O.C.G.A. § 16-10-21 (2019)

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Section is distinct from general conspiracy statute. - Conspiracy to defraud the state is distinct from the general conspiracy statute, O.C.G.A. § 16-4-8. Gordon v. State, 181 Ga. App. 391, 352 S.E.2d 582 (1986), aff ’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds, 257 Ga. 335, 359 S.E.2d 634 (1987). Conspiracy defined. - Conspiracy has been defined as a combination either to accomplish an unlawful end, or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means. Rollins v. State, 215 Ga. 437, 111 S.E.2d 63 (1959). Gist of conspiracy is corrupt agreement between two or more persons to commit act prohibited by law. Rollins v. State, 215 Ga. 437, 111 S.E.2d 63 (1959). Overt act within limitation period. - Fact that the first overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy was committed outside the limitation period did not bar prosecution since it is necessary only that ‘‘an overt act’’ occur within the limitation period. Young v. State, 205 Ga. App. 357, 422 S.E.2d 244 (1992).

To conspire to defraud state of money violated former Code 1933, § 26-4201 (see now O.C.G.A. § 16-10-11 and 16-10-21), as money comes within definition of ‘‘property’’. Cadle v. State, 101 Ga. App. 175, 113 S.E.2d 180 (1960). Employee’s services can be subject of criminal conspiracy to defraud state of property which belongs to it or is under the control or possession of a state officer or employee. Brown v. State, 177 Ga. App. 284, 339 S.E.2d 332 (1985). Necessary allegations in indictment for violation of section. - Indictment charging conspiracy to cheat or defraud state of property must contain definite allegations as to who were parties to such conspiracy, how and in what manner they designed to cheat or defraud the state, and exactly what property they conspired to unlawfully defraud from the state. Wright v. State, 216 Ga. 228, 115 S.E.2d 331 (1960); Young v. State, 205 Ga. App. 357, 422 S.E.2d 244 (1992). State failed to prove a tolling of the statute of limitation. - State argued

that O.C.G.A. § 17-3-1(c), the four-year statute of limitation for conspiracy to defraud the state, O.C.G.A. § 16-10-21, was tolled under O.C.G.A. § 17-3-2(2) until the state learned of the conspiracy. The defendants’ pleas in bar were properly granted as the evidence was sufficient to establish that a defendant’s supervisor, a state employee, was aware of the crimes over four years before the defendants were indicted, and the supervisor’s knowl-

edge was imputed to the state. State v. Robins, 296 Ga. App. 437, 674 S.E.2d 615 (2009). Evidence sufficient to sustain conviction. - See McWilliams v. State, 177 Ga. App. 447, 339 S.E.2d 721 (1985). Cited in Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Davis (In re Davis), No. A04-74475-REB, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 3684 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Sept. 20, 2007).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. 2d. - 16 Am. Jur. 2d, Conspiracy, § 1 et seq. 50 Am. Jur. 2d, Larceny, §§ 27, 31, 51 et seq., 96. 63C Am. Jur. 2d, Public Officers and Officials, § 369 et seq. C.J.S. - 15A C.J.S., Conspiracy, § 94 et seq. ALR. - When does statute of limitations begin to run against civil action or criminal prosecution for conspiracy, 62 A.L.R.2d 1369. Criminal prosecution or disciplinary action against medical practitioner for fraud

in connection with claims under medicaid, medicare, or similar welfare program for providing medical service, 50 A.L.R.3d 549. Filing of false insurance claims for medical services as ground for disciplinary action against dentist, physician, or other medical practitioner, 70 A.L.R.4th 132. State criminal prosecution against medical practitioner for fraud in connection with claims under Medicaid, Medicare, or similar welfare program for providing medical services, 79 A.L.R.6th 125.