- 4 -
2(...continued)
the amount she changed and pay it directly to her for her
services. She continued to instruct the contractors to pay the
bills in this amount over this period of years. These
contractors worked directly for her and they had no contact with
the Property Owners Association and were unaware that the
Defendant was under a contract and being compensated for her
services.
Over this period of years, it was determined that there was
a loss through all of these sections of $136,692.98. Eventually,
one of the contractors contacted one of the sections and advised
them of his concern about this method of payment. Specifically,
Section 16 lost $2,600; Section 18 lost $3,500; Section 20 lost
$65,973.87; Section 21 lost $22,000 and Section 23 lost
$37,816.60.
Your Honor, I discussed this downward departure negotiated
plea with the various representatives of the sections and they
understand the reason for the downward departure. And everything
stated occurred in Charlotte County, Florida.
THE COURT: Do you take any exception or have any objection
to the facts as summarized, Ms. Hanaoka?
MS. HANAOKA: Your Honor, just a couple of matters.
Property Management Services was not a corporation, it was a
business, it was not an incorporated business.
Also, however, the State indicated [the Defendant]
individually, and we would assert that Property Management
Services was the particular business that was conducting business
with the Property Owners Associations.
MS. HARRINGTON: The State would concur with that, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Other than those minor exceptions that
are not relevant to the State's ability to prove this case, and
there being no exceptions or objections, I find that the facts
which the State is prepared to prove are sufficient to constitute
the crime of first degree grand theft.
Do you feel it's in your best interest and welfare to enter
this plea and accept the sentence of this Court?
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011