Court Opinion

ID: 9704931
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:52:12.149808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:06.366634
License: Public Domain

NIX, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent.
*123Unquestionably the conduct of appellee was in violation of our criminal statutes. However, as pointed out by Mr. Justice Zappala in his dissent, the information upon which the Commonwealth relied did not accurately set forth the offenses committed. It is clear that it was not the property of Esquire that was converted by appellee, since Esquire was not entitled to these refunds and therefore was not prejudiced in any way. The person or entity who may have sustained a loss was not identified nor called upon to assert that loss and the absence of appellee’s authority to act on his or its behalf. I, therefore, would affirm the order of the Superior Court.