There is “ample and overwhelming” evidence to prove Andre Curtis stole almost $130,000 from Government’s Faith-Based Tourism [FBT] fund, according to a prosecutor.Mr Curtis’s Supreme Court trial heard last week from forensic accountant Todd Boyd that he appeared to have spent just $215,568 of the $345,250 he received for FBT on that purpose.Prosecutors allege that Mr Curtis stole the rest of the money and spent it on items that had nothing to do with Faith-Based Tourism, including his own personal expenses and debts.As part of the contract he was given in April 2007 to head FBT, businessman Mr Curtis was supposed to organise ten religious events and attract at least 2,200 visitors to Bermuda between April 2007 and 2008.Government refused to pay the remaining instalment of his $400,000 contract when he could not prove he met those obligations.In her opening speech on September 28, prosecutor Kirsty-Ann Kiellor used the metaphor that Mr Curtis stole from Government’s “cookie jar” by misappropriating public cash.Defence lawyer Mark Pettingill has not disputed the manner in which Mr Curtis spent the funds he was given by Government.However, Mr Pettingill argued during his closing speech yesterday that Government simply “gave him the cookie jar,” and the contract placed no obligation on Mr Curtis as to how to spend the funds.He insisted Mr Curtis is an innocent man who has been made a scapegoat due to the public controversy over Faith-Based Tourism [see separate story].However, Ms Kiellor told the jury Mr Curtis is indeed guilty of theft. She acknowledged there is nothing in the FBT contract specifying how the $400,000 ought to be spent.However, she reminded the jury of evidence from former Director of Tourism Cherie-Lynn Whitter that Mr Curtis agreed, during precontract negotiations, to spend half the $400,000 on the operational costs of FBT and the other half on events.Ms Whitter told the jury the contract was signed on that basis and Mr Curtis mentioned the same 50/50 split in a proposal document submitted to the Department.Even though the topic of how the funds should be allocated was not covered in the contract itself, Ms Kiellor said: “Mr Curtis bound himself to spend the money in that way. That was part of the agreement.”The prosecutor also recapped on the key aspects of the FBT contract.Besides clauses specifying that Mr Curtis should produce at least ten FBT events and attract at least 2,200 tourists, other clauses stated that FBT must “diligently and fully use its best endeavours and all appropriate skill and ability to stage each event”.In addition, the contract said Mr Curtis must use his best efforts to provide accurate reports on the number of visitors attending the events and keep accurate and detailed records of all expenditure and liabilities incurred during the period of the agreement.She said evidence from prosecution witnesses showed the defendant did not do this. They have told the court it was tough getting information from Mr Curtis and confirming the visitor numbers he supplied.Mr Curtis is further accused of false accounting in relation to what the prosecution says are untrue figures that he sent Government in respect of FBT.He filed a budget report stating that he had spent $536,845 on FBT. However, forensic accountant Mr Boyd said he could not find evidence that Mr Curtis spent anywhere near that amount.Ms Kiellor said of the budget report: “It was full of falsities and Mr Curtis knew it was full of falsities, and therefore he was dishonest.”She concluded her speech by telling the jury: “If you look at everything in the round, you have ample evidence, overwhelming evidence, that you can find Mr Curtis guilty of theft and guilty of false accounting.”Before Ms Kiellor’s closing speech, Chief Justice Richard Ground directed the jury to clear Mr Curtis of a third charge he faced.That charge related to allegations the businessman stole $271,000 from Andrew Smith, who hired him to renovate his home in Flatts in 2006.Mr Smith paid the contract price to Mr Smith as a lump sum in advance.Ms Kiellor called witnesses during the case who said the job was left unfinished and Mr Curtis spent the money on items other than the renovation project.Ms Kiellor alleged that this meant Mr Curtis stole funds belonging to Mr Smith.Mr Justice Ground told the jury that once the money was in Mr Curtis’s hands, it was his money and it could only be deemed to have been stolen from Mr Smith if there were “strings attached” in legal terms.He said there was no evidence Mr Curtis had a legal obligation purely to use the money for the building work and therefore directed the jury to clear him of that charge.Mr Curtis, 49, from Warwick, maintains his innocence in respect of the remaining charges.