Embezzlement

In Minnesota, embezzlement is a form of theft that involves the unlawful taking of money or property that has been entrusted to an individual’s care, often in a position of trust or fiduciary duty. It is a serious crime with severe penalties, depending on the value of the embezzled property and other circumstances surrounding the case. Here’s an overview of embezzlement laws in Minnesota, along with possible defenses to such charges.

Embezzlement in Minnesota

Definition of Embezzlement

• Embezzlement is a crime that involves a person fraudulently taking or converting property or money that has been entrusted to them.
• Unlike theft, embezzlement occurs when the property or funds were legally entrusted to the defendant, but the defendant misappropriates or diverts it for personal use.

In Minnesota, embezzlement falls under the broader category of theft and is often treated as theft by swindle or theft by false representation. The specific laws governing theft, including embezzlement, are found in Minn. Stat. § 609.52.

Key Elements of Embezzlement:

1. Entrustment of property: The defendant must have been entrusted with the property or funds.
2. Intentional taking or conversion: The defendant must have fraudulently taken or converted the property for their own use.
3. Without the consent of the owner: The defendant takes the property without the owner’s permission, and typically with the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently.

Example:

• A bookkeeper at a company regularly manages the company’s financial accounts and is entrusted with client payments. If the bookkeeper takes money from the accounts for personal use without the company’s knowledge, it would be considered embezzlement.

Penalties for Embezzlement in Minnesota

The penalties for embezzlement vary depending on the value of the property or money involved and the circumstances of the crime. Minnesota theft statutes differentiate penalties based on the value of the embezzled property.

Theft of Property or Funds (Minn. Stat. § 609.52)

1. Property Value Less than $500 (Misdemeanor):
   • Penalty: Up to 90 days in jail and/or fine up to $1,000.
2. Property Value Between $500 and $1,000 (Gross Misdemeanor):
   • Penalty: Up to 1 year in jail and/or fine up to $3,000.
3. Property Value Between $1,000 and $5,000 (Felony):
   • Penalty: Up to 5 years in prison and/or fine up to $10,000.
4. Property Value Between $5,000 and $35,000 (Felony):
   • Penalty: Up to 10 years in prison and/or fine up to $20,000.
5. Property Value Over $35,000 (Felony):
   • Penalty: Up to 20 years in prison and/or fine up to $100,000.

If the embezzlement involves public funds, corporate funds, or other aggravating circumstances, the penalties may be harsher.

Defenses to Embezzlement in Minnesota

There are several potential defenses to embezzlement charges in Minnesota. Some of the most common defenses include:

1. Lack of Intent to Steal

• Definition: A key element of embezzlement is the intent to defraud. The defendant must have had the intent to permanently deprive the owner of their property.
• Defense: The defendant can argue that they did not intend to steal the property or funds and that the taking was an accident or mistake.
• Example: A bookkeeper who accidentally made an error in transferring funds, believing it was part of a legitimate business transaction, may argue that there was no fraudulent intent.

2. Lack of Entrustment

• Definition: Embezzlement only applies when the defendant was entrusted with the property or funds.
• Defense: The defendant can argue that they were not actually entrusted with the property in question or that they did not have the authority to handle or control the funds in the way alleged.
• Example: A defendant may argue that they did not have the legal right to access or control the funds and were not entrusted with them in the first place.

3. Consent or Authorization

• Definition: If the defendant can show that the property or funds were taken with the owner’s consent or that there was some form of authorization, they may be able to argue that no embezzlement occurred.
• Defense: The defendant may argue that they had permission from the employer, client, or another party to use or access the property or funds.
• Example: A person might argue they were authorized to use company funds for business-related expenses, but the employer misunderstood the purpose of the transactions.

4. Mistake or Accident

• Definition: In some cases, the defendant might argue that the act of taking the property was a mistake or accident and was not done with criminal intent.
• Defense: The defendant could claim that they made an honest mistake, such as mistakenly taking the property without realizing it wasn’t theirs or without understanding the consequences of their actions.
• Example: A person mistakenly takes money they believe they are owed, not realizing they are taking someone else’s property.

5. No Permanent Deprivation

• Definition: Embezzlement requires that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property or funds.
• Defense: The defendant may argue that they did not intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property and that they intended to return the property or money at a later time.
• Example: A person who borrowed money from a company but fully intended to repay it at a later date could argue that they did not have the intent to permanently deprive the company of the funds.

6. Lack of Evidence

• Definition: A common defense in any criminal case is that the prosecution has failed to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Defense: The defendant can argue that the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to prove the elements of embezzlement, particularly the element of fraudulent intent.
• Example: If the prosecution cannot show clear evidence that the defendant took the funds with fraudulent intent, the defendant may argue that there is no crime.

7. Entrapment

• Definition: Entrapment occurs when a law enforcement officer induces someone to commit a crime they otherwise would not have committed.
• Defense: The defendant may argue that they were coerced or pressured by law enforcement or others to commit the crime and that they would not have committed embezzlement without that external influence.
• Example: A defendant might claim that an undercover officer encouraged them to misappropriate funds, even though they had no prior intent to do so.

Penalties for Embezzlement in Minnesota

• The penalties for embezzlement depend on the value of the embezzled property or funds, with significant prison time and fines for high-value embezzlement cases.
• Misdemeanor (if less than $500 in value): Up to 90 days in jail and a fine up to $1,000.
• Gross Misdemeanor (if between $500 and $1,000): Up to 1 year in jail and a fine up to $3,000.
• Felony (if over $1,000 in value): Up to 10 years in prison and a fine up to $20,000.

Embezzlement charges are serious and can lead to severe legal consequences. If you are facing embezzlement charges in Minnesota or are under investigation, it is essential to consult with an experienced criminal defense attorney to protect your rights and explore possible defenses.