Opinion ID: 2208968
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: misapplication of entrusted property

Text: Appellant was also convicted on the same evidence of the misapplication of entrusted property with respect to mobilization funds ($91,585.41), the falsified transportation expenses ($4,800.00) and the Premier capitalization scheme ($11,300.00). Appellant's contention that the evidence was insufficient to support these convictions is without merit. The statute in question reads as follows: § 4113. Misapplication of Entrusted Property and Property of Government or Financial Institutions. (a) Offense defined.  A person commits an offense if he applies or disposes of property that has been entrusted to him as a fiduciary, or property of the government or of a financial institution, in a manner which he knows is unlawful and involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted. The statute applies to misappropriation of three separate types of property: property belonging to the government, property belonging to a financial institution, and property entrusted to a fiduciary. An individual who misapplies any of the property as set forth above violates the statute. This construction gives effect to all of the phrases in § 4113(a). Appellant was a fiduciary for purposes of statute. He had received funds for a stipulated purpose and was obligated to apply the money to that purpose. A fiduciary is defined as: An executor, administrator, guardian, committee, receiver, trustee, assignee for the benefit of creditors, and any other person acting in any similar capacity.  1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1991. Appellant had been advanced the monies for the specific purpose of mobilizing the project, and he was a fiduciary for purposes of § 4113. E & H only received the advance after the third application, itemizing how the funds would be spent, was approved, and a duty of faithfully carrying out this obligation was imposed.