Closing Arguments to Begin in Fraud Trial of Elys : Courts: Attorneys for both sides say the case rests on whether the couple acted with bad intentions or in good faith.

Did accused embezzler James T. (Tom) Ely act in good faith when he charged personal items on his Ventura County Community College District credit card or did he take advantage of the public trust?

And were Ely and his wife, Ingrid, simply following the lead of other district officials when they spent public dollars on expensive meals, hotels and travel, or did they knowingly break the rules for lavish junkets and other perks?

As the Elys’ embezzlement and fraud trial winds down, the prosecution and defense will put their spins on the case for the jury that must consider the Elys’ states of mind before rendering a verdict.

Closing arguments are scheduled to start today, after the defense presents its final witnesses.

The Elys are accused of double- and triple-billing the district for meals, overestimating mileage and parking fees and taking private journeys at public expense--allegedly bilking the district out of at least $15,000.

Nearly 30 people have taken the witness stand and about 200 exhibits have been presented as evidence.

And now, after four weeks of testimony, the jury will be asked to determine the couple’s guilt or innocence. Deliberations are expected to begin by Thursday afternoon. According to attorneys for both sides, the case comes down to a decision of whether the Elys acted with bad intentions or good faith.

Tom Ely has been charged with 29 counts of conspiracy, embezzlement and fraud. Ingrid Ely has been charged with one count each of conspiracy, grand theft and embezzlement.

Ingrid Ely is accused of accepting $3,000 in travel advances from the Moorpark Alumni Assn. although her expenses had been paid through her husband’s district American Express card.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Carol J. Nelson said she sees the Ely case in simple terms.

“It’s like a bank teller who takes from the till,” Nelson said.

Just because the teller intends to pay back the money, it is still wrong to use the funds for anything other than what they were intended. Nelson alleges that the Elys knew that they were spending the district’s money incorrectly, whether or not the funds were later reimbursed.

“Mr. Ely is a trustee, and he may well be the most knowledgeable person in the district,” Nelson said.

At one point in the trial last week, Nelson read a page from a trustee policy manual, prepared by Tom Ely. Ely wrote in the manual that district credit cards could only be used for business. He also wrote that only “actual and necessary” travel expenses would be paid by the district.

Ely testified under cross-examination that he used his district American Express card to buy four sweaters for $290 in Vancouver, British Columbia, and to purchase sweat suits and other items for nearly $300 while in Denver.

Ely said the money was paid back with money that the district owed him for mileage. But Nelson said that doesn’t matter.

After wrestling with the Elys’ attorneys--James M. Farley and Willard P. Wiksell--Nelson persuaded Superior Court Lawrence Storch to allow her to include in the jury instructions a section of the embezzlement law that says paying back the money cannot be used as a defense.

Nelson expects that that element will be a key to deciding the case. Jurors also must find that the Elys had a specific intent to steal from the district, an intent which the defense attorneys say does not exist.

Throughout the trial, Farley and Wiksell have said the couple followed district policy and acted on the advice of district officials.

As part of the jury instructions, panel members will be told that “good faith” can be used as a defense. For example, if Ely made a mistake on his expense forms, he can’t be held accountable for a criminal act.

Ely testified that he often made errors. He said he forgot several times to claim the travel expenses that he owed for Ingrid, and he said he also mistakenly overestimated mileage to the Burbank and the Los Angeles airports.

The attorneys also allege that the Elys did not know that they were doing anything wrong. Despite what was written in the policy manual, they say it was often the practice of officials to use the district credit cards for personal use, as long as they paid back the money. Limits of $6, $9, and $22 for breakfast, lunch and dinner were often broken by many officials, according to the defense.

Last week, District Chancellor Barbara Derryberry testified that she used her district credit card to pay for a $112 dinner that she and Ingrid Ely shared while the two were at a convention in Canada.

Before resting his case, Farley said he plans to put another witness on the stand today to testify that district expense rules were often bent.

And, according to Farley, Ely often acted on the advice of others in the district.

“He thought he had a right to do what he did,” Farley said. “He acted within the guidelines as he understood it, and there’s no crime here.”