Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law Today 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 18

State of Wisconsin v. Steffes
Supreme Court of Wisconsin, 347 Wis.2d 683, 832 N.W.2d 101 (2013).
FACTS While Matthew Steffes was incarcerated, he participated in a scheme to make free collect calls from prison. (A collect call is a telephone call in which the calling party places a call at the called party's expense.) His friends and family members would set up a phone number by giving false information to AT T. This information included fictitious business names, such as "Nick's Heating Cooling," and personal identifying information stolen from a health-care clinic. Once the number was set up, Steffes could make unlimited collect calls to it. The bills went unpaid, the phone company would shut down the number, and the process would start again. For nearly two years, Steffes used sixty fraudulently obtained phone numbers to make hundreds of calls. The loss to AT T was more than $28,000.
Steffes was convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit theft by fraud of property in excess of $10,000. The court sentenced him to two years in prison and thirty months of supervision (probation), and ordered him to pay full restitution to AT T. A state intermediate appellate court affirmed the conviction. Steffes appealed. He claimed there were no false representations to the phone company that he would pay for the calls and that telephone services did not constitute goods (property).
ISSUE Did Steffes make false representations to AT T so that he could obtain the phone company's goods (property)?
DECISION Yes. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Steffes made "false representations" to AT T so that he could make phone calls without paying for them, depriving the company of its "property"-meaning its electricity.
REASON Addressing Steffes's argument that he did not make a "false representation," the court quoted the Wisconsin theftby- fraud statute. This law provides that "false representation includes a promise made with intent not to perform if it is part of a false and fraudulent scheme." The court said that the word includes is not restrictive. Conduct other than an express promise can constitute a false representation. Providing fictitious business names and stolen personal identifying information to a phone company to avoid paying for calls plainly falls within the meaning of the term.
As for Steffes's contention that he did not steal property, the court noted that the statute defines the word property as "all forms of tangible property, whether real or personal, without limitation including electricity." Relying on the plain language of the statute and the definitions in commonly used dictionaries, the court concluded that Steffes stole electricity that the phone company buys and stores to power its network. By making phone calls without paying for them, Steffes deprived AT T of its property.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS-Legal Environment Consideration Besides the defendant, who may have committed a crime in this case? Explain.