Case Analysis: civilian employee with U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM)

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).
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).

My Homework Nest
Calculate your paper price
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -