Graham v. United States
187 F.2d 87 (1950)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
One who obtains money from another upon the representation that it will be used for a specific purpose for the latter, but who intends at the time of acquisition to convert the money to their own use, is guilty of larceny by trick.
Facts:
- Francisco Gal, an immigrant with limited English proficiency, was arrested for disorderly conduct and feared it would affect his citizenship application.
- Gal hired an attorney, Graham, to assist him.
- Graham told Gal that he would have to pay money to the police to resolve the matter, stating, "money is talk."
- Graham told Gal that in addition to a $200 legal fee, he would need $2,000 for the police.
- Graham instructed Gal not to tell anyone about the money for the police.
- Gal paid Graham a total of $2,200.
- Graham met with the arresting officer but did not offer or give him any money.
- Graham kept the entire sum, later claiming it was all for his legal services.
Procedural Posture:
- Graham was indicted in the trial court on two counts of grand larceny.
- Following a trial, a jury found Graham guilty.
- The trial court entered a judgment and conviction based on the jury's verdict.
- Graham, as appellant, appealed the conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an attorney commit larceny when he obtains money from a client by falsely representing that the money will be used to bribe a police officer, but intends from the outset to convert the money to his own use?
Opinions:
Majority - Washington, Circuit Judge
Yes. An attorney commits larceny when he obtains money from a client under such false pretenses. The common law distinguishes between parting with possession of property for a special purpose and parting with title. Here, Gal intended to part only with possession of the $2,000 for the specific purpose of bribing a police officer, not to pass title of the money to Graham for his personal use. Because Graham obtained possession through a fraudulent representation of purpose with the contemporaneous intent to convert the funds, his actions constitute larceny by trick. This holding is consistent with precedent, such as Means v. United States, where obtaining money under the false pretense of using it for a ransom payment was held to be larceny.
Analysis:
This case affirms the critical distinction in larceny law between title and possession. It solidifies the principle that fraudulently inducing someone to hand over property for a specific, designated purpose constitutes larceny by trick if the taker intends to convert it. The decision prevents wrongdoers from escaping larceny convictions by arguing the victim 'voluntarily' parted with the property. This precedent is significant for prosecuting fraud and embezzlement cases where the defendant lawfully acquires possession but does so with a fraudulent intent from the inception.
Unlock the full brief for Graham v. United States