Last week CAAF granted review in the Air Force case of United States v. Cimball Sharpton:

No. 14-0158/AF.  U.S. v. Candice N. CIMBALL SHARPTON.  CCA 38027.  Review granted on the following issue:

WHETHER THE AIR FORCE COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING THE EVIDENCE LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT A CONVICTION FOR LARCENY FROM THE AIR FORCE.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

I discussed the AFCCA’s decision in this case back in September, in a post entitled AFCCA explains that larceny charges involving credit cards aren’t that complicated, and that promotional sweatshirts aren’t allowancesThe larceny charge involved Appellant’s misuse of her Government Purchase Card (GPC) (basically a credit card billed direct to the taxpayers), with which she made “apparently unauthorized purchases from places such as the Base Exchange and the Class VI store.” AFCCA slip op. at 2. “The Class VI store” is more commonly known as a “liquor store.” In affirming the conviction, the AFCCA explained, “The prosecution also presented documents showing the Government ultimately paid for the appellant’s unauthorized purchases, a fact to which the parties later stipulated.” Slip op. at 3.

I think the facts differentiate Cimball Sharpton from other credit/debit card larceny cases. The misuse of the the GPC in this case involved an abuse of an agency to fraudulently obtain something at the expense of the principal, while typical bank/debit card cases are really a misuse of credentials to steal from a third party (i.e., impersonating someone else with their card and PIN – a two-factor identification – to steal from the bank). But we’ll see if CAAF feels differently.

Comments are closed.