for the Court.
¶ 1. Hоward Cater II allegedly defrauded Cameo Investments, a Mississippi Limited Liability Company. He was indicted for recеiving money under false pretenses in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-19-39 (Rev.2006). Cater filed a motion to quash the indictment, arguing that the term “person” in Section 97-19-39 did not apply to a limited liability company. The trial court denied Cater’s motion to quash, and this Court granted his petition for interlocutory appeal. Finding no error, wе affirm.
FACTS 1
¶ 2. Howard Cater II and his friend C.F. Pegues, both residents of Memphis, Tennessee, developed a business plan to рurchase repossessed automobiles, repair them, and sell them at a profit. Cane Callón, managing partner of Cameo Investments, a Mississippi Limited Liability Corporation, entered into an agreement with Cater whereby Cameo financed $110,000 toward the purchase of the automobiles. Cameo wired the money to Cater’s personal bank account. After Cameo learned about some misappropriation of funds, it demandеd that Cater and Pegues repay the money plus interest.
2
When Cater failed to pay the debt in full, Cameo filed а civil suit in the Circuit Court of Adams County.
3
Cameo later filed crimi
¶ 3. On September 12, 2006, Cater was indicted for receiving money under false pretenses in viоlation of Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-19-39 (Rev.2006). Cater filed a motion to quash the indictment and an amendеd motion to quash the indictment based on a lack of jurisdiction 5 and that Cameo is not a “person” under Sectiоn 97-19-39. On September 18, 2007, the trial court denied Cater’s motion to quash. Cater then filed a petition for interlocutory аppeal, which this Court granted. He raises one issue before this Court: whether a limited liability company is considered a “person” under Mississippi Code Section 97-19-39 (Rev.2006).
DISCUSSION
Whether a limited liability company is a “person” under Mississippi Code Section 97-19-39 (Rev.2006).
¶ 4. This Court applies a de novo standard of review to questions of law.
E.g., Windham v. Latco of Miss., Inc.,
¶ 5. Section 97-19-39(2) states, in pertinent part, that:
Every person, who with intent to cheat or defraud another, shall designedly, by color of any false token or writing, or by another false pretense, obtain the signature of any person to any written instrument, or obtain from any person any money, personal property, or valuable thing, with a value of Fivе Hundred Dollars ($ 500.00) or more, upon conviction thereof shall be guilty of a felony and punished by imprisonment in the State Penitentiary not exceeding ten (10) years, and by a fine not exceeding Ten Thousand Dollars ($ 10,000.00).
Miss.Code Ann. § 97-19-39(2) (Rev.2006) (emphasis added).
¶ 6. Cater contends thаt he did not violate Section 97-19-39(2) because a limited liability company is not considered a “person” under thе statute. He relies primarily upon
Champluvier v. State,
¶ 7. In
Champluvier,
this Court held that an agent who stole money from a limited liability company was imрroperly convicted for embezzlement under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 97-23-19 (Rev.2000) because a limitеd liability company was neither an “incorporated company” nor a “private person.”
Champluvier,
¶ 8. Cater’s reliance on
Champluvier
is misplaced because it cоncerned a different statute with distinct terms.
Champluvier
specifically construed “incorporated company” and “рrivate person,” terms which are not found in Section 97-19-39.
Champluvier,
CONCLUSION
¶ 9. Because a limited liability company is a “person” under Mississippi Code Section 97-19-39 (Rev.2006), we affirm the trial court’s denial of Cater’s motion to quash and remand this case to thе trial court for further proceedings.
¶10. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.
Notes
. Due to the limited record, the facts of this case are drawn mostly from the parties’ briefs.
. The State submits that Cater began writing checks unrelated to his business. Cater maintains that Pegues is respоnsible for misappropriating the funds.
.It is unclear from the record whether this civil suit is still pending.
. According to Cater, Camеo previously filed criminal charges against him in DeSoto County, but the charges were dismissed.
. Cater asserts that all of the alleged criminal acts occurred in Memphis, Tennessee.
. At the time Champluvier and Coleman was decided, Mississippi Code Section 97-23-19 (Rеv.2000) stated, in pertinent part, that:
If any director, agent, clerk, servant, or officer of any incorporatеd company, or if any trustee or factor, carrier or bailee, or any clerk, agent or servant of any private person, shall embezzle or fraudulently seCrete, conceal, or convert to his own use, or mаke way with, or secrete with intent to embezzle or convert to his own use, any goods, rights in action, money, or othеr valuable security, effects, or property of any kind or description which shall have come or been intrusted to his care or possession by virtue of his office, place, or employment, either in mass or otherwise, he Shall be guilty of embezzlement....
Miss.Code Ann. § 97-23-19 (Rev.2000).
Section 97-23-19 was amended in 2007 to substitute “person” in place of "director, agent, clerk, servant, or officer of any incorporated company, or if any trustee or factor,