Strauss v. State
| Decision Date | 18 January 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 41677,No. 2,41677,2 |
| Citation | 147 S.E.2d 367,113 Ga.App. 90 |
| Parties | , Blue Sky L. Rep. P 70,697, 3 UCC Rep.Serv. 360 Robert L. STRAUSS et al. v. The STATE |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Wesley R. Asinof, Charles R. Smith, Robert Carpenter, Atlanta, for appellants.
Lewis R. Slaton, Sol. Gen., J. Robert Sparks, J. Walter LeCraw, Atlanta, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Strauss and others were charged in a five-count indictment with violations of the Georgia Securities Act (Ga.L.1957 pp. 134 et seq.) by defrauding various named persons through the sale of bogus money orders, particularly by a violation of Code Ann. § 97-112(b) which makes it unlawful in security transactions 'to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, or * * * to engage in any act, practice, transation, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser or seller.' Briefly, each count sets out a money order purchased by a named person from one of three corporatios controlled by the defendants which money order was paid for by the purchaser, and payment of which was refused. Beginning on September 3, 1963 the defendants conspired to defraud such purchasers and the general public by offering for sale 'purportedly genuine and negotiable money orders, which in truth and fact were worthless, for a valuable consideration; by diverting and misapplying money derived from the sale of said securities to the general public to uses beneficial to said accused other than the ultimate payment of said money orders; by operating a check kiting scheme between bank accounts in said Crown Savings Bank and in other banking and financial institutions.' The transactions are set out in detail. The conspirators allegedly falsely represented to merchants that they had posted the $100,000 bond required by the State of Georgia. The money orders were drawn on Crown Savings Bark and the defendant Jackson falsified the records of said bank, overstating both the control account and the various accounts of the three corporations. Merchants, acting as innocent agents, were induced by stated false representations to sell the bogus money orders to the public, they receiving a commission for this service. Receipts were ostensibly deposited in a named list of banks, but the accused Details of the check transactions and date follow, which show a continuous overdraft of over $100,000 in the First National Bank, Columbus, between July 2 and July 20, 1964; a like overdraft of over $30,000 in the Liberty National Bank & Trust Co. of Savannah between July 6 and July 22, and false credits posted in Crown Savings Bank in the 'Citizens Bank, Stockbridge, Georgia' control account of the three companies in excess of $205,000. Details of fraudulent transfers of funds from the control account to accounts of other corporations owned by the defendant, for the purpose of misapplying and diverting funds and credits on August 14, 1964, are detailed. Between September 4 and September 9 the defendants collected $118,750.31 from agents selling the money orders with knowledge that Crown Savings Bank was refusing payment on all such orders 'as having been drawn against uncollected funds' knowing the bank had been closed by order of the Virginia Commissioner of Banking, and 'wilfully and unlawfully failed and refused to refund said money to the persons who had paid same as the purchase price of money orders * * * whereby the purchasers were defrauded and suffered pecuniary losses.' General and special demurrers to the indictment were overruled and the defendants appealed.
Held:
1. Code § 97-102(i) defines a security as 'any note, stock, treasury stock, bond, debenture, evidence of indebtedness, certificate of indebtedness, investment certificate, certificate of interest or participation, certificate of interest in oil, gas or other mineral rights,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Avco Corporation
...it inevitably leads to curious results which the drafters of securities fraud statutes did not envision. See, e. g., Strauss v. State, 113 Ga.App. 90, 147 S.E.2d 367 (1966). Money order held to be This Court is persuaded by Professor Coffey's proposition that the term "security" be viewed a......
-
Price v. State
...convictions for the multiple substantive offenses. Leverenz v. State, 140 Ga.App. 632(4), 231 S.E.2d 513 (1976); Strauss v. State, 113 Ga.App. 90(2), 147 S.E.2d 367 (1966). We do not deal with this question either, since it is acknowledged by the state that what we are dealing with here are......
-
Hamilton v. State
... ... Although similar in nature each count alleged a specific period of time and an overt act constituting the crime. Hence, the multiple count indictment was not improper. See Leverenz v. State, 140 Ga.App. 632, 636-637(4), 231 S.E.2d 513; Strauss v. State, 113 Ga.App. 90, 93(2), 147 ... S.E.2d 367. Compare Price v. State, 155 Ga.App. 206, 207(2), 270 S.E.2d 203, rev'd Id., 247 Ga. 58, 60, 273 S.E.2d 854. The averments of each count refer to a different period of time hence same is made an essential averment of the transaction, and ... ...
-
Price v. State, 59811
...Stephens v. United States, 347 F.2d 722(4) (5th Cir. 1965). Cf. Leverenz v. State, 140 Ga.App. 632(4), 231 S.E.2d 513; Strauss v. State, 113 Ga.App. 90(2), 147 S.E.2d 367. Contrary to appellant's contentions the indictment did not charge a general offense, "but each count charged a particul......