
Harvey and Kronstein were indicted on two counts of wire fraud and one count each of bribery. The trial court convicted both men. On appeal, the men both argue that the government lacked direct evidence of an intent to defraud and/or bribery. The government argues that intent to defraud can be inferred from the circumstances. Are the circumstances in this case sufficient to establish intent to defraud? United States v. Harvey, 532 F.3d 326 (4th Cir. 2008).
6-19
In 2004, James Clayton Terry was elected to serve as a member of the Lowndes County, Mississippi, Board of Supervisors, as the supervisor for District Four. As a member of the board, Terry was given a county vehicle and a Fuelman card, to be used for business purposes only. The county later began to receive complaints that Terry was making inappropriate purchases of gasoline and using the vehicle to take personal trips to casinos. Following an investigation, Terry was indicted for embezzlement.
The trial court found Terry guilty. On appeal, Terry argued that the conviction should be overturned because the state had failed to specify the dates during which the embezzlement supposedly occurred. The state argued that because the embezzlement was continuous, specific dates were not necessary. What exactly was embezzled, and should it matter whether the state alleged specific dates on which the embezzlement occurred? Terry v. State, 26 So. 3d 378 (Miss. Appellate Court, 2009).
6-20

Final Answer

Your assignment is ready please feel free to consult where necessary. Thank-You. :-)If you make any inquiry and I don't respond immediately please hold on sometimes responses delay OR send the notification twice, but I got your back will assist you asap.😀

1

Running Head: CASE STUDY

Case Study
Institutional Affiliation
Date

2

CASE STUDY
Case study
The circumstances or the evidence presented to court about this case, of Harvey and
Kronstein, is sufficient to establish intent to defraud. This is because, from the start, it is Harvey

the close friend of Kronstein, who introduced the program contract services, Inc (PCS) Company
to Intelligence and Service Command (INSCOM), which was a U.S Army service he was
working with. Fro...

Marrie (17056)
Boston College

Anonymous
Top quality work from this tutor! I’ll be back!

Anonymous
Just what I needed… fantastic!

Anonymous
Use Studypool every time I am stuck with an assignment I need guidance.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors