FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 103
Go to Volume 7 Table of Contents - Go to Chapter 103 Table of Contents

103.5 Embezzlement

    103.5.3 Embezzlement Defenses And Defense Theories

    103.5.3.1 Applicability Of Theft/Larceny Defenses
    103.5.3.2 Embezzlement: Lack Of Knowledge That Appropriation Of Property Is Unauthorized As Defense Theory
    103.5.3.3 Embezzlement: Mistake To Negate Fraudulent Intent
    103.5.3.4 Embezzlement: Mere Failure To Return Property Or Pay A Debt Not Sufficient
    103.5.3.5 Embezzlement: Claim Of Right As Defense
    103.5.3.6 Intent To Repay Not A Defense To Embezzlement Or Misappropriation Of Funds
    103.5.3.7 Embezzlement: Right To Instruction As To Defense Theory Of The Transaction
    103.5.3.8 Embezzlement: Additional Defenses And Defense Theories

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 103

    See FORECITE National™ 103.1.3 [Theft/Larceny: Defenses And Defense Theories].

    See FORECITE National™ 103.2.3 [Theft/Larceny By False Pretenses: Defenses And Defense Theories].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.20.3 [Theft/Larceny].

See FORECITE National™ 103.5.1.2 [Embezzlement: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 103

PRACTICE NOTE: "[I]t is necessary that ‘the defendant acts with knowledge that his appropriation of the property is unauthorized, or at least without a good-faith belief that it has been authorized.’ [Citation to U.S. v. Stockton (4th Cir. 1986) 788 F2d 210, 217]." (LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) § 8.6(f)(1), fn. 56.1.)

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.1 [Embezzlement].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.20.3 [Theft/Larceny].

See FORECITE National™ 103.5.1.2 [Embezzlement: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 103

    103.5.3.3    Embezzlement: Mistake To Negate Fraudulent Intent

PRACTICE NOTE: "A specific mistake of fact or mistake of law instruction will be necessary unless the point is sufficiently covered by the instruction on the need for fraudulent intent. [Citation.]" (LaFave & Scott, Substantive Criminal Law (West, 1986) § 8.6(f)(1), fn. 56.2.)

    See also FORECITE National™ 252.8 [Mistake Of Fact].

Embezzlement, Wharton’s Criminal Law (West, 15th ed. 1993) § 383-408.

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.1 [Embezzlement].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.20.3 [Theft/Larceny].

See FORECITE National™ 103.5.1.2 [Embezzlement: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 103

PRACTICE NOTE: The mere failure to return property or account for a trust fund, while evidence of a conversion, does not necessarily constitute embezzlement. (29A Corpus Juris Secondum, Embezzlement § 11, pp. 27, 28; Shannon v. State (OK 1916) 160 P 1131, 1133; State v. Hubbs (NJ 1961) 175 A2d 443, 446 [although mere failure to return money entrusted to one as agent or bailee does not ipso facto constitute guilt of embezzlement, it is some evidence thereof when money is not returned upon demand].) However, if there has been a demand for return of the property then the element of conversion/ appropriation may be proven. (Waide v. State (OK 1917) 162 P 1139, 1140; Blake v. State (OK 1916) 160 P 30, 32; OKLAHOMA UNIFORM JURY INSTRUCTIONS - CRIMINAL, OUJI-CR 5.21, comment [Secreting, 1452-Elements] (Oklahoma Center for Criminal Justice, 2nd ed. 1996).)

    Hence, in a prosecution for fraudulent conversion, refusal to charge that mere failure of defendant to pay over at a certain time the money allegedly converted does not constitute embezzlement may be prejudicial error since mere delay or failure to pay may not be embezzlement. (State v. Gregory (NJ 1938) 199 A 727, 728-29.)

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.1 [Embezzlement].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.20.3 [Theft/Larceny].

See FORECITE National™ 103.5.1.2 [Embezzlement: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 103

    See FORECITE National™ 252.5.12 [Claim Of Right: Applicability To Embezzlement].

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.3.6 [Claim Of Right].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.1 [Embezzlement].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.20.3 [Theft/Larceny].

See FORECITE National™ 103.5.1.2 [Embezzlement: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 103

PRACTICE NOTE: See Withrow v. U.S. (5th Cir. 1969) 420 F2d 1220, 1224-25 [intent to repay not a defense to misappropriation of postal funds [18 USC 1711]]; U.S. v. Ross (9th Cir. 2000) 206 F3d 896, 899; see also U.S. v. McCormick (9th Cir. 1995) 72 F3d 1404, 1409 [intent to repay not a defense to the crime of providing a false statement to a bank]; U.S. v. Alcantar (9th Cir. 1987) 832 F2d 1175, 1179 [intent to repay not a defense to embezzlement and conversion of bank funds]; U.S. v. Benny (9th Cir. 1986) 786 F2d 1410, 1417 [good faith intent to repay not a defense to mail fraud]; U.S. v. Coin (9th Cir. 1984) 753 F2d 1510, 1511 [intent to repay not a defense to embezzlement of tribal funds]; U.S. v. Faulkner (9th Cir. 1981) 638 F2d 129, 130 [intent to repay not a defense to embezzlement from interstate shipments]. As explained in Coin, "[s]uch crimes are complete when the misappropriation or embezzlement occurs." (Coin, 753 F2d at 1151.) Indeed, to date most courts have refused to extend the repayment defense beyond the unique realm of check-kiting (bad check) cases. (See Alcantar, 832 F2d at 1179.)

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.20.3 [Theft/Larceny].

See FORECITE National™ 103.5.1.2 [Embezzlement: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 103

PRACTICE NOTE: The defendant in an embezzlement prosecution is entitled to have his theory of transaction presented to the jury in the instructions. (See State v. White (ID 1928) 266 P 415, 419.)

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.1 [Embezzlement].

See also generally, FORECITE National™ 305.20.3 [Theft/Larceny].

See FORECITE National™ 103.5.1.2 [Embezzlement: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].

FORECITE National™
Instructions And Issues Omitted By The Pattern Instructions
Copyright & Publication Information

VOLUME 7 - CHAPTER 103

PRACTICE NOTE: The defenses and defense theories discussed in this chapter are offered to provide ideas which may be helpful in developing a defense strategy and are not intended to be a complete checklist. Depending on the jurisdiction and the factual circumstances, other theories may be available. (See generally FORECITE National™ Volume 11: Affirmative Defenses And Defense Theories (Ch. 250-264).) For example, in any given case defensive theories may be available as to one or more of the basic elements of criminal liability. (See generally FORECITE National™ Volume 5: Basic Elements Of A Criminal Allegation And Defenses Thereto (Ch. 43-62).)

See generally, FORECITE National™ 305.5.1 [Embezzlement].

See FORECITE National™ 103.5.1.2 [Embezzlement: Federal Circuit Model Instructions And Notes].