Hubbry Logo
EmbezzlementEmbezzlementMain
Open search
Embezzlement
Community hub
Embezzlement
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Embezzlement
Embezzlement
Embezzlement
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Look up embezzlement in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Look up peculation in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Criminal law
Elements
Scope of criminal liability
Severity of offense
Inchoate offenses
Offense against the person
Sexual offenses
Crimes against property
Crimes against justice
Crimes against the public
Crimes against animals
Crimes against the state
Defenses to liability
Other common-law areas
Portals

Embezzlement (from Anglo-Norman, from Old French besillier ("to torment, etc."), of unknown origin)[1] is a type of financial crime, usually involving theft of money from a business or employer. It often involves a trusted individual taking advantage of their position to steal funds or assets, most commonly over a period of time.

Versus larceny

[edit]

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.[2][3]

Embezzlement differs from larceny in three ways. First, in embezzlement, an actual conversion must occur; second, the original taking must not be trespassory,[4] 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.[5]

When embezzlement occurs as a form of theft, distinguishing between embezzlement and larceny can be tricky.[6] Making the distinction is particularly difficult when dealing with misappropriations 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).[5]

North Carolina appellate courts have compounded this confusion by misinterpreting a statute based on an act passed by parliament in 1528. The 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.[7][8] 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.[9]

The statute served the purpose of the then North Carolina colony as an indentured servant and slave-based political economy. It ensured that an indentured servant (or anyone bound to service of labour to a master, e.g., a slave) would owe to their master their labour; and, if they left their indentured service or bound labour unlawfully, the labour they produced, either for themselves (i.e., self-employed), or for anyone else, would be the converted goods that they unlawfully took, from the rightful owner, their master.[citation needed]

Crucially (and this can be seen as the purpose of the statute), any subsequent employer of such an indentured servant or slave, who was in fact bound to service of labour to a pre-existing master, would be chargeable with misprision of a felony (if it was proved they knew that the employee was still indentured to a master, or owned as a slave); and chargeable as an accessory after the fact, in the felony, with the servant or slave; in helping them, by employing them, in unlawfully taking that which was lawfully bound (through the master–servant relationship) in exclusive right, to the master of the indentured servant or slave.[citation needed]

Methods

[edit]

Embezzlement sometimes involves falsification of records in order to conceal the activity. Embezzlers commonly secrete relatively small amounts repeatedly, in a systematic or methodical manner, over a long period of time, although some embezzlers secrete one large sum at once. Some very successful embezzlement schemes have continued for many years before being detected due to the skill of the embezzler in concealing the nature of the transactions or their skill in gaining the trust and confidence of investors or clients, who are then reluctant to "test" the embezzler's trustworthiness by forcing a withdrawal of funds.[citation needed]

Embezzling should not be confused with skimming, which is under-reporting income and pocketing the difference. For example, in 2005, several managers of the service provider Aramark were found to be under-reporting profits from a string of vending machine locations in the eastern United States.[10] While the amount stolen from each machine was relatively small, the total amount taken from many machines over a length of time was very large. A technique employed by many small-time embezzlers can be covered by falsifying the records. (For example, by removing a small amount of money and falsifying the record the register would be consistent, while the manager would remove the profit and leave the float in; this method would effectively make the register short for the next user and throw the blame onto them.)[citation needed]

Another method is to create a false vendor account and supply false bills to the company being embezzled so that the checks that are cut appear completely legitimate.[11] Yet another method is to create phantom employees, who are then paid with payroll checks.[12]

The latter two methods should be uncovered by routine audits, but often are not if the audit is not sufficiently in-depth, because the paperwork appears to be in order. A publicly traded company must change auditors and audit companies every five years. The first method is easier to detect if all transactions are by cheque or other instrument, but if many transactions are in cash, it is much more difficult to identify. Employers have developed a number of strategies to deal with this problem. In fact, cash registers were invented just for this reason.[citation needed]

Some of the most complex (and potentially most lucrative) forms of embezzlement involve Ponzi-like financial schemes where high returns to early investors are paid out of funds received from later investors duped into believing they are themselves receiving entry into a high-return investment scheme. The Madoff investment scandal is an example of this kind of high-level embezzlement scheme, where it is alleged that $65 billion was siphoned off from gullible investors and financial institutions.[citation needed]

Prevention

[edit]

Internal controls 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.[13]

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.[13]

Worldwide

[edit]

In 2020, 37% of employee fraud happened because of a lack of internal controls or lack of independent checks and audits, 18% by overriding internal controls, 18% from lack of management review, 10% from a poor tone set by top managers, and 17% from other causes.[14]

England and Wales

[edit]

Offences of embezzlement were formerly created by sections 18 and 19 of the Larceny Act 1916.[15]

The former offences of embezzlement are replaced by the new offence of theft, contrary to section 1 of the Theft Act 1968.[16]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, embezzlement is a statutory offence that, depending on the circumstances, may be a crime under state law, federal law, or both, with the definition of the crime of embezzlement varying according to the statutes of the jurisdiction in which charges are filed. Typical elements of the crime of embezzlement are the fraudulent conversion of the property of another person by the person who has lawful possession of the property.[17]

  1. Fraudulence: The requirement that the conversion be fraudulent requires that the embezzler willfully, and without claim of right or mistake, converted the entrusted property to their own use.
  2. Criminal conversion: Embezzlement is a crime against ownership, that is, voiding the right of the owner to control the disposition and use of the property entrusted to the embezzler.[18] The element of criminal conversion requires substantial interference with the property rights of the owner (unlike larceny, wherein the slightest movement of the property, when accompanied by the intent to permanently deprive the owner of possession of the property is sufficient cause).[18]
  3. Property: Embezzlement statutes do not limit the scope of the crime to conversions of personal property. Statutes generally include conversion of tangible personal property, intangible personal property, and choses in action. Real property is not typically included.
  4. Of another: A person cannot embezzle their own property.
  5. Lawful possession: The critical element is that the embezzler must have been in lawful possession of the property at the time of the fraudulent conversion, and not merely have custody of the property. If the thief had lawful possession of the property, the crime is embezzlement; if the thief merely had custody, the crime at common law is larceny.[19]

In 2005–2009 the United States had 18,000 to 22,000[20] arrests for embezzlement per year, and 13,500 arrests in 2019.[21] A 2009 journal article reported estimates that three quarters of medical professionals would suffer from embezzlement at least once in their career.[22]

In 2018 the average embezzlement stole $360,000.[23] The estimated losses in 2005–2009 (including the many with no arrest) were $400 billion per year.[20] In 2018 companies brought charges in 45% of cases.[23]

85% of incidents involved an embezzler who was a manager or higher. The average incident involved three embezzlers, and 79% of incidents involved more than one embezzler. 70% of cases went undetected for over a year, and 31% lasted over three years. The average embezzler had worked at the company for eight years. 39% of financial professionals who experienced embezzlements had experienced a prior incident of it. After the embezzlement, 26% of the companies affected increased their security and audit requirements, 27% increased spending on audits, and 29% reviewed their anti-fraud controls frequently. However 97% of companies which had experienced embezzlement were "confident the anti-fraud controls in place ... would prevent future embezzlement".[23]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Embezzlement

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of lawfully possessed but belonging to another, most commonly involving the of by individuals in positions of trust such as employees, agents, or . Unlike , which requires a trespassory taking without initial , embezzlement hinges on the perpetrator's lawful access to the through a duty or , followed by intentional conversion that deprives the owner. To establish the crime, prosecutors must prove key elements: the 's ownership by another party, the accused's legal possession or control via trust, fraudulent intent to , and actual conversion or use for personal benefit, often without violence but with severe economic harm. As a white-collar offense, embezzlement carries penalties that escalate with the amount stolen—typically misdemeanors for small sums but felonies for larger ones, including , fines, and restitution under state statutes or federal laws like 18 U.S.C. § 641 for public funds.

Definition and Essential Elements

Embezzlement constitutes the fraudulent appropriation or conversion of by an individual to whom that has been lawfully entrusted or delivered. This offense typically involves the of funds or assets, distinguishing it from other crimes by the element of prior legitimate access rather than forcible or surreptitious taking. In , it is prosecuted under both federal statutes, such as 18 U.S.C. § 641 for public money or , and various state penal codes, with penalties scaling by the value of the misappropriated assets—often felonies exceeding $1,000 in amount. The essential elements required for conviction, which vary slightly by but share core components derived from principles, include:
  • Lawful possession or entrustment: The must have obtained control of the through a or trust relationship, such as an employee handling employer funds or an agent managing client assets, without initial to steal at the point of receipt.
  • Ownership by another: The must belong to a third party, not the , establishing the breach of external rights.
  • Intentional conversion or misappropriation: The must have deliberately used, transferred, or concealed the in a manner inconsistent with the entrustment, such as diverting funds to personal accounts.
  • Fraudulent intent: There must be proof of specific to deprive the owner permanently or for personal benefit, excluding mere or accidental loss, as distinguishes criminal liability from civil breach.
Prosecutors bear the burden of proving all elements beyond a , often relying on financial records, witness testimony, or to demonstrate the conversion's deliberateness. Failure to establish entrustment, as opposed to outright , results in charges shifting to , where possession is obtained unlawfully from the outset. Embezzlement is distinguished from other theft-related offenses primarily by the requirement of a pre-existing or trust relationship, whereby the perpetrator lawfully obtains possession of the before fraudulently converting it for personal use. This contrasts with general statutes, which encompass a broader range of unauthorized takings without necessitating initial lawful possession or a duty of trust. In jurisdictions following traditions, such as many U.S. states, embezzlement statutes explicitly target agents, employees, or bailees who abuse entrusted assets, emphasizing the breach of confidence over mere physical removal. A core distinction lies between embezzlement and larceny: larceny requires a trespassory taking— an initial unlawful seizure and asportation of another's tangible personal property with intent to deprive the owner permanently— whereas embezzlement involves no such trespass, as possession is consensual at the outset. For instance, a thief snatching a wallet from a pocket commits larceny through direct trespass, but an accountant diverting client funds after authorized access commits embezzlement by violating the terms of custody. This separation arose historically to address gaps in larceny laws, where servants or trustees could convert goods without "taking" them anew. Embezzlement also differs from , particularly schemes like , where the perpetrator uses to induce the victim to voluntarily transfer possession or to property. In , the occurs at the point of acquisition, often yielding to the deceiver, whereas embezzlement presupposes legitimate possession and focuses on subsequent misappropriation without transferring ownership initially. For example, wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 involves interstate deceptive schemes to defraud, but lacks the embezzlement-specific element of fiduciary conversion post-entrustment. Although both may involve intent to defraud, embezzlement's penalties often escalate with the trust betrayal, distinguishing it from standalone absent such a relationship. Unlike civil conversion, which merely requires wrongful dominion over chattels interfering with the owner's rights without criminal intent, embezzlement demands fraudulent intent and typically results in criminal liability due to the in protecting duties. by conversion, a related but narrower offense in some states like Georgia, mirrors embezzlement but may apply more broadly to bailees without emphasizing systemic . These distinctions ensure prosecutors charge based on the precise mechanism of wrongdoing, affecting evidentiary burdens and potential defenses like claim of right.

Historical Context

Origins in Common Law

In English common law, the foundational crime of larceny necessitated a trespassory taking—meaning an unauthorized physical interference with the owner's possession—accompanied by felonious intent at the precise moment of asportation, or carrying away. This strict requirement excluded scenarios where property was voluntarily delivered into the recipient's possession, such as to a servant, clerk, or bailee, who subsequently converted it to personal use through fraudulent means. Courts, bound by precedents like Carrier's Case (1473), which limited liability for bailees to civil trover rather than felony, could not extend larceny to such "continuing possession" conversions without legislative intervention, as the initial entrustment negated any trespass. To remedy this evidentiary and doctrinal , which enabled widespread amid expanding commerce and employment relations, introduced targeted statutes deeming certain conversions felonious. The earliest significant measure, 21 Hen. VIII c. 7 (1529), provided that a servant fraudulently carrying away goods entrusted by their master committed , effectively imputing constructive by recognizing the master's enduring legal possession despite physical delivery. This addressed servant embezzlement in household and trade contexts but left gaps for other fiduciaries; subsequent enactments followed, such as 39 Eliz. c. 4 (1597) for apprentices and factors, and piecemeal laws for bankers and attorneys, each specifying fraudulent conversion after lawful receipt as a or punishable by transportation or under the . The modern contours of embezzlement crystallized in the late 18th century with broader statutes like 39 Geo. III c. 85 (1799), which criminalized clerks' and servants' fraudulent application of over £1 in entrusted moneys or goods, responding to rising fiduciary frauds in banking and mercantile sectors. These laws differentiated embezzlement by emphasizing post-possession intent and breach of trust over initial taking, preserving larceny's core while enabling prosecution based on circumstantial evidence of conversion, such as falsified accounts. Consolidation occurred under the Larceny Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96), which unified disparate offenses into a distinct felony, requiring proof of entrustment, fraudulent intent, and misappropriation, thus embedding embezzlement as a staple of common law jurisdictions despite its statutory genesis. This evolution reflected pragmatic adaptation to economic realities, prioritizing property protection without retrofitting larceny's rigid elements.

Development and Codification

Embezzlement emerged as a distinct offense in to address a gap in larceny, which required a trespassory taking without lawful possession; property lawfully entrusted to a servant or agent, such as funds received in a fiduciary capacity, could not be prosecuted as larceny even if fraudulently converted. This limitation was starkly illustrated in the 1799 case of Rex v. Bazeley, where a , Joseph Bazeley, received a customer's deposit but absconded with it; the court acquitted him of larceny, ruling that the initial receipt negated the element of trespass. In direct response, enacted the Embezzlement Act 1799 (39 Geo. 3 c. 85), the first general statute criminalizing the fraudulent conversion of entrusted property by clerks or servants, punishable by transportation or imprisonment. This legislation targeted the rising commercial risks of the , where expanded trade and banking increased instances of misappropriation by trusted employees, extending liability to those in positions of custody without ownership. Subsequent 19th-century reforms consolidated and expanded these provisions amid broader efforts to rationalize the "" of capital offenses. The Larceny Act 1827 (7 & 8 Geo. 4 c. 29) integrated embezzlement with larceny offenses, setting a maximum penalty of 14 years' transportation for aggravated cases while distinguishing it based on the absence of initial . The Larceny Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict. c. 96) further codified embezzlement by systematizing penalties and elements, such as intent to defraud, across various relationships, reflecting legislative adaptation to industrial-scale and joint-stock companies. These acts marked a shift from fragmented statutes to more unified codes, though full consolidation awaited the Larceny Act 1916, which streamlined triable offenses before being superseded by the Theft Act 1968's broader theft definition. In the United States, states adopted similar codifications post-independence, often mirroring English statutes to prosecute breaches, as seen in North Carolina's 1871 embezzlement law.

Perpetration Methods

Traditional Techniques

Cash skimming and represented foundational techniques in pre-digital embezzlement, where insiders stole cash receipts before or after their recording in ledgers. Skimming occurred off-the-books, such as diverting unrecorded customer payments or , evading initial detection due to the absence of paper trails in systems. Larceny involved post-recording theft, like removing cash from registers after documentation, often concealed by voiding sales slips or falsifying reconciliations. These methods exploited manual cash-handling processes prevalent before automated controls, with skimming comprising a notable share of occupational frauds reported in forensic analyses. Lapping schemes targeted , a staple of manual bookkeeping eras, by applying later customer payments to earlier delinquent accounts to mask prior thefts. Perpetrators, often in billing or collections roles, rotated shortages across accounts, requiring escalating to maintain appearances until discrepancies grew unmanageable. This technique demanded intimate knowledge of paper-based receivable ledgers and customer payment patterns, originating from common practices in 19th- and early 20th-century commerce where verification relied on physical documents. Detection typically arose from customer complaints or aged account reviews, highlighting vulnerabilities in non-segregated duties. Fraudulent disbursements through billing schemes and check tampering formed another core category, involving forged or inflated paper documents to siphon funds. Billing fraud included submitting fictitious vendor invoices for goods never received, with perpetrators endorsing payments via shell entities or accomplices; this accounted for 22% of asset misappropriation incidents in examined cases. Check tampering encompassed altering payee names, forging endorsements, or issuing unauthorized checks from manual voucher systems, feasible in eras without digital signatures or electronic transfers. Payroll manipulations, such as adding phantom employees to handwritten or typed rosters, further enabled systematic , underscoring how traditional methods hinged on exploiting weak segregation of manual record-keeping and authorization.

Modern and Technological Variants

Computer embezzlement involves insiders, such as data processors or IT personnel, exploiting digital systems to misappropriate funds through sophisticated manipulations undetectable by manual audits. These methods leverage computerized , databases, and electronic transfer protocols, enabling perpetrators to alter records in real-time or siphon assets via automated processes. A primary technique is data diddling, where the offender modifies input data, processing logic, or output reports to bypass built-in controls, such as algorithms or trails, facilitating gradual thefts that accumulate without triggering alerts. For instance, an employee might reprogram software to inflate hours or divert fractions of transactions to personal accounts, exploiting the scale of digital volumes to mask anomalies. Another variant includes embedding logic bombs—delayed code that activates to delete evidence or execute transfers post-employment. Digital skimming extends traditional schemes by extracting sensitive account from enterprise databases for unauthorized resale or direct , often via SQL injections or privileged database queries by trusted users. In systems, insiders create phantom employees or authorize fictitious vendors through platforms like , routing payments to controlled entities; U.S. nonprofits reported such manipulations yielding millions in losses annually via automated billing cycles. Recent cases illustrate these risks: in July 2025, a former Truist Bank employee exploited internal access to sensitive digital records, transferring $195,000 from at least 70 customer accounts via unauthorized electronic withdrawals. Similarly, tech sector insiders have used remote access tools to falsify expense reports or divert procurement funds, as seen in a 2008 ING Bank case where an employee embezzled $8.5 million through manipulated digital ledgers before detection via anomalous transaction patterns. Emerging tools like AI-assisted invoice generation enable forging digital documents indistinguishable from legitimate ones, lowering barriers for insiders to inflate reimbursements or fabricate asset in blockchain-tracked environments, though such applications remain under empirical scrutiny for in embezzlement contexts. wallets integrated with corporate systems pose additional vectors, allowing rapid conversion of embezzled to anonymous tokens, evading traditional tracing until analytics intervene.

Perpetrator Motivations

Psychological and Behavioral Drivers

Embezzlement often stems from the interplay of psychological pressures, cognitive rationalizations, and behavioral predispositions, as encapsulated in the fraud triangle model developed by criminologist Donald Cressey in his 1953 study of convicted embezzlers. Cressey identified three core elements: a non-shareable financial pressure motivating the act, perceived opportunity to commit it without detection, and rationalization to neutralize moral inhibitions. Pressures typically involve acute personal financial distress, such as mounting debts from , medical expenses, or maintaining an unsustainable lifestyle, which the individual views as insoluble through legitimate means. Rationalization represents a key psychological mechanism, where perpetrators employ mental justifications to reconcile the act with their as trustworthy employees, such as deeming the embezzlement a temporary "" repayable later or retaliation against an unfair . This draws on reduction, allowing individuals to preserve a positive despite violating duties. Empirical studies of white-collar offenders confirm that such neutralizations are prevalent, with embezzlers often exhibiting traits like low guilt aversion, enabling them to misappropriate funds entrusted to them without immediate remorse. Behaviorally, embezzlers frequently display , low , and sensation-seeking tendencies, which correlate with decisions to engage in financial deviance under stress. factors, including and reduced , further predispose individuals by fostering entitlement and diminished foresight of consequences. Addictions, particularly to , amplify these drivers by creating escalating financial voids that propel repeated embezzlement, as seen in qualitative analyses of offenders who prioritized short-term relief over long-term risks. While the fraud triangle remains influential, critiques highlight its underemphasis on individual capability and learned behaviors from prior minor infractions, suggesting embezzlement as a progressive escalation rather than isolated impulses.

Opportunity and Risk Factors

Opportunity in embezzlement primarily arises from the perpetrator's lawful possession of entrusted assets coupled with perceived low risk of detection due to inadequate safeguards. This aligns with the opportunity component of the fraud triangle, originally formulated by criminologist Donald Cressey based on interviews with 200 convicted embezzlers, who universally held positions of fiduciary trust that facilitated undetected violations. Cressey's analysis revealed that such access, absent robust verification mechanisms, enables the conversion of assets for personal use without immediate accountability. Empirical evidence from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) underscores how organizational deficiencies amplify these opportunities: in their 2024 global study of 1,921 occupational fraud cases, asset misappropriation schemes—including via billing, check tampering, and payroll fraud—accounted for 86% of incidents, with median losses of $100,000 per case. Lack of key controls exacerbated losses; for example, organizations without surprise audits faced median losses 34% higher than those with them, while absence of formal codes of conduct correlated with 67% greater financial impact. Small organizations, often with fewer than 100 employees, reported higher per-scheme losses ($150,000 median) due to concentrated authority and weak segregation of duties, where individuals frequently handle authorization, recording, and custody of assets simultaneously. Risk factors heightening embezzlement propensity include perpetrator placement in high-access roles, such as executives or owners, who accounted for 23% of cases but inflicted losses exceeding $600,000—five times that of lower-level employees—owing to broader authority and reduced oversight. Industries with high cash flows or inventory, like retail and , exhibit elevated s, as do entities during economic downturns when oversight may weaken; ACFE links 53% of recent cases to pandemic-induced factors like , which diminished physical monitoring and increased reliance on unverified digital transactions. Perceived low detection , reinforced by delayed reporting (median 12 months from onset), further incentivizes perpetration, as only 15% of schemes were uncovered via proactive audits.

Notable Instances

Pre-20th Century Cases

One prominent early 19th-century case involved Henry Fauntleroy, a partner in the London banking firm Marsh, Sibbald and Company, who systematically embezzled client trust funds starting around 1815 by forging trustees' signatures on stock transfer documents to withdraw and redirect proceeds into personal accounts. Over nearly a decade, Fauntleroy misappropriated an estimated £360,000, equivalent to millions in modern terms, while maintaining an extravagant lifestyle that included lavish spending on mistresses and properties. His scheme unraveled in September 1824 when a routine revealed discrepancies in a specific transaction involving £11,900 in forged withdrawals; he was arrested, tried at the , and convicted of with intent to defraud, a capital offense under contemporary that encompassed embezzlement-like acts by entrusted agents. Fauntleroy was publicly hanged on November 30, 1824, outside , marking one of the last executions for financial in Britain and highlighting the era's harsh deterrence against white-collar theft amid banking instability. In mid-19th-century and Britain, John Sadleir, a politician and chairman of the Tipperary Joint Stock Bank, orchestrated embezzlement through falsified balance sheets and unauthorized loans to himself and associates, draining the institution of hundreds of thousands of pounds by the mid-1850s. As a and head of multiple financial ventures, Sadleir exploited his position to cover deficits from speculative failures, leading to the bank's collapse in 1856 and widespread investor losses. Exposed amid parliamentary inquiries into banking fraud, he fled to , ingested , and died by on November 16, 1856, evading prosecution but underscoring vulnerabilities in joint-stock banking oversight before stricter regulations like the Limited Liability Act of 1855. Earlier instances in the often fell under broader statutes rather than distinct embezzlement offenses, which were formalized in via the 1799 Act targeting servants and clerks who converted entrusted goods or funds. For example, prosecutions of employees for misappropriating trade goods or cash equivalents were common, with cases like those in the involving factors forging bills of exchange to siphon profits, resulting in transportation or hanging under charges. These reflected the growing commercial economy's reliance on fiduciary trust, where embezzlement blurred with , prompting legislative expansions to address non-violent by insiders.

20th and 21st Century High-Profile Examples

, the longtime comptroller and treasurer of , executed one of the largest municipal embezzlements in U.S. history by diverting $53.7 million from city accounts between 1990 and 2012. She accomplished this through a fictitious bank account disguised as a capital development fund, from which she issued over 200 fraudulent checks disguised as vendor payments, primarily to finance her quarter horse breeding operation and personal luxuries including luxury vehicles and . Crundwell pleaded guilty to wire fraud in November 2012 and received a sentence of 19 years and 7 months in federal prison in February 2013, the maximum nearly allowed under federal guidelines. L. Dennis Kozlowski, chief executive of Tyco International from 1992 to 2002, misappropriated roughly $150 million from the company via unauthorized bonuses, loans, and expense reimbursements to support an extravagant lifestyle that included multimillion-dollar New York apartments and lavish parties. Alongside Mark Swartz, Kozlowski falsified records to conceal the transfers, contributing to Tyco's stock collapse amid broader irregularities. Convicted in June 2005 on 22 counts including grand larceny, , and , he was sentenced to 8⅓ to 25 years in prison, serving about 6½ years before in 2014. British media proprietor Robert Maxwell stripped approximately £440 million from the pension funds of his companies, including the Mirror Group Newspapers, in the late 1980s and early 1990s to prop up his failing empire amid heavy debts. The scheme involved unauthorized loans and transfers from self-administered pension trusts, leaving deficits that affected over 30,000 beneficiaries upon Maxwell's death in November 1991, after which the fraud was uncovered through insolvency probes. No criminal charges were filed posthumously, but the scandal prompted regulatory reforms in UK pension oversight, with the government contributing over £100 million to cover shortfalls. The (1MDB) affair, unfolding from 2009 onward, saw over $4.5 billion embezzled from Malaysia's through shell companies, overvalued assets, and kickbacks, with proceeds funding luxury assets, political campaigns, and Hollywood films. Former Prime Minister , who chaired the fund's advisory board, faced charges of and for receiving at least $700 million in tainted transfers; he was convicted in 2020 but had some graft charges overturned on appeal in 2021, with ongoing civil recoveries. U.S. authorities seized and repatriated $1.4 billion in assets by 2024, highlighting lapses in international banking controls.

Prevention and Detection

Internal Safeguards

Internal safeguards encompass organizational policies, procedures, and structural measures designed to deter embezzlement by limiting opportunities for asset misappropriation and enabling early detection of irregularities. These controls, rooted in frameworks like the COSO model, emphasize preventive mechanisms such as duty separation and oversight, which empirical studies show reduce incidence by up to 50% in implementing entities. Segregation of duties stands as the foundational safeguard, requiring that no single employee authorizes, records, and custodies assets in a transaction cycle; for instance, the individual initiating a cannot also approve or reconcile it. This principle, endorsed by accounting standards bodies, mitigates risks and has proven effective in cases where unchecked authority enabled prolonged schemes, as evidenced by forensic reviews of detected embezzlements. Additional controls include mandatory dual approvals for disbursements exceeding predefined thresholds, such as $5,000, and routine reconciliations of statements against internal ledgers performed by independent personnel. measures, like locked storage for blank checks and restricted access to vaults via keycard systems, further complement these by preventing unauthorized handling. Organizations also implement periodic internal audits, targeting high-risk areas like and , with frequency scaled to entity size—quarterly for larger firms—to identify anomalies such as unexplained variances exceeding 1-2% of transaction volumes. A formalized code of ethics, disseminated through mandatory , reinforces these by cultivating , with data from fraud surveys indicating that entities with such programs experience 30% fewer incidents. Risk assessments, conducted annually or post-significant changes, prioritize vulnerabilities like remote work environments, informing tailored controls such as transaction logging software that flags overrides. While no system eliminates risk entirely—given human factors like override capabilities—these layered safeguards, when rigorously enforced, demonstrably curb embezzlement's prevalence and scale.

Auditing and Investigative Approaches

Auditing for embezzlement involves systematic reviews of financial records and internal controls to identify irregularities indicative of asset misappropriation. Internal auditors typically employ procedures such as segregation of duties, where no single individual handles all aspects of a , to mitigate risks of undetected . Surprise audits and reconciliations of statements with ledgers further enhance detection by revealing discrepancies that perpetrators might otherwise conceal. These methods focus on high-risk areas like handling and , where embezzlement schemes often originate. Forensic accounting extends traditional auditing by incorporating investigative techniques tailored to uncover deliberate concealment. Practitioners analyze transaction patterns using tools like , which detects anomalies in numerical data distributions that deviate from expected logarithmic patterns in legitimate records. Ratio analysis compares financial metrics over time to spot inconsistencies, such as unexplained shrinkage or inflated expense reimbursements signaling skimming. examines electronic trails, including email metadata and server logs, to trace unauthorized transfers. Investigations often begin with planning based on initial tips, followed by record reviews and structured interviews to corroborate evidence without alerting suspects prematurely. Key red flags prompting deeper probes include behavioral indicators like employee reluctance to delegate duties or take vacations, which may allow ongoing cover-ups, and financial signals such as frequent or payments to unfamiliar vendors. Lifestyle changes, including sudden wealth displays or workplace creditor visits, correlate with in empirical studies of cases. Data , increasingly integrated into audits, employ statistical models to flag outliers in transaction volumes or vendor concentrations that exceed norms. While audits alone detect only a of schemes—often relying on tips for initial alerts—combining these approaches with whistleblower hotlines improves recovery rates in confirmed incidents.

Consequences and Enforcement

Criminal Penalties by Jurisdiction

In the United States, federal penalties for embezzlement of public funds or property under 18 U.S.C. § 641 distinguish between misdemeanor and felony offenses based on value: amounts of $1,000 or less carry up to one year in prison and fines up to $100,000, while amounts exceeding $1,000 are felonies punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and fines up to $250,000. State laws treat embezzlement as a felony when the value surpasses thresholds like $1,000, with sentences scaling by amount and jurisdiction; for instance, in New York, embezzlement over $1 million constitutes a Class B felony with a maximum of 25 years imprisonment. Additional factors such as prior convictions or abuse of public trust can enhance penalties under federal sentencing guidelines, often resulting in restitution and supervised release. In the , embezzlement by employees is typically prosecuted as theft under the , which imposes a maximum penalty of 7 years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine, or as fraud by abuse of position under section 4 of the , carrying up to 10 years imprisonment on indictment. Sentencing Council guidelines for fraud offenses categorize harm and culpability, with high-value cases (e.g., over £1 million) starting at 4-5 years custody and escalating to 15 years or life for the most egregious, unlimited fines, and confiscation orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Canadian law addresses embezzlement primarily through the Criminal Code's theft provisions (section 334), where offenses over $5,000 are indictable with maximum penalties of 10 years , alongside fines and mandatory restitution; breaches of trust by public officers (section 122) add up to 14 years. Courts consider aggravating factors like the offender's position of authority, with sentences often including or conditional sentences for lesser amounts under $5,000 (up to 2 years less a day). In Australia, penalties vary by state and territory but generally align with federal frameworks under the Criminal Code Act 1995 for dishonest conduct; embezzlement by clerks or servants in , for example, incurs up to 2 years imprisonment for values over $5,000 or 100 penalty units ($11,000 fine), while broader or in higher courts can reach 10 years. Federal cases involving corporations or interstate elements under the impose fines up to $1.1 million for individuals or 10 years imprisonment, emphasizing deterrence through .

Prosecution Challenges and Deterrence Efficacy

Prosecutors in embezzlement cases encounter substantial evidentiary hurdles, foremost among them proving criminal beyond a , which demands demonstration that the knowingly converted entrusted for unauthorized personal use rather than through mere or error. Circumstantial evidence, such as falsified or unusual fund transfers, often substitutes for direct proof, but defendants can rebut it by arguing legitimate business or accounting mistakes, complicating convictions. Federal cases under 18 U.S.C. § 641 further amplify challenges by requiring precise linkage between the accused, the specific embezzled , and its wrongful disposition, where incomplete or commingled funds obscure trails. Another challenge arises from statutes of limitations in concealed embezzlement cases, particularly those involving business partners. Tolling doctrines such as the discovery rule and fraudulent concealment can extend claims potentially back to the start of the embezzlement pattern—10–15 years or more—if filed soon after discovery, provided there is evidence that the wrongdoing was actively hidden, preventing earlier detection. However, older claims are harder to substantiate due to lost records and the requirement for reasonable certainty in damages quantification. Conviction statistics underscore these difficulties: among white-collar crime arrestees, including those for embezzlement (which accounts for approximately 8% of such arrests), 88% face prosecution, but only 74% secure convictions—a rate marginally below that for general property crimes (76%). Federal white-collar prosecutions have declined over 10% from 2024 levels as of March 2025, reflecting resource constraints and evidentiary complexities that favor bargains over trials. Low clearance rates for embezzlement, with arrest rates far below those for violent offenses, exacerbate prosecutorial selectivity, often prioritizing high-value cases amid limited expertise. Regarding deterrence, empirical analyses reveal weak efficacy of prosecutions against embezzlement, as rational offenders prioritize low detection odds—typically under 5% for fraud-related offenses—over penalty severity. Harsher sentences yield diminishing marginal returns, with studies showing no significant reduction from extended incarceration in white-collar contexts, where post-release opportunities and reputational costs already constrain reoffending more than formal sanctions. of apprehension, rather than length, theoretically deters more effectively, yet embezzlement's embedded nature in trusted roles sustains high opportunity amid lax internal controls, rendering sporadic prosecutions insufficient to alter cost-benefit calculations. Declining enforcement trends further erode perceived risks, as evidenced by sustained embezzlement incidents despite statutory enhancements post-scandals like .

Impacts

Economic Costs

Embezzlement, as a primary form of asset within occupational , generates direct financial losses estimated at a median of $145,000 per incident globally, based on analysis of over 1,000 cases investigated between fiscal years 2022 and 2023. These schemes, which involve the or misuse of entrusted assets such as or , comprise 88% of reported occupational fraud cases and contributed to total identified losses exceeding $3.1 billion in the studied dataset, though actual figures are likely higher due to underreporting. In the United States, employee theft—often synonymous with embezzlement in contexts—inflicts annual losses of approximately $18 billion on employers, surpassing damages from external . Small and medium-sized enterprises face disproportionate impacts, with median embezzlement losses averaging $290,000 per case, frequently leading to as these firms lack robust recovery mechanisms. Broader occupational , dominated by embezzlement-like misappropriations, equates to about 5% of organizations' annual revenues worldwide, amounting to trillions in aggregate economic drain when scaled across global GDP. Recovery remains limited, with affected entities reclaiming only 14 cents per lost on average, exacerbating the net burden through unrecovered capital that could otherwise fund operations or growth. Indirect costs amplify these figures, including investigation expenses averaging $150,000 per case, legal proceedings, heightened insurance premiums, and productivity disruptions from internal audits and employee turnover. Reputational harm can elevate borrowing costs and deter investors, while diverted managerial focus hinders strategic initiatives; in severe instances, embezzlement triggers over 50% of small business failures by eroding liquidity and trust. Public sector embezzlement adds further strain, with U.S. federal fraud losses—partly attributable to misappropriation—ranging from $233 billion to $521 billion annually, straining taxpayer resources and public service efficiency.

Societal and Organizational Ramifications

Embezzlement profoundly disrupts by eroding internal trust and diminishing employee . When insiders exploit positions of , remaining staff often grapple with heightened suspicion toward colleagues and , fostering a climate of that hampers collaboration and productivity. This can precipitate increased turnover, as loyal employees seek environments perceived as more secure, while survivors face elevated stress from potential layoffs or measures implemented to offset losses. In cases of occupational involving asset misappropriation—such as embezzlement—organizations report behavioral red flags in 84% of perpetrators, like living beyond means, which retrospectively signals systemic oversight failures and further demoralizes teams. Reputational damage extends beyond internal dynamics, as public disclosure of embezzlement tarnishes an organization's image, deterring clients, investors, and partners who question governance integrity. Many entities opt against criminal referrals—34% in analyzed fraud cases cite fear of adverse publicity—to mitigate media scrutiny and stock value erosion, yet this reticence perpetuates vulnerability and invites further exploitation. Operationally, undetected schemes persist for a median of 12 months, diverting executive time and resources toward forensic audits and remedial controls rather than strategic growth, with asset misappropriation schemes comprising 89% of occupational fraud incidents. Such disruptions compel costly overhauls in policies and hiring, straining smaller firms disproportionately. Societally, embezzlement as a form of undermines confidence in institutions reliant on , such as nonprofits and public agencies, where breaches amplify perceptions of elite impunity and distort for communal benefits. High-profile instances exacerbate public cynicism, contributing to diminished and charitable contributions, as donors withhold support amid fears of misuse. This erosion fosters a descriptive norm where widespread insider malfeasance normalizes ethical lapses, particularly in low-trust environments, with experimental evidence showing increased tolerance for when such acts appear commonplace. Embezzlement carries a unique surpassing street due to its violation of entrusted roles, imposing barriers to perpetrators' reintegration—such as employment blacklisting and community ostracism—that reinforce deterrence but highlight unequal punitive scrutiny compared to lower-class crimes. Globally, occupational fraud losses exceed $5 trillion annually, straining economies through indirect burdens on taxpayers and service provision.

References

  1. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1005-embezzlement
  2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/embezzlement
  3. https://www.lawinfo.com/resources/criminal-defense/embezzlement/what-is-the-difference-between-embezzlement-and-larceny.html
  4. https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/theft-crimes/embezzlement/
  5. https://cahillcriminaldefense.com/what-are-the-4-elements-common-to-embezzlement/
  6. https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-charges/embezzlement.html
  7. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1638-embezzlement-government-property-18-usc-641
  8. https://www.avoidjail.net/blog/2022/june/these-are-the-four-main-elements-of-embezzlement/
  9. https://www.defenselawyerfederalcrime.com/embezzlement/embezzlement-vs-larceny-false-pretenses/
  10. https://www.devorelawoffice.com/what-is-the-difference-between-larceny-and-embezzlement/
  11. https://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/embezzlement-vs-larceny-by-employee/
  12. https://www.defenselawyerfederalcrime.com/embezzlement/embezzlement-vs-fraud/
  13. https://www.callhancock.com/2024/03/08/fraud-vs-embezzlement/
  14. https://www.thedefenders.com.au/key-differences-between-embezzlement-fraud/
  15. https://www.lawshelf.com/coursewarecontentview/embezzlement/
  16. https://www.peachstatelawyer.com/georgia-criminal-law-theft-by-conversion-or-embezzlement/
  17. https://www.nathanslaw.com/articles/difference-between-embezzlement-larceny/
  18. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1006-larceny
  19. https://www.britannica.com/topic/embezzlement
  20. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1641&context=mlr
  21. https://digitalcommons.law.wne.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1705&context=lawreview
  22. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/embezzlement
  23. https://sk.sagepub.com/ency/edvol/download/socialhistory-crime-punishment/chpt/embezzlement.pdf
  24. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01440365.2024.2320967
  25. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00076791.2017.1339691
  26. https://academic.oup.com/book/35364/chapter/301001539
  27. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1916/50/enacted
  28. https://www.carolinajournal.com/supreme-court-clarifies-law-on-theft/
  29. https://yellowbook-cpe.com/misappropriation-of-cash-larceny-skimming.html
  30. https://www.growthforce.com/blog/how-to-prevent-skimming-fraud
  31. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lappingscheme.asp
  32. https://www.billtrust.com/resources/blog/accounts-receivable-fraud
  33. https://www.valid8financial.com/resource/forensic-accountants-exposing-lapping-schemes-faster
  34. https://www.eisneramper.com/insights/litigation-services/fraudulent-disbursements-billing-schemes-1116/
  35. https://fastercapital.com/topics/common-techniques-used-by-embezzlers-to-steal.html
  36. https://www.teramind.co/blog/asset-misappropriation/
  37. https://www.pgalegal.net/blog/2017/10/what-is-computer-embezzlement/
  38. https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-48000-computer-fraud
  39. https://www.boardeffect.com/blog/nonprofit-embezzlement-cases/
  40. https://www.justice.gov/usao-edva/pr/former-bank-insider-pleads-guilty-stealing-money-customer-accounts
  41. https://www.voquzlabs.com/blog/4-high-profile-cases-of-insider-fraud-revealed
  42. https://deandorton.com/fraud-in-the-age-of-ai-how-generative-ai-tools-are-lowering-the-barrier-to-deception/
  43. https://www.kroll.com/en/publications/tracing-crime-with-technology-future-of-investigations
  44. https://study.sagepub.com/system/files/Cressey%2C_Donald_R._-_Embezzlement_and_White-Collar_Crime.pdf
  45. https://www.cpajournal.com/2024/06/10/the-fraud-diamond/
  46. https://researchportal.port.ac.uk/files/27929154/The_Fraud_Triangle_origin_and_meaning_pure.docx.pdf
  47. https://trustpair.com/blog/the-fraud-triangle-understanding-fraud-risk/
  48. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353735399_The_Psychology_of_Embezzlement_The_Art_of_Control_and_Intervention
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167268119300320
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9578465/
  51. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1476&context=dissertations
  52. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14459795.2016.1214165
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0155998215000228
  54. https://www.acfe.com/about-the-acfe/newsroom-for-media/press-releases/press-release-detail?s=2024-Report-to-the-Nations
  55. https://www.acfe.com/acfe-insights-blog/blog-detail?s=acfe-releases-rttn-2024
  56. https://www.anchin.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024-ACFE-Occupational-Fraud-Report.pdf
  57. https://www.seldenfox.com/our-insights/articles/2024-acfe-report-occupational-fraud/
  58. https://www.njcpa.org/article/2024/09/20/preventing-and-detecting-occupational-fraud
  59. https://moneyweek.com/economy/people/601826/great-frauds-in-history-the-fauntleroy-embezzlement
  60. https://www.londonmuseum.org.uk/collections/v/object-101276/an-account-of-the-trial-execution-and-dying-behaviour-of-henry-fauntleroy-esq/
  61. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/CalmView/Record.aspx?src=CalmView.Persons&id=DS%252FUK%252F45&pos=1
  62. https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2012/08/guides-to-the-gallows/
  63. https://www.thoughtco.com/great-swindles-of-the-19th-century-1774025
  64. https://researchportal.northumbria.ac.uk/files/135480847/More_Than_a_Species_of_Larceny_Fraud_Laws_and_Their_Uses_in_the_Eighteenth_Century.pdf
  65. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndil/pr/former-dixon-comptroller-rita-crundwell-sentenced-nearly-20-years-federal-prison-537
  66. https://www.fbi.gov/chicago/press-releases/2012/former-dixon-comptroller-rita-crundwell-pleads-guilty-to-federal-fraud-charge-admits-stealing-53-million-from-city
  67. https://nypost.com/2013/12/05/ex-tyco-ceo-stole-more-than-150m-out-of-pure-greed/
  68. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna9399803
  69. https://globalcapitalism.history.ox.ac.uk/files/case29-robertmaxwellsexpectationsgappdf
  70. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/25/1mdb-scandal-explained-a-tale-of-malaysias-missing-billions
  71. https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/justice-department-repatriates-14b-misappropriated-1mdb-funds-malaysia
  72. https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/issues/2023/aug/preventing-fraud-with-internal-controls-a-refresher/
  73. https://www.acfe.com/acfe-insights-blog/blog-detail?s=top-internal-controls-that-reduce-fraud-losses-2020
  74. https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/strengthening-internal-controls-prevent-fraud
  75. https://dembojones.com/segregation-of-duties-can-prevent-fraud/
  76. https://www.caseware.com/us/resources/blog/top-four-internal-controls-to-prevent-fraud/
  77. https://omh.ny.gov/omhweb/resources/internal_control_top_ten.html
  78. https://www.lbmc.com/blog/internal-controls-prevent-fraud/
  79. https://www.corporatecomplianceinsights.com/trust-but-verify-warning-signs-internal-controls/
  80. https://ig.arkansas.gov/internal-audit/internal-control/relationship-between-internal-controls-fraud/
  81. https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS2401
  82. https://www.theiia.org/globalassets/site/content/guidance/recommended/supplemental/practice-guides/internal-auditing-and-fraud-3rd-edition/gpg_internal_auditing_and_fraud_3rd_edition_2024_rev.pdf
  83. https://savageaccountancyandvaluation.com/forensic-accounting-carmel/
  84. https://www.viclarity.com/us/resources/blog/the-5-essential-steps-of-internal-fraud-investigation
  85. https://www.acfe.com/acfe-insights-blog/blog-detail?s=behavioral-red-flags-of-fraud
  86. https://www.frazierdeeter.com/insights/article/lessons-from-the-field-common-red-flags-of-suspected-financial-misconduct/
  87. https://internalaudit.wayne.edu/fraud
  88. https://financialcrimeacademy.org/strategies-for-fraud-detection/
  89. https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/running-nonprofit/nonprofit-audit-guidec/myth-audits-uncover-fraud
  90. https://www.thefederalcriminalattorneys.com/public-money-or-property
  91. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1661-protection-government-property-embezzlement-public-funds
  92. https://www.new-york-lawyers.org/practice-areas/white-collar-crimes/new-york-theft-lawyer/new-york-embezzlement-penalties/
  93. https://www.defenselawyerfederalcrime.com/embezzlement/penalties-for-embezzlement/
  94. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/fraud-act-2006
  95. https://sentencingcouncil.org.uk/media/oz3nw1qq/fraud_bribery_and_money_laundering_offences_-_definitive_guideline.pdf
  96. https://elhaddadavocats.com/en/white-collar/embezzlement/
  97. https://rcmp.ca/en/federal-policing/economic-and-financial-crime/corruption
  98. https://www.aclawgroup.com.au/criminal-law/offences/dishonesty-offences/embezzlement/
  99. https://sydneycriminaldefenceandtrafficlawyers.com.au/blog/understanding-embezzlement-in-nsw-a-guide-for-the-accused-clerk/
  100. https://www.thedefenders.com.au/how-serious-are-embezzlement-charges-in-australia/
  101. https://www.baezlawfirm.com/proving-intent-in-white-collar-crimes-challenges-for-prosecutors-and-defendants/
  102. https://www.thevannoyfirm.com/the-importance-of-intent-in-embezzlement-charges/
  103. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-1657-proof-problems-section-641-prosecutions
  104. https://washingtondccriminallawyer.net/dc-federal-criminal-lawyer/embezzlement/evidence/
  105. https://accidentprosllp.com/discovery-rule-understanding-its-role-in-legal-claims/
  106. https://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/title-9/chapter-3/article-5/section-9-3-96-time-of-commencement-of-actions-for-fraud/
  107. https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/tracking-offenders-white-collar-crime
  108. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/to-wcc.pdf
  109. https://tracreports.org/reports/760/
  110. https://ucr.fbi.gov/nibrs/nibrs_wcc.pdf
  111. https://waynelawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/61WayneLRev27.pdf
  112. https://mfacc.utoronto.ca/media/1320/download?inline
  113. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=jbtl
  114. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1154&context=klj
  115. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/employee-theft
  116. https://coonen-law.com/what-small-business-owners-should-know-about-embezzlement/
  117. https://www.nicb.org/news/news-releases/fraud-costs-americans-billions-dollars-annually
  118. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/embezzlement.asp
  119. https://www.gao.gov/fraud-improper-payments
  120. https://rezolvex.com/embezzlement-effect/
  121. https://www.acfe.com/report-to-the-nations/2024
  122. https://www.caseiq.com/resources/employee-embezzlement-understanding-a-white-collar-crime
  123. https://lauthinvestigations.com/understanding-the-organizational-impact-of-white-collar-crime/
  124. https://www.longdom.org/open-access/the-impact-of-white-collar-crimes-on-society-1102406.html
  125. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0303558
  126. https://www.ebpfirm.com/blog/why-embezzlement-carries-more-social-stigma-than-other-theft/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.