Embezzlement charges allege that you took money or property entrusted to your care for your own use. Unlike theft from strangers, embezzlement involves breach of trust by employees, fiduciaries, or others with legitimate access to funds. These charges carry serious criminal penalties and devastating professional consequences for those in positions of financial responsibility.
What Makes Embezzlement Different from Theft
The distinguishing feature of embezzlement is the defendant's lawful initial possession of the property. An employee authorized to handle company funds who diverts money to personal use commits embezzlement, not theft. The key is that the defendant had legitimate access and abused that position of trust rather than taking property they had no right to possess.
The breach of trust element often makes embezzlement charges more serious in courts' eyes than ordinary theft. Defendants exploited positions that required trustworthiness, making their conduct seem particularly blameworthy. Sentencing often reflects this aggravating factor.
How Embezzlement Is Discovered
Embezzlement often continues undetected for extended periods because the perpetrator has legitimate access and may manipulate records to conceal the taking. Discovery typically occurs through audits, personnel changes that reveal discrepancies, anonymous tips, or the scheme growing too large to hide. Once suspected, forensic accountants often reconstruct financial records to identify the full scope of losses.
The duration and total amount of embezzlement affect both charges and sentences. Schemes spanning years and involving substantial sums face more serious charges than isolated incidents involving smaller amounts. Prosecutors often charge each act of embezzlement separately, potentially creating numerous counts that accumulate severe penalties.
Defense Strategies in Embezzlement Cases
Lack of criminal intent provides a defense when defendants genuinely believed they had authorization to use the funds. If you thought you were entitled to the money, had approval to borrow funds, or intended to repay amounts taken, these beliefs may negate the intent required for conviction. Documentation supporting authorization claims becomes crucial evidence.
Challenging the amount alleged often affects both liability and sentencing. Forensic accounting may identify errors in loss calculations, legitimate business expenses included in loss figures, or amounts properly belonging to the defendant. Reducing the loss amount can significantly affect potential sentences even when some embezzlement is admitted.
Employer Civil Actions
Criminal charges often proceed alongside employer civil actions for recovery of embezzled funds. Employers may sue for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, and other civil theories seeking monetary judgments. These civil cases have lower burdens of proof than criminal proceedings and may result in substantial judgments.
Cooperation with employers' recovery efforts sometimes influences criminal prosecution. Voluntary restitution before criminal charges may lead prosecutors to decline prosecution or reduce charges. However, interactions with employers after embezzlement is discovered must be handled carefully to avoid statements that become evidence in criminal proceedings.
Sentencing Factors
Embezzlement sentences depend significantly on the amount taken, the defendant's position of trust, and the impact on victims. Schemes involving fiduciary duties, elder victims, or charitable organizations face enhanced penalties. Federal sentences follow loss-based guidelines that create substantial prison exposure for large embezzlements.
Mitigating factors like lack of prior record, personal circumstances contributing to the conduct, and full acceptance of responsibility can reduce sentences. Demonstrating remorse and commitment to making victims whole influences judges' sentencing decisions within applicable guidelines.