Embezzlement

Embezzlement is not always a form of [[theft]] or an act of stealing ''per se'', since those definitions specifically deal with taking something that does not belong to the perpetrators. Instead, embezzlement is, more generically, an act of deceitfully secreting assets by one or more persons that have been ''entrusted'' with such assets. The persons entrusted with such assets may or may not have an ownership stake in such assets.{{Cite web |date=2015-02-19 |title=Justice Manual {{!}} 1005. Embezzlement {{!}} United States Department of Justice |url=https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1005-embezzlement |access-date=2025-10-14 |website=www.justice.gov |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=What Is Embezzlement? Definition, Examples, and Legal Impact {{!}} sanctions.io |url=https://www.sanctions.io/blog/what-is-embezzlement |access-date=2025-10-14 |website=www.sanctions.io |language=en}}

Embezzlement is not always a form of [[theft]] or an act of stealing ''per se'', since those definitions specifically deal with taking something that does not belong to the perpetrators. Instead, embezzlement is, more generically, an act of deceitfully secreting assets by one or more persons that have been ''entrusted'' with such assets. The persons entrusted with such assets may or may not have an ownership stake in such assets.{{Cite web |date=2015-02-19 |title=Justice Manual {{!}} 1005. Embezzlement {{!}} United States Department of Justice |url=https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1005-embezzlement |access-date=2025-10-14 |website=www.justice.gov |language=en}}{{Cite web |title=What Is Embezzlement? Definition, Examples, and Legal Impact {{!}} sanctions.io |url=https://www.sanctions.io/blog/what-is-embezzlement |access-date=2025-10-14 |website=www.sanctions.io |language=en}}

Embezzlement differs from [[larceny]] in three ways. First, in embezzlement, an actual ''[[conversion (law)|conversion]]'' must occur; second, the original taking must not be [[trespass]]ory,Singer & LaFond, ''Criminal Law'' (Aspen 1997), p. 213. and third, in penalties. To say that the taking was not trespassory is to say that the persons performing the embezzlement had the right to possess, use or access the assets in question, and that such persons subsequently secreted and converted the assets for an unintended or unsanctioned use. ''Conversion'' requires that the secretion interfere with the [[property]], rather than just relocate it. As in larceny, the measure is not the gain to the embezzler, but the loss to the asset stakeholders. An example of ''conversion'' is when a person logs checks in a [[check register]] or transaction log as being used for one specific purpose and then explicitly uses the [[funds]] from the checking account for another and completely different purpose.{{Cite web|date=2015-02-19|title=1005. Embezzlement|url=https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1005-embezzlement|access-date=2021-08-31|location=United States|publisher=Department of Justice|language=en}}

Embezzlement differs from [[larceny]] in three ways. First, in embezzlement, an actual ''[[conversion (law)|conversion]]'' must occur; second, the original taking must not be [[trespass]]ory,Singer & LaFond, ''Criminal Law'' (Aspen 1997), p. 213. and third, in penalties. To say that the taking was not trespassory is to say that the persons performing the embezzlement had the right to possess, use or access the assets in question, and that such persons subsequently secreted and converted the assets for an unintended or unsanctioned use. ''Conversion'' requires that the secretion interfere with the [[property]], rather than just relocate it. As in larceny, the measure is not the gain to the embezzler, but the loss to the asset stakeholders. An example of ''conversion'' is when a person logs checks in a [[check register]] or transaction log as being used for one specific purpose and then explicitly uses the [[funds]] from the checking account for another and completely different purpose.{{Cite web|date=2015-02-19|title=1005. Embezzlement|url=https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1005-embezzlement|access-date=2021-08-31|location=United States|publisher=Department of Justice|language=en}}

When embezzlement occurs as a form of theft, distinguishing between embezzlement and larceny can be tricky.In their book ''Criminal Law'', Singer and LaFond provide an excellent analytical method for making these distinctions. Singer & LaFond, ''Criminal Law'' (Aspen 1997), p. 221. Making the distinction is particularly difficult when dealing with [[misappropriation]]s of property by employees. To prove embezzlement, the state must show that the employee had possession of the goods "by virtue of his or her employment"; that is, that the employee had formally delegated authority to exercise substantial control over the goods. Typically, in determining whether the employee had sufficient control the courts will look at factors such as the job title, job description and the particular operational practices of the firm or organization. For example, the manager of a shoe department at a [[department store]] would likely have sufficient control over the store's inventory (as head of the shoe department) of shoes; that if they converted the goods to their own use they would be guilty of embezzlement. On the other hand, if the same employee were to steal cosmetics from the cosmetics department of the store, the crime would not be embezzlement but larceny. For a case that exemplifies the difficulty of distinguishing larceny and embezzlement see ''State v. Weaver'', 359 N.C. 246; 607 S.E.2d 599 (2005).

When embezzlement occurs as a form of theft, distinguishing between embezzlement and larceny can be tricky.In their book ''Criminal Law'', Singer and LaFond provide an excellent analytical method for making these distinctions. Singer & LaFond, ''Criminal Law'' (Aspen 1997), p. 221. Making the distinction is particularly difficult when dealing with [[misappropriation]]s of property by employees. To prove embezzlement, the state must show that the employee had possession of the goods "by virtue of his or her employment"; that is, that the employee had formally delegated authority to exercise substantial control over the goods. Typically, in determining whether the employee had sufficient control the courts will look at factors such as the job title, job description and the particular operational practices of the firm or organization. For example, the manager of a shoe department at a [[department store]] would likely have sufficient control over the store's inventory (as head of the shoe department) of shoes; that if they converted the goods to their own use they would be guilty of embezzlement. On the other hand, if the same employee were to steal cosmetics from the cosmetics department of the store, the crime would not be embezzlement but larceny. For a case that exemplifies the difficulty of distinguishing larceny and embezzlement see ''State v. Weaver'', 359 N.C. 246; 607 S.E.2d 599 (2005).

North Carolina appellate courts have compounded this confusion by misinterpreting a statute based on an act passed by parliament in 1528. The [[courts of North Carolina|North Carolina courts]] interpreted this statute as creating an offence called "larceny by employee"; an offence that was separate and distinct from common law larceny.N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14–74 provides in part: "If any servant or other employee, to whom any money, goods or other chattels, ... by his master shall be delivered safely to be kept to the use of his master, shall withdraw himself from his master and go away with such money, goods or other chattels, ... with intent to steal the same and defraud his master thereof, contrary to the trust and confidence in him reposed by his said master; or if any servant, being in the service of his master, without the assent of his master, shall embezzle such money, goods or other chattels, ... or otherwise convert the same to his own use, with like purpose to steal them, or to defraud his master thereof, the servant so offending shall be guilty of a felony ..."For cases interpreting the statute, see ''State v. Canipe'', 64 N.C. App. 102, 103, 306 S.E.2d 548, 549 (1983); State v. Brown, 56 N.C. App. 228, 229, 287 S.E.2d 421, 423 (1982). However, as Perkins notes, the purpose of the statute was not to create a new offence but was merely to confirm that the acts described in the statute met the elements of common law larceny.Perkins, ''Criminal Law'' (2nd ed.) (1986), p. 286.

North Carolina appellate courts have compounded this confusion by misinterpreting a statute based on an act passed by parliament in 1528. The [[courts of North Carolina|North Carolina courts]] interpreted this statute as creating an offence called "larceny by employee"; an offence that was separate and distinct from common law larceny.N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14–74 provides in part: "If any servant or other employee, to whom any money, goods or other chattels, ... by his master shall be delivered safely to be kept to the use of his master, shall withdraw himself from his master and go away with such money, goods or other chattels, ... with intent to steal the same and defraud his master thereof, contrary to the trust and confidence in him reposed by his said master; or if any servant, being in the service of his master, without the assent of his master, shall embezzle such money, goods or other chattels, ... or otherwise convert the same to his own use, with like purpose to steal them, or to defraud his master thereof, the servant so offending shall be guilty of a felony ..."For cases interpreting the statute, see ''State v. Canipe'', 64 N.C. App. 102, 103, 306 S.E.2d 548, 549 (1983); State v. Brown, 56 N.C. App. 228, 229, 287 S.E.2d 421, 423 (1982). However, as Perkins notes, the purpose of the statute was not to create a new offence but was merely to confirm that the acts described in the statute met the elements of common law larceny.Perkins, ''Criminal Law'' (2nd ed.) (1986), p. 286.

==Prevention==

==Prevention==

[[Internal control]]s such as [[separation of duties]] are common defences against embezzlement. For example, at a movie theatre (cinema), the task of accepting money and admitting customers into the theatre is typically broken up into two jobs. One employee sells the ticket, and another employee takes the ticket and lets the customer into the theatre. Because a ticket cannot be printed without entering the sale into the computer (or, in earlier times, without using up a serial-numbered printed ticket), and the customer cannot enter the theatre without a ticket, both of these employees would have to collude in order for embezzlement to go undetected. This significantly reduces the chance of theft, because of the added difficulty in arranging such a conspiracy and the likely need to split the proceeds between the two employees, which reduces the payoff for each.{{Cite web|title=Embezzlement|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/embezzlement|access-date=2021-08-31|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en}}

[[Internal control]]s such as [[separation of duties]] are common defences against embezzlement. For example, at a movie theatre (cinema), the task of accepting money and admitting customers into the theatre is typically broken up into two jobs. One employee sells the ticket, and another employee takes the ticket and lets the customer into the theatre. Because a ticket cannot be printed without entering the sale into the computer (or, in earlier times, without using up a serial-numbered printed ticket), and the customer cannot enter the theatre without a ticket, both of these employees would have to collude in order for embezzlement to go undetected. This significantly reduces the chance of theft, because of the added difficulty in arranging such a conspiracy and the likely need to split the proceeds between the two employees, which reduces the payoff for each.{{Cite web|title=Embezzlement|url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/embezzlement|access-date=2021-08-31|website=LII / Legal Information Institute|language=en}}

Another obvious method to deter embezzlement is to regularly and unexpectedly move funds from one advisor or entrusted person to another when the funds are supposed to be available for withdrawal or use, to ensure that the ''full amount'' of the funds is available and no fraction of the savings has been embezzled by the person to whom the funds or savings have been entrusted.

Another obvious method to deter embezzlement is to regularly and unexpectedly move funds from one advisor or entrusted person to another when the funds are supposed to be available for withdrawal or use, to ensure that the ''full amount'' of the funds is available and no fraction of the savings has been embezzled by the person to whom the funds or savings have been entrusted.

==Worldwide==

==Worldwide==