In Zoretic v. Commonwealth, 13 Va. App. 241, 409 S.E.2d 832 (1991), the evidence was insufficient to establish that the accused was the criminal agent. 13 Va. App. at 243-44, 409 S.E.2d at 834. Although someone had deprived the undercover agent of his money, a reasonable hypothesis flowing from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, was that "Zoretic was attempting to fulfill his agreement with the undercover officer to purchase drugs" and that it was Zoretic's supplier, McPherson, rather than Zoretic, who misappropriated the officer's money. Id. at 244, 409 S.E.2d at 834. The Court held that Zoretic's repeated acknowledgment of his debt to the officer and his promise to repay him was insufficient to prove either that he was the criminal agent or that he acted with the requisite intent. Id.