💕
Criminal Law • Crimes Against Property
CRIMLAW#044
Legal Definition
Embezzlement is the fraudulent conversion of the personal property of another by a person in lawful possession of that property.
Plain English Explanation
Theft is a category of crimes that all involve wrongfully taking stuff from someone else. Various theft crimes usually depend on specifically how the defendant took the property from the victim. If they take the property via a threat of violence, we call it "robbery;" if they take the property without violence or a threat, we call it "larceny;" but what happens when the defendant doesn't take the property? What happens when they are given the property without any deception or fraud (which would be larceny by trick)? In those circumstances, we call it embezzlement.
In other words, embezzlement involves a defendant being entrusted with property, but then fraudulently betraying that trust in order to do something with the property they were never allowed to do in the first place. A common example of embezzlement is when an employee of a company who is in charge of money belonging to the company uses that money (or access to the money) for personal gain.
The key to identifying embezzlement is to recognize when someone has taken advantage of their trust or position to misuse property or steal from the victim. To do this, ask yourself, "Did the person have a legal right to possess the property they eventually stole or misused?" If "yes," then it's probably embezzlement. If "no," then look to one of the other theft crimes, like larceny, larceny by trick, or false pretenses.
In other words, embezzlement involves a defendant being entrusted with property, but then fraudulently betraying that trust in order to do something with the property they were never allowed to do in the first place. A common example of embezzlement is when an employee of a company who is in charge of money belonging to the company uses that money (or access to the money) for personal gain.
The key to identifying embezzlement is to recognize when someone has taken advantage of their trust or position to misuse property or steal from the victim. To do this, ask yourself, "Did the person have a legal right to possess the property they eventually stole or misused?" If "yes," then it's probably embezzlement. If "no," then look to one of the other theft crimes, like larceny, larceny by trick, or false pretenses.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob sees Sam chatting on his new iPhone. Bob walks up to Sam and says, "Give me your phone or I'll punch you." Sam gives up his phone, and Bob runs away with it. Result: Bob has committed a robbery.
Hypo 2: Bob sees Sam chatting on his new iPhone. Bob walks up to Sam and grabs the iPhone out of Sam's hands and runs away with it. Result: Bob has committed a robbery.
Hypo 3: Bob sees Sam chatting on his new iPhone. Bob walks up to Sam and says, "Excuse me, sir, may I borrow your phone in order to call my wife? I was just robbed." Sam says, "Yes, of course," and hands Bob his phone. Bob runs away with it. Result: Bob has committed a larceny by trick because Sam willingly handed over his phone after being deceived by Bob as to his intentions. No force/violence = no robbery.
Hypo 4: Bob sees Sam chatting on his new iPhone. Sam places his phone down for a moment and looks away. Bob snatches Sam's phone and runs off. Result: Bob has committed a larceny.
Hypo 5: Sam hires Bob to work as a manager at his construction company. It is Bob's job to buy all the employees new company cell phones. Bob decides to buy an extra cell phone for himself. Result: Bob has committed embezzlement. Why? Because he misused trust to get a phone that belongs to the company.
Hypo 2: Bob sees Sam chatting on his new iPhone. Bob walks up to Sam and grabs the iPhone out of Sam's hands and runs away with it. Result: Bob has committed a robbery.
Hypo 3: Bob sees Sam chatting on his new iPhone. Bob walks up to Sam and says, "Excuse me, sir, may I borrow your phone in order to call my wife? I was just robbed." Sam says, "Yes, of course," and hands Bob his phone. Bob runs away with it. Result: Bob has committed a larceny by trick because Sam willingly handed over his phone after being deceived by Bob as to his intentions. No force/violence = no robbery.
Hypo 4: Bob sees Sam chatting on his new iPhone. Sam places his phone down for a moment and looks away. Bob snatches Sam's phone and runs off. Result: Bob has committed a larceny.
Hypo 5: Sam hires Bob to work as a manager at his construction company. It is Bob's job to buy all the employees new company cell phones. Bob decides to buy an extra cell phone for himself. Result: Bob has committed embezzlement. Why? Because he misused trust to get a phone that belongs to the company.
Related Concepts
Can a defendant commit larceny against abandoned property?
What are false pretenses?
What are the crimes against property?
What is a continuing trespass?
What is arson?
What is burglary?
What is extortion and blackmail?
What is forgery?
What is house burning?
What is larceny?
What is larceny by trick?
What is malicious mischief?
What is receipt of stolen property?
What is robbery?
