United States of America v. David G. Webb

In 1994, under the direct supervision of David G. Webb, Photogrammetric Data Services (PDS) began an illegal scheme which sought to exploit federal agencies and taxpayer dollars in order to generate unwarranted profits. Photogrammetric Data Services is a Virginian corporation that subcontracted for firms working for the Virginia Department of transportation (VDT). From 1994-1999, their job was to perform preliminary engineering work for highway developments by preparing aerial and ground surveys using topographic maps. During this time period, Webb worked as a manager in charge of billing and timesheets. At the time, The VDT paid its contractors according to an estimation of the number of hours they would work to finish a project. Each contractor was responsible for submitting the estimated number of hours they would work and could only receive money up to that limit. Any hours that were worked beyond their estimations had to be documented and approved by VDT in orde!

From 1994-1999, Webb realized that by finishing a project under the limit of hours approved resulted in “leaving mon

2. The appellants felt that the district court erred in denying their motion to suppress evidence without holding an evidentiary hearing first.

We will first look at the efficiency of the crime. Posner describes efficiency of crime by weighing the gains to the person who commits the crime to the losses of the victim. An efficient crime would be one in which the criminal’s gain is greater than the victim’s loss and vice versa. Two separate analyses can be extracted from the PDS and Webb case. The first analysis is where the victim is the individual taxpayer and the second is where the victim is the government and society overall. In the first instance, the individual taxpayer must be recognized as a small entity in which his/her monetary contribution is minimal compared to the total. PDS and Webb claimed to have stolen $100,000-$200,000 a year in inflated bills. Let’s just say that an average taxpayer in Virginia pays $12,000 a year in taxes. If each of those taxpayers had $50 of their total taxes going toward highway development, then the loss to each taxpayer by the crime being committed would be at most $50. The total gain that PDS and Webb received is obviously greater than the loss to the individual taxpayer. Under this circumstance, the crime would appear to be efficient. In the second case where the government and society is thought of as one entity, just the opposite would be the case. By PDS and Webb stealing $100,000-$200,000 per year directly from the government, PDS and Webb’s gain would be equal to the government’s loss if all other costs were ignored. By looking at other costs such as the losses society incurs by not having more tax dollars available for public goods and losses on interests bearing accounts, it becomes apparent that the crime’s gain is less than the victim’s loss. This would be defined as an inefficient crime.

5. The appellants felt that the government also failed to prove that there was any connection between the construction of a highway project and the false invoices.

On March 2, 2001, PDS and Webb appealed the district court’s decision and it was heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The appeal was founded on the premise of five major points.

3. The appellants felt that the district court erred in not excluding Webb’s statements during his interview because he was not informed of his right not to incriminate himself.

Some topics in this essay:
PDS Webb, Webb PDS, Fourth Circuit, Virginia Department, Fifth Amendment, PDS Webb’s, Ultimately Webb’s, pds webb, Services PDS, standard proof, criminal law, David Webb, transaction/enforcement costs, highway project, Services Virginian, highway project fraud, efficiency crime, law enforcement, project fraud, punishment costs, appeals court, photogrammetric data services, appellants district court, beyond reasonable doubt, district court erred,