Embezzlement is a kind of theft. Unlike larceny, robbery, and other types of theft, a person accused of embezzlement first comes into possession of another person’s money or property with the rightful owner’s consent, but then betrays the rightful owner’s trust by converting or appropriating the money or property with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of its use.

For example, an employer may give an employee a corporate credit card to buy office supplies. If the employee uses the card to buy clothes, jewelry, or other items instead for their personal use, the employee could face an embezzlement charge. A person could also be prosecuted for embezzlement for transferring company or client funds from a business or trust account into their account or for using accounting practices to divert income from an individual or company entitled to receive it. A person entrusted with handling the finances of an elderly person will likely face criminal prosecution if they misappropriate the money. Often, public officials are charged with the offense when government funds or property go missing.

Embezzlement can be charged as a violation of federal law as well. Under 18 U.S.C. 641, it is a crime to embezzle property that the federal government owns or in which it has an interest. If a person embezzled from an organization that received at least $10,000 in federal assistance within the prior year, it can be charged as a violation of 18 U.S.C. 666.

If a person is convicted of embezzlement in federal court for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 641 or 18 U.S.C. 666, he can face up to one year in prison if the value of the property was less than $1,000. Otherwise, he may face up to 10 years in prison and a fine equal to embezzled property’s value.

Common Defenses to Embezzlement

• Unlawful search and seizure – If investigators unreasonably invade a person’s property when searching for or seizing purported evidence of embezzlement, that evidence should be kept out of trial evidence. The prosecution often lacks evidence to move forward when unlawfully seized evidence is suppressed.

• Insufficient evidence – If the Government cannot establish that a person acted with intent or the person had the owner’s apparent consent to take the money or property that was allegedly embezzled, the charge can be dismissed.

• Mistake – Intent to embezzle funds cannot exist if a person thought he was simply using the funds as authorized by the rightful owner.

• Entrapment – If a law enforcement agency, or someone acting on behalf of the agency, encourages a person to embezzle funds, it could serve as a defense.