|
 Where a person has been trusted to protect and/or manage money or property, and those things entrusted are misappropriated by that person, this constitutes embezzlement. It is distinguished from larceny by the fact that the entrusted party had a right of possession but then converted this possession to a personal gain.
Employee theft, a prevalent form of embezzlement, runs the gamut in terms of its seriousness. Theft of retail items, theft from cash registers, and discounted sale of retail items are viewed as smaller crimes while the theft of millions is considered the top end of the "seriousness" scale.
In order for embezzlement of any variety to be proven, the following must be substantiated:
- A relationship of trust between the defendant and the victim must have existed.
- That fiduciary relationship resulted in the alleged possession of the property by the defendant.
- The defendant illegally assumed rights to said property.
- The misappropriation by the defendant was intentional.
Restitution and Employer Retaliation
While embezzlement and, in particular, employee theft, may be viewed as the simple act of taking something that doesn't belong to you, sometimes the situation is not so simple. When facing employee theft or embezzlement charges, restitution (paying it back) can be part of the deal you make with a prosecutor to avoid going to trial. But what if the employer retaliates by submitting bogus information in order to make the theft as large as possible? This means that you could end up paying back more than was actually taken.
Defending Charges of Employee Theft in Ohio and Kentucky
If you have been charged with employee theft in Ohio or Kentucky, you need a criminal defense attorney well versed in the defense of embezzlement and employee theft cases. Lisa Wenzel knows how to address the legal complications of this type of case so that potential negative consequences are minimized.
|
In the News: From 2001 through 2006, Daryl Turner of Cincinnati was employed as a trust officer in Institutional Trust and Custody, a department of U.S. Bank. According to the US Department of Justice, Turner converted bank funds to his own use during his employment by generating checks "payable to his wife or another individual, over whose accounts he had access, instead of directing the funds into the U.S. Bank accounts for the intended recipients." Turner was sentenced to serve concurrent sentences of 41 months of incarceration, 3 years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $1,134,077 in restitution to U.S. Bank, and $294,130 in restitution to the IRS, for committing bank embezzlement and income tax evasion. Turner pled guilty to these charge on December 4, 2008.
|
|
Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking website:  |
Practice Areas 
