Legal Question in Criminal Law in Missouri

Since when does a insurance company need a good reason to do something to make or save them money. Most insurers think they run the world. Many threaten law suits and raise spurious defenses to litigation everyday. It does not mean that they always win. The truth is what it is. However, the evidence to prove theft in a civil suit is not always the same as in a criminal prosecution. One can get a civil judgmetn where the prosecutor chose nto to proceed. If your friend did not take the money, and there is an insurance company saying she did, then she should consult directly with counsel immediately. If the comapny had evidence that she stole money, don't you think they would have raised it in the appeal of their unemployment denial?

Good luck

Civil burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence, (only approx. 51%). Criminal case burden is much higher with beyond a reasonable doubt. Think OJ being acquitted criminally, but still losing millions in civil liability as a famous lay example. Just because the prosecutor chose not to proceed with the case in the criminal setting does not preclude an insurance company from attempting to subrogate their money back from her that they paid out if they think they can convince a judge or jury that it's 51% likely she did do it. Winning the civil benefits hearing is a good sign but does not dispose of the claim against her. She had better get a lawyer to vigorously defend her. Insurance defense lawyers are cut throat and will eat her alive pro se without good representation, regardless of what you think of the merits of their case against her. Please do not underestimate the situation and do get competent counsel to defend you.