-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 18, 2016

v No. 326429 Kent Circuit Court DENIS TERNENGE AKAAZUA, LC No. 13-011954-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: S HAPIRO , P.J., and H OEKSTRA and S ERVITTO , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. Defendant, Denis Ternenge Akaaz ua, appeals as of right his jur y trial conviction of larceny by conversion, MCL 750.362. The trial court sentenced defendant to 7 months in jail for his conviction. Because there was sufficient evidence to suppo rt defendant’s conviction, we affirm.

Defendant had a business perfor ming accounting services. He p repared 2010 income tax returns for a client, filed them in October 2011, received the tax refund money into his bank account in November 2011, and then kept the money. When the cl ient repeatedly asked if the refunds had been received, defendant put the client off, until the client finally went to the police in the summer of 2013.

On appeal, defendant argues that there was insufficient eviden ce to support that he acted with the intent to permanently deprive the owners of their mone y, as is necessary for a conviction of larceny by conversion. We disagree.

An appeal based on the sufficiency of the evidence is reviewed de novo. People v Henderson , 306 Mich App 1, 8; 854 NW2d 234 (2014). When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court views the evidence in the light most favor able to the prosecution and determines whether a rational trier of fact could find that the essential elements of the crime were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id . at 9.

Defendant was convicted of larceny by conversion under MCL 750 .362, which states as follows:

Any person to whom any money, goods or other property, which ma y be the subject of larceny, shall have been delivered, who shall embezz le or fraudulently-2- convert to his own use, or shall secrete with the intent to emb ezzle, or fraudulently use such goods, mone y or other property, or any pa rt thereof, shall be deemed by so doing to have committed the crime of larceny and s hall be punished as provided in the first section of this chapter. [1]

The elements of larceny by conversion are (1) the property at i ssue has some value; (2) the property belonged to someone other than the defendant; (3) some one delivered the property to the defendant; (4) the defendant embezzled, converted to his ow n use, or hid the property with the intent to embezzle or fraudulently use it; and (5) at the t ime the property was embezzled, converted, or hidden, the defendant intended to defraud or chea t the owner permanently of that property. People v Mason , 247 Mich App 64, 72; 634 NW2d 382 (2001). “Stated more simpl y, larceny by conversion occurs whe re a person obtains possession of another’s property with lawful intent, but subsequently c onverts the other’s property t o his own use.” Id. (citation and quotation marks omitted).

Defendant does not contest that there was sufficient evidence establishing the first four elements, but he argues that there was insufficient evidence th at he acted with the intent to defraud or cheat the owner out of his property permanently as necessary to satisfy the fifth element of larceny by conversion. “[B]ecause it can be difficu lt to prove a defendant’s state of mind on issues such as knowledge and intent, minimal circumstan tial evidence will suffice to establish the defendant’s state of mind, which can be inferred from all the evidence presented.” People v Kanaan , 278 Mich App 594, 622; 751 NW2d 57 (2008).

In this case, defendant’s bank records revealed that the victi ms’ $17,078 in tax refunds was deposited into defendant’s account on November 2011, $16,35 3 of which belonged to the victims (defendant charged a $725 preparation fee). The victim s regularly inquired about the status of the money, but defendant maintained that he never rec eived the money until June 2013. When the victims obtained information concerning their federal tax refund from the IRS and confronted defendant with evidence that the money had been depo sited into defendant’s account over 18 months earlier, despite promises to pay the money he ow ed, defendant still failed to pay the victims any of their money. Viewed in the light most favor able to the prosecution, the evidence that defendant possessed the money for over 18 months but told the victims that he did not have it provided a sufficient basis for the jury to conclud e that defendant acted with intent to defraud. Henderson
, 306 Mich App at 9. Defendant’s contention that he did not know that the money had been deposited is subject to a credibility determinat ion by the jury, to which we defer. Id

. Furthermore, defendant admitted that he received the refunds b ut did not give the victims the money he owed them. A police detective testified that defe ndant indicated that he did not give the victims the money because he loaned the money to anoth er but was not paid back for

1 This refers to MCL 750.356.-3- those loans and he had no other way to pay the victims. There was also testimony at trial that defendant had renovated a house, purchased a house, travelled t o Nigeria, and hosted a large party in the period of time after he received the tax refund mo ney. This evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution supports that defendant obtained possession of the tax refund but then wrongfully converted it to his own use, which i s sufficient to support a conviction of larceny by conversion. Mason , 247 Mich App at 72. Because minimal circumstantial evidence suffices to establish defendant’s state of mind, the evidence in this case was sufficient to support that def endant acted with the intent to defraud and was guilty of larceny by conversion. Kanaan , 278 Mich App at 622.

Affirmed.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra /s/ Deborah A. Servitto