Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

Embezzlement charges

I worked for a credit union where I gave out a cashiers check for $4600 to a person not on the account. I did not spend the money but I did know that the person was not on the account and that they would be withdrawing money prior to the transaction taking place. I admitted what I did to my supervisor and gave a written statement to police. I was arrested for the charges almost 2 years after the incident took place. I am now going through legal proceedings for embezzlement charges penal code 503. I am scheduled to attend the pre trial hearing this week and I have spoken with a public defender. It is known to all parties that I did not spend the money. I only gave it out but I was advised that because the other party has not been found that I will have to take the heat. The Public defender advised me that I have only 3 options in this case. 1. Take the felony, pay the fine, and after completion of payments I can have the sentence reduced. 2. Plead, not guily, go to trial, and spend 1 year in prison after conviction. 3. Plead guilty and take the sentence given. I am unsure if my envolvement constitutes felony embezzlement charges. I was also told that if the other party is caught he will have no consequences. Does this sound right?


Asked on 5/11/05, 10:46 pm

1 Answer from Attorneys
Edward Hoffman Law Offices of Edward A. Hoffman

Re: Embezzlement charges

The definition of embezzlement involves taking the money but does not involve spending it. (There are other elements of the crime, but this one seems to be what you are asking about.) What would be the point of making it a crime to spend the money but not to take it?

You removed the money from an account which belonged to one of your employer's customers and, for no apparent reason, gave it to someone you knew had no right to it. That is enough, and I'd say you're guilty based on the limited facts you have provided.

Whether the other party will face any charges is not relevant to your case. You are accountable for your actions and he is accountable for his. You have not given enough facts for me to say what crime the other man may have committed, but he did not commit embezzlement since the credit union had never entrusted him with access to its customer's funds.

Admitting to your supervisor what you had done was a staggeringly bad decision. The only thing worse you could have done was to give a written statement to the police -- which you also did. The prosecutor will have a field day with this case given your repeated acknowledgment of your wrongful actions. You couldn't have put yourself in a worse position to defend this case if you'd tried.

Your public defender has very little he can do to help you now that you have tied the noose around your own neck and stepped onto the platform. This is why he has such pessimistic advice for you.

I'm not sure why you think you have three options, since there seems to be no difference between the first and third you described. "Taking the felony" is the same thing as pleading guilty. Your lawyer is in a much better position than I am to say what kind of sentence you might get if you plead guilty, but keep in mind that you are not in a very good position to plea bargain for a lighter sentence.

You should listen to you attorney. And if you get into trouble like this in the future, keep your mouth shut until you get a lawyer.

Read more
Answered on 5/11/05, 11:14 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Criminal Law questions and answers in California