i. In the case of money, the relevant intent is to use it at the will of the person who takes or converts it, although he may intend afterwards to repay the money to the owner. The implication of this test is that when someone uses money and is unable to repay the money when asked to do so or at a reasonable time, the Law will presume that he has converted the money, notwithstanding his intention to repay the money to the owner.

ii. James is guilty of stealing because his failure to refund the money on demand or within a reasonable time constitutes conversion under the Criminal Code. His conduct of collecting money without fulfilling his promise to send the people to Canada for scholarship, and not refunding the money within a reasonable period, satisfies the test for conversion and therefore amounts to stealing.

Explanation:
This question focuses on fraudulent intent in criminal law and the conversion of money. Fraudulent intent refers to the deliberate decision to use or misappropriate someone else’s money without returning it within an expected time frame. In the case of James, despite his possible initial good intentions, his failure to refund the money makes him liable under criminal law for stealing.