Opinion ID: 2585167
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Civil Conspiracy to Commit Fraud

Text: ¶ 99 For a civil conspiracy to occur two or more people must agree to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful object by unlawful means, causing damages. Baker v. Stewart Title & Trust of Phoenix, 197 Ariz. 535, 542, 5 P.3d 249, 256 ¶ 30 (App.2000) (quoting Rowland v. Union Hills Country Club, 157 Ariz. 301, 306, 757 P.2d 105, 110 (1988)); see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 876. A mere agreement to do a wrong imposes no liability; an agreement plus a wrongful act may result in liability. Baker at 542, 5 P.3d at 256 (citations omitted). In short, liability for civil conspiracy requires that two or more individuals agree and thereupon accomplish an underlying tort which the alleged conspirators agreed to commit. Id. at 545, 5 P.3d at 259. Here, the underlying wrong is Symington's fraud via submission of fraudulent financial statements to the Funds. The Bank denies any agreement to defraud. ¶ 100 Ultimately, the correspondence between Bank agents and Symington's aides, coupled with meetings among Symington, his aides, and bank officials and the ensuing results raise serious questions about the Bank's activity. But a claim for civil conspiracy must include an actual agreement, proven by clear and convincing evidence, [25] and although the Bank's conduct is suspicious, evidence of an agreed upon conspiratorial arrangement, on this record, cannot rise to the clear and convincing level. See Elliott v. Videan, 164 Ariz. 113, 116, 791 P.2d 639, 642 (App.1989). ¶ 101 There is a qualitative difference between proving an agreement to participate in a tort, i.e., a civil conspiracy, and proving knowing action that substantially aids another to commit a tort. Halberstam at 478. Even though legitimate fact questions exist on the Funds' claims of aiding and abetting, bad faith, intentional interference, and concealment, it is unreasonable to infer a conspiratorial agreement. Leahey at 537 (court upheld jury verdict finding defendant guilty of aiding and abetting fraud but struck down jury finding that defendant conspired to commit fraud because it was unreasonable for jury to conclude defendant agreed to join in the scheme). ¶ 102 Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment of the Funds' civil conspiracy claim.