Opinion ID: 1395016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Tamper-proof hardware [2] charges.

Text: The requisition forwarded by the Danville facility to the Department of Purchases and Supply specified that the furniture was to be constructed with tamper proof hardware. The same requirement was included in the form of bid sent to prospective bidders. M. S. Ginn Company, trading as Ginns Southern, was the successful bidder. In preparing its bid, Ginns obtained from Mosteller quotations of unit prices charged by Inter Royal, the manufacturer, for the specified furniture. Mosteller factored in an additional charge of $5,000 for tamper proofing to be included in the bid. However, the actual purchase order which Mosteller prepared in his handwriting and forwarded to Inter Royal specified that the furniture was to be manufactured with tamper-proof hardware, Robinson hardware, if possible. Mosteller sent to Ginns what purported to be, but was not, a copy of the purchase order. This spurious copy did not contain the language of the original order requiring that the furniture be manufactured with tamper-proof hardware, and included language not found in the original that Mosteller be advised as to hardware sizes of fastenings. After Mosteller had placed with Inter Royal the order for tamper-proof hardware, he obtained a commitment from Dadson Enterprises, in Virginia Beach, to change over the hardware from standard to tamper-proof for $5,000, the same amount that Mosteller had factored into the unit price figures quoted to Ginns. The furniture was delivered by Inter Royal to the Danville institution with all of the several hundred pieces except approximately 10 beds containing tamper-proof hardware. There was evidence that Mosteller furnished the tamper-proof hardware for the 10 beds that were not constructed with it, and State employees installed the hardware. Royal Installations, subsequently identified as Mosteller's company, obtained a letter from officials at the institution stating that the additional installation of tamper proof hardware had been accomplished. Ginns received and paid a bill for $5,000 submitted by Dadson Enterprises for tamper-proofing, the accompanying letter stating that The installation of tamperproof hardware ... has been completed. In fact, Dadson did not tamper-proof any of the furniture or have any knowledge of what was done in Danville. However, Dadson retained $1,000 for the use of its name and, at Mosteller's request, paid $2,000 to one of his creditors and transferred personal property worth $2,000 to another. This evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that Mosteller intended to defraud the Commonwealth by charging double for tamper-proofing, that he misrepresented the facts to Ginns by withholding the information that the furniture was to be manufactured by Inter Royal with tamper-proof hardware, and that he withheld from the Commonwealth information that the double charge was included in the Ginns bid. In providing tamper-proofing for the 10 beds Mosteller, who was Inter Royal's representative, merely acted to discharge the manufacturer's responsibility to deliver tamper-proof furniture as required by the purchase order. Accordingly, Mosteller's conviction under this count will be affirmed.