San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
ISSUANCE OF VERDICT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
The State of San Andreas v. David Deltoid & Alistair Vespucci
#25-CM-0041
A decision was reached in the above case on the 22nd day of February, 2026.
Facts
- The charity, Black Kids with Cancer and Aids, is not a registered entity within the State of San Andreas
- The Defendants, Mr. Deltoid and Mr. Vespucci, were seen representing this entity and soliciting donations as per Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2.
- Donations were received into the personal accounts of the Defendants.
Arguments Made at Trial
Prosecution has provided arguments that show a repeated effort from the Defendants to present the stated charity as a structured and legitimate entity. Prosecution also states that the Defendants solicited substantial donations from citizens of the State, with the Donations being deposited into the Defendants' personal bank accounts and transferred between them, with the structure of the organisation being fabricated.
Defense has argued that the investigation by the State does not meet a level beyond suspicion. Defense argues that the Prosecution has not proven the fact that the stated children do not exist, that the medical conditions are not true, and that the financial crimes were nothing more than regular business operations, as those funds were in holding as opposed to being misallocated for personal or nefarious purposes.
Verdict
The first question that the Court needs to answer in this case is whether the organisation presented was operating legally within the State. The Prosecution has confirmed with the Business Licensing Bureau that the organisation, or charity, with the name Black Kids with Cancer and Aids, was not registered. The Court finds that, regardless of any international claims, organisations operating within our State are required to follow the relevant Business Licensing requirements, and as such, this charity was operating without the correct registration or documentation.
With that in mind, the Court then has to establish whether the facts of the case and the evidence provided meet the level of Felony Fraud. Felony Fraud is defined as the intentional deception of a victim with the intent of personal or financial gain, causing more than $5,000 in damages.
Intentional Deception of a victim
The Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendants knowingly made a false representation of facts to solicit and induce donations. In this case, the evidence shows that the Defendant, Mr David Deltoid, was intentionally evasive when asked about licensing, though they made no explicitly false statements. The Defendant referenced an organisation that exists in Poland, as well as a state-licensed attorney within our State. No fact presented to the Court goes to disprove these allegations.
The Prosecution states that they had listed several members of staff who do not exist within the State. This was not sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these individuals did not exist outside of our State, especially in conjunction with the statements provided on the bodycam footage claiming an international organisation.
Furthermore, Prosecution has presented emails in which they allege the Defendants have presented fictitious afflicted children that do not exist. The evidence submitted to the Court does not substantiate these claims.
Finally, the post-donation emails submitted are clearly exaggerated and satirical, though these were not used to induce donations, but rather sent afterwards as a receipt of donation. As this came afterwards, it cannot be used to chronologically prove that donations were solicited via intentional deception.
Intent of personal or financial gain
The Prosecution has provided evidence that shows the Defendants received donation money into their personal accounts, with subsequent (minor) transfers. What is missing is any evidence proving that these funds were personally used. The six-day window gained during the investigation proves receipt of donations; it is insufficient to establish any clear intent of personal profit. Depositing funds into a personal account temporarily does not, by itself, demonstrate criminal intent.
Summary
In summary, while the Defendants have operated an unregistered charity and solicited substantial donations within the State, the prosecution has not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendants engaged in intentional deception or acted with intent to personally or financially gain from those donations.
The evidence shows the Defendants making evasive statements regarding licensing and legitimacy, an unverified staff team listed in the signature blocks of emails, and post-donation emails describing the use of funds. Despite this, no proof has been made that any representation made before donations were knowingly false, that the children detailed did not exist, or that the Defendants misused the funds. The post-donation email, while very clearly exaggerated and satirical as the Defense highlighted, cannot in itself satisfy the requirement for Felony Fraud. As reasonable doubt exists to both the intentional deception and financial gain elements of GF07, the Court cannot find either Defendant guilty of this charge.
For the charge of Embezzlement, the Court finds this charge to be inappropriately placed. The charge of Embezzlement does not fit hand in hand with Felony Fraud. Embezzlement suggests that an individual had lawful access to funds and used them in a way that they knew was unauthorised, with the funds legally belonging to someone else. This is not applicable in this case, given that no evidence presented by the Prosecution supports an allegation of misappropriating funds.
The charge of Racketeering was applied, given that two financial crimes were placed against both defendants, notably the Felony Fraud and Embezzlement charges. As these charges are not being sustained, the Court finds no Probable Cause established for this charge.
Finally, for Mr David Deltoid, the charge of GF12 - Forgery or Counterfeiting was applied. The Court notes that the creation of a seal that does not intend to deceive through similarities to any other seal within the State does not violate this charge. The test is not "Was this seal created with the intent to deceive others?", but rather "Was this seal created in a way to similarly represent another seal, with the intent to deceive others?". The mere creation of a seal for an organisation, whether registered or not, does not violate the charge of Forgery or Counterfeiting.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
- On the count of GF07 - Felony Fraud, I find the defendant, David Deltoid, not guilty.
- On the count of GF09 - Embezzlement, I find the defendant, David Deltoid, not guilty.
- On the count of GF18 - Racketeering, I find the defendant, David Deltoid, not guilty.
- On the count of GF12 - Forgery or Counterfeiting, I find the defendant, David Deltoid, not guilty.
- On the count of GF07 - Felony Fraud, I find the defendant, Alistair Vespucci, not guilty.
- On the count of GF09 - Embezzlement, I find the defendant, Alistair Vespucci, not guilty.
- On the count of GF18 - Racketeering, I find the defendant, Alistair Vespucci, not guilty.
The defendant should make their way to City Hall at their earliest convenience to have the change to their record noted as well as the payment of $52,000 and $40,000 respectively returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.
So Ordered,
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 -
[email protected]