Black’s Law Dictionary 1st Edition, page 415:
EMBEZZLEMENT. The fraudulent appropriation to bis own use or benefit of property or money intrusted to him by another, by a cIerk, agent, trustee, public officer or persona acting in a fiduciary character. See 4 Bl. Comm. 230, 231; 3 Kent, Comm. 194; 4 Steph. Comm. 168, 169, 219; 40N. Y. Super. Ct. 41.
Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property to a person to whim it has been intrusted. Pen. Code Cal. § 503; Pen. Code Dak. § 596.
Embezzlement is a species of larceny, and the term. is applicable to cases or furtive and fraudulent appropriation by clerks, servants, or carriers of property coming into their possession by virtue of their employment. It is distinguished from “larceny,” property so called, as being committed in respect of property which is not at the time in the actual or legal possession of the owner. 41 How. Pr. 294; 4 Steph. Comm. 168.
Embezzlement is not an offense at common law, but was created by statute. “Embezzle” includes in its meaning appropriation to one’s own use, and therefore the use of the single word “embezzle,” in the indictment or information, contains within itself the charge that the defendant appropriated the money or property to his own use. 34 La. Ann. 1153.
Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition, page 418-419:
EMBEZZLEMENT. The fraudulent appropriation to his own use or benefit of property or money intrusted to him by another, by a clerkJ agent, trustee, public officer, or other person acting in a fiduciary character. See 4 BI. Comm. 230, 2-31; 3 Kent, Comm. 194 ; 4 Steph. Comm. 168, 169, 219 ; Fagnan . v. Knox, 40 N. Y. Super. Ct. 49; State v. Sullivan, 49 La. Ann. 197, 21 South. 688, 62 Am. St. Rep. 644; State v. Trolson, 21 Nev. 419, 32 Pac. 930; Moore v. U. S., 160 U. S. 268,16Sup.Ct.294,40L.Ed.422; Fulton v. Hammond (C. C.) 11 Fed. 293 ; People v. Gordon, 133 Oal. 328, 65 .Pac. 746, 85 Am. St. Rep. 174.
Embezzlement is a species of larceny, and the term. is applicable to cases or furtive and fraudulent appropriation by clerks, servants, or carriers of property coming into their possession by virtue of their employment. It is distinguished from “larceny,” property so called, as being committed in respect of property which is not at the time in the actual or legal possession of the owner. 41 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 294; 4 Steph. Comm. 168.
Embezzlement is not an offense at common law, but was created by statute. “Embezzle” includes in its meaning appropriation to one’s own use, and therefore the use of the single word “embezzle,” in the indictment or information, contains within itself the charge that the defendant appropriated the money or property to his own use. State v. Wolff, 34 La. Ann. 1153.
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition, page 614:
EMBEZZLEMENT. The fraudulent appropriation to his own use or benefit of property or money intrusted to him by another, by a clerk, agent, trustee, public officer, or other person acting in a fiduciary character. See 4 Bl.Comm. 230, 231.
The fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been intrusted, or to whose hands it has lawfully come. American Life Ins. Co. v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 261 Mich. 221, 246 N.W. 71.
Embezzlement is not an offense at common law, but was created by statute. “Embezzle” includes in its meaning appropriation to one’s own use, and therefore the use of the single word “embezzle,” in the indictment or information, contains within itself the charge that the defendant appropriated the money or property to his own use. State v. Wolff, 34 La.Ann. 1153; State v. Hudson, 93 W.Va. 435, 117 S.E. 122, 125.
Embezzlement is common-law larceny extended by stat- ute to cover cases where the stolen property comes originally into the possession of the defendant without a tres- pass. Moody v. People, 65 Colo. 339, 176 P. 476.
Embezzlement is a species of larceny, and the term is applicable to cases of furtive and fraudulent appropriation by clerks, servants, or carriers of property coming into their possession by virtue of their employment. It is distinguished from “larceny,” properly so called, as being committed in respect of property which is not at the time in the actual or legal possession of the owner. That is to say, that in embezzlement the original taking of the property was lawful or with the consent of the owner, while in larceny the felonious intent must have existed at the time of the taking. Tredwell v. U. S., C.C.A.Va., 266 F. 350, 352. Both words, however, may be used, as in a bond, as generic terms to indicate the dishonest and fraudulent breach of any duty or obligation upon the part of an employee to pay over to his employer, or account to him for any money, securities, or other personal property, title to which is in the employer, but which may come into the possession of the employee. National Surety Co. v. Williams, 74 Fla. 446, 77 So. 212, 222. Under statute declaring guilty of a felony an officer or clerk of a state bank who “embezzles, abstracts, or willfully misapplies” its funds, “embezzle” refers to acts done for the benefit of the actor as against the bank, “misapply” covers acts having no relation to pecuniary profit or advantage to the doer, while “abstract” means only to take and withdraw from the pos- session and control of the bank; and while “embezzlement” may include the offenses of abstraction and willful misapplication, either of those offenses may be committed
without embezzlement. Ferguson v. State, 80 Tex.Cr.R. 383, 189 S.W. 271, 273. See, however, Winkelmann v. State, 114 Neb. 1, 205 N.W. 565, 566.
Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edition, page 540:
embezzlement, n. The fraudulent taking of per sonal property with which one has been en trusted, esp. as a fiduciary. • The criminal intent for embezzlement – unlike larceny and false pretenses – arises after taking possession (not before or during the taking). – Also termed defalcation; peculation. – embezzle, vb. See LARCENY; FALSE PRETENSES.
“Embezzlement i s not a common-law crime. I t i s the result of legislative efforts to make provision for an unreasonable gap which appeared in the law of larceny as it developed. Under the early English statute embezzlement was made a misdemeanor, but under most modern American statutes it is either a felony or a mis demeanor depending upon the value of the property converted.” Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 351 (3d ed. 1982).
“Embezzlement can be defined as the fraudulent conversion of the property of another by one who has lawful possession of the property and whose fraudulent conversion has been made punishable by the statute.” Arnold H. Loewy, Criminal Law in a Nutshell 94 (2d ed. 1987).
Black’s Law Dictionary 8th Edition, page 1580:
embezzlement,n. The fraudulent taking of personal property with which one has been entrusted, esp. as a fiduciary. • The criminal intent for embezzlement — unlike larceny and false pretenses — arises after taking possession (not before or during the taking). — Also termed defalcation; peculation. See LARCENY; FALSE PRETENSES. [Cases: Embezzlement 1.C.J.S. Embezzlement §§ 2–3, 5.] — embezzle,vb. — embezzler,n.
“Embezzlement is not a common-law crime. It is the result of legislative efforts to make provision for an unreasonable gap which appeared in the law of larceny as it developed. Under the early English statute embezzlement was made a misdemeanor, but under most modern American statutes it is either a felony or a misdemeanor depending upon the value of the property converted.” Rollin M. Perkins & Ronald N. Boyce, Criminal Law 351 (3d ed. 1982).
“Embezzlement can be defined as the fraudulent conversion of the property of another by one who has lawful possession of the property and whose fraudulent conversion has been made punishable by the statute.” Arnold H. Loewy, Criminal Law in a Nutshell 94 (2d ed. 1987).
Recent Comments