Opinion ID: 2516780
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appellants' conduct was motivated by substantial financial gain.

Text: With respect to the third statutory factor, evidence demonstrating that the Association and Merculief expected their behavior to result in financial gain, or at least avoidance of substantial financial loss, supports the jury's finding as to the appellants' motive. Haight, the state director of the CDQ program, testified that Merculief's statements to him about Anderson, her past, and her false allegations convinced him not to investigate the allegations of corruption in the Association. Had the state investigated, the Association could have lost its percentage of the CDQ allocation. According to Anderson: At $228,000 per percentage point of allocation, [the Association] stood to lose a considerable sum if its allocation were reduced. Direct benefits to [the Association's] board members in the form of loans and grants were in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and administrative, per diem, and travel expenses were substantially in excess of guidelines used for non-profit grants by the state and federal government for an entity of its size. Were the financial misconduct and self-dealing of its board members revealed through Anderson's actions, [the Association] would have been subjected to stricter scrutiny from both state and federal agencies, and the board members stood to lose the lucrative benefits they were providing to themselves. We conclude that there was more than enough evidence here to support the jury's finding of a financial motive.