Definition of Embezzlement in Legal Terms

Some of the most complex (and perhaps lucrative) forms of embezzlement involve Ponzi-like financial systems, where high returns are paid to early investors from funds received from later investors who have been deceived into believing that they themselves will be included in a high-yield investment system. The Madoff investment scandal is an example of this type of high-profile embezzlement scheme, which claims that $65 billion has been siphoned off by gullible investors and financial institutions. The requirement that the defendant act with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property makes embezzlement a specific intentional crime. See United States v. May, 625 F.2d 186, 189-90 (8th Cir. 1980). However, it should be noted that the required intention to violate the law is not an intention to permanently deprive another of his property. Even if a person intends to return the property, their actions are still illegal. In short, the restoration of illegally seized property is not a defence against embezzlement. See Powell, above, p.

1355. In the United States, embezzlement is a legal offense that, depending on the circumstances, may be a crime under state law, federal law, or both; Therefore, the definition of the crime of embezzlement varies according to the law. [2] Generally, the criminal elements of embezzlement are the fraudulent transformation of another person`s property by the person who has legal possession of it. [3] Acts of embezzlement combine the theft of property with the breach of fiduciary duty and trust inherent in a principal-agent relationship. Embezzlement is a form of theft and is usually charged with theft. What distinguishes embezzlement from other types of theft or theft is that it involves a betrayal of trust or duty. These thieves do not need to break into homes or threaten people at gunpoint or even grab a single bag. Embezzlement workers use their relationships and trusts to commit their crimes. In most States, an agent authorized to collect money for his principal and to retain a certain amount as a commission is guilty of embezzlement if he wrongly transfers the entire amount collected.

Sanctions can vary considerably from State to State and from case to case. Let`s look again at Rhode Island`s embezzlement law. Among the penalties he lists for those convicted of embezzlement are: The most common form of embezzlement is simple skimming money. Employees who directly handle money, such as cashiers, waiters, bartenders or delivery men, can embezzle funds by destroying or falsifying transaction records and pocketing the money. Embezzlement is not always a form of theft or theft, as these definitions relate specifically to the taking of something that does not belong to the perpetrators. Instead, embezzlement, more generally, is an act of fraudulent secrecy of assets by one or more persons to whom those assets have been entrusted. The persons in charge of these goods may or may not be involved in these goods. When an agent has the power to sell a good and then convert the proceeds of the sale, he is guilty of diverting the product that is different from the good sold. A person who is authorized to cash a check but converts the money is also guilty of embezzling the money and not the check. However, the person could be guilty of embezzling the cheque if they have a fraudulent intention to convert it at the time of redemption. Some types of embezzlement can be combined with other forms of fraud, such as Ponzi schemes. In such cases, embezzlement deceives investors into entrusting their assets to them in order to invest on their behalf, but instead uses the money for personal gain and enrichment.

Maintaining the scam often involves finding new investors to bring in more money to appease previous investors. Embezzlement of funds may also include the use of funds or property beyond the scope of the authorized use. For example, a trustee could illegally «borrow» money from the trust to pay a personal debt. Even if they later repay the trust in full, they could still be charged with embezzlement. Throwing away or destroying property can also be charged with embezzlement, as in the case of a police officer convicted of embezzlement after throwing away a legally confiscated bicycle. It is not necessary for the defendant to have physical or exclusive possession of it. It is sufficient for the person to have implied possession, a form of possession that is not real, but which gives the owner the power to exercise control over the property, either directly or through another person. Alternatively, mere custody is not sufficient for embezzlement.

If a master holds a servant responsible for the property in order to keep or maintain it, the captain is supposed to have implicit possession of that property, while the servant has only custody. A servant who wrongly converts property in his custody may be guilty of theft, but not embezzlement. To prove that the embezzlement took place, you usually need to be able to prove some of the following: embezzlement, a crime generally defined as the fraudulent misappropriation of someone else`s property by an agent, agent, or other person in charge of possession of the property. The offence has no single or precise definition. As a rule, embezzlement occurs when a person legally takes possession of property and subsequently misappropriates it. In this regard, embezzlement must be contrasted with the offence of theft, which requires the removal of property from the possession of another without the latter`s consent. The scope of the former common law crime of theft has been progressively expanded by various manipulations of the concept of possession. An English law of 1529 stipulated that a servant who had taken property entrusted to him by his master had committed theft because, unlike physical possession, legal title had never been transferred to him. This extension did not extend to situations where the servant received property from a third person intended for his master.

The failure of the Theft Act to adequately protect employers` property from looting of employees and employees has led to the adoption of specific laws. Historically, embezzlement became a crime because there were thefts in which the elements of the theft could not be filled because the thief had the right to own the funds; Thus, the prosecutor`s office could not prove the element of an «intrusion». In the meantime, proof of misappropriation of funds only requires proof that the employee was in possession of the property or funds because of the employee`s position, or that the employee was authorized to exercise substantial control over the property or funds.