Many theft cases occur in the workplace where an employee is caught stealing from the employer. Sometimes the cases involve a new employee stealing from the cash register. Other cases involve a long-term trusted employee who has been stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company over a long period of time through a complicated scheme to defraud the employer.

Theft crimes in the workplace can be charged as either petty theft or grand theft, depending the value of the property stolen. Because the employee often comes into possession of the property legally for the benefit of the employer before stealing the property, this type of theft crime is often proven under an embezzlement theory.

The difference between employment theft cases by embezzlement and other forms of theft is the requirement that the property was entrusted to the accused by the rightful owner. In an employment situation, the employer will entrust the employee to possess or access the property temporarily for the benefit of the employer.

Under California Penal Code Section 484, if a person fraudulently appropriates property which has been entrusted to him or her, he or she can be charged with theft by embezzlement. To prove embezzlement, all of the following elements must be proven:

  • An owner of property (or the owner’s agent) entrusted the property to the employee
  • The owner or agent did so because the owner trusted the employee
  • The employee fraudulently converted or used that property for his or her own benefit, and
  • When the employee converted or used the property, the employee did so with the intention to deprive the employer or agent of its use

The statute defines the term “agent” as a person who represents someone else in dealing with other people, corporations, or entities. In many of these cases, an employer’s goal is to receive restitution and make sure justice is served and to set an example for other employees.