California Penal Code 503 PC defines embezzlement as unlawfully taking property that has been entrusted to you, with the intent of depriving the rightful owner of the use of the property. Embezzlement can be charged as a felony if the value of the property is greater than $950.00. Otherwise, it can only be charged as a misdemeanor.
503 PC states that “embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been entrusted.”
- a cashier at Walmart pockets some cash from her drawer.
- the treasurer of a neighborhood sports club takes some money out of the club’s bank account.
- an investor takes some of his client’s money to pay off a gambling debt.
Embezzlement charges can be difficult for the prosecutor to prove. Some defenses are that the defendant:
- did not fraudulently use money or property,
- believed in good faith that he had a right to the property, and/or
- had no intent to deprive.
When is embezzlement a felony in California?
Embezzling money or property valued at $950 or less is a misdemeanor punishable by up to 6 months in county jail. Embezzlement greater than $950 can be charged as a felony, which carries a sentence of up to 3 years in custody.
Our California criminal defense attorneys will highlight the following in this article:
- 1. How does California law define embezzlement?
- 2. Are there defenses to 503 PC?
- 3. What is the punishment for embezzlement in California?
- 4. Are there immigration consequences?
- 5. Can a person get a conviction expunged?
- 6. Does a conviction affect gun rights?
- 7. Are there related offenses?
- 8. Are there civil remedies for victims of embezzlement?
1. How does California law define embezzlement?
Penal Code 503 PC is the California statute that makes it a crime for a person to unlawfully take property that someone entrusts to him.1
A prosecutor must prove the following four facts to obtain a conviction:
- an owner entrusted his property to the defendant,
- the owner did so because he trusted the defendant,
- the defendant fraudulently converted or used that property for his own beneﬁt, and
- he intended to deprive the owner of its use.2
Note that a prosecutor does not have to prove that the owner of the property asked the embezzler to return his property. This “asking” is not an element of the crime.3
Questions often arise under this statute on the meaning of:
- relationship of trust,
- fraudulent use, and
- intent to deprive.
1.1. Relationship of trust
A conviction for embezzlement requires a showing of trust between the owner of the property and the embezzler.
Examples of a when there is a relationship of trust between the owner of the property and the defendant are when:
- the defendant is the owner’s employee,
- the owner gives the defendant temporary possession of his property (e.g., giving a valet a car to park), and
- the defendant is tasked with managing the owner’s money or property.
Note, that in terms of an employer-employee relationship, a relationship of trust requires concrete evidence of trust or confidence. The mere fact that an accused is an employee is not enough to support an embezzlement charge.4
Example: A defendant is not necessarily in a relationship of trust with an employer- restaurant if he serves food or buses tables. However, there is a relationship of trust if the accused is tasked with depositing the restaurant’s money in its bank account.
1.2. Fraudulently used
For purposes of this statute, a person acts fraudulently when he either:
- takes undue advantage of another person, or
- causes a loss to that person by breaching a duty, trust, or conﬁdence.5
Example: Michelle is a nanny and the family gives her money every week to buy groceries. She does not fraudulently use the money if one day she uses some of it to buy the family a gift. However, she does fraudulently use the money if she takes it and pays her bills with it.
In the first instance, Michelle is not taking advantage of the family or breaching a confidence. But she definitely is in the second situation.
1.3. Intent to deprive
A defendant can only be guilty of embezzling if he intends to deprive a property owner of his property or its use. Note that even a temporary intent to deprive an owner is enough for a guilty conviction. The intent to deprive does not have to be permanent.6
Example: Juan does not embezzle property if he takes it out of his employer’s safe and hides it as a joke. Here, there is no intent to deprive. However, there is if he now takes the property and pawns it. A conviction can occur even if Juan takes the property for just a few minutes with the intent to keep it as his own.
Further, note that an intent to return the property at the time of the taking is not a defense to embezzlement. The only exception to this rule is if the defendant returned the property before he was charged.7
2. Are there legal defenses to 503 PC?
A person can oppose an embezzlement charge by asserting a legal defense.
Some common defenses to 503 PC are to show that:
- no fraudulent use,
- good faith belief of a right to property, and/or
- no intent to deprive
2.1. No fraudulent use
Recall that a defendant must fraudulently use property or money to be guilty under this code section. This means it is a defense if the accused did not:
- take undue advantage of another person, or
- cause a loss to a person by breaching a duty or confidence.
2.2. Good faith belief in a right to property
An accused is not guilty of violating this law if he acted with a good faith belief that he had a right to the money or property in question. A judge or jury decides if this belief was warranted by analyzing the facts of a given case.8
Note that the defendant may hold a belief in good faith even if the belief is mistaken or unreasonable.9
Example: Nia is a bank teller and pockets a customer’s deposit because she believes it is his payment of a lost bet. She does this though while forgetting that the customer paid off the bet weeks ago. Here, Nia is not guilty of embezzlement because the facts support that she had a good faith belief that she had a right to the money.
2.3 No intent to deprive
Recall that a defendant is only guilty of embezzlement if he acted with the intent to deprive the property owner of his property or its use. Therefore, it is a defense for the defendant to show that he did not have this intent. Perhaps, for example, he took some property to pull off a joke.
3. What is the punishment for embezzlement in California?
Embezzlement in California is charged and punished as either grand theft (Penal Code 487 PC) or petty theft (Penal Code 488 PC). This depends on the value and type of property that is stolen or misappropriated. 10
The crime is charged as grand theft if it involved property that was either:
- worth more than $950,
- an automobile, or
- a firearm.
If charged as grand theft, the offense is treated as a wobbler, meaning that it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. As a misdemeanor, the offense is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year. Felony grand theft embezzlement can lead to a maximum of three years in jail.
If a defendant is guilty of embezzling, and the value of the property is worth $950 or less, then he will be charged with petty theft – which is a misdemeanor offense. Misdemeanor petty theft embezzlement is punishable by custody in the county jail for up to six months.
4. Are there immigration consequences?
A conviction under 503 PC may have negative immigration consequences.
United States immigration law says that certain kinds of criminal convictions can lead to:
A category of “deportable” or “inadmissible” crimes includes “aggravated felonies.”11
This means that if a defendant:
- is charged with felony grand theft embezzlement, and
- the facts show that the felony is an aggravated felony,
he may face damaging immigration results.
5. Can a person get a conviction expunged?
A person convicted of embezzlement is entitled to an expungement. This is provided that he:
- successfully completes probation, or
- completes a jail term (whichever is relevant).
If a party violates a probation term, he could still possibly get the offense expunged. This, though, would be in the judge’s discretion.
Under Penal Code 1203.4, an expungement releases an individual from virtually “all penalties and disabilities” arising out of the conviction.12
6. Does a conviction affect gun rights?
A conviction under this statute may have a negative effect on the convicted party’s gun rights.
According to California law, convicted felons are prohibited from acquiring or possessing a gun in California.
This means that:
- if a prosecutor decides to charge a PC 503 embezzlement violation as felony grand theft, and
- the accused is convicted of the same,
the defendant will lose his or her right to own and possess a gun.
7. Are there related offenses?
There are three crimes related to the embezzling of money or property. These are:
- burglary – PC 459,
- forgery – PC 470, and
- misappropriation of public funds – PC 424.
- embezzlement/misappropriation by a public officer – PC 504
7.1. Burglary – PC 459
Per Penal Code 459 PC, a person commits burglary when he:
- enters any residential or commercial building or room, and
- does so with the intent to commit a felony or a theft once inside.
Note that a person would be guilty of this crime if he entered a building with the intent to commit embezzlement. This is because the offense is a theft crime.
7.2. Forgery – PC 470
Penal Code 470 PC is the California statute that makes forgery a crime.
Forgery takes place when a person does any one of the following:
- signs someone else’s name,
- fakes a seal or someone else’s handwriting,
- changes or falsifies any legal document, or
- fakes, alters, or presents as genuine a false document pertaining to money, finances, or property.
As with embezzlement, an accused must act fraudulently in order to be guilty of forgery.
7.3. Misappropriation of public funds – PC 424
Penal Code 424 PC says that the misappropriation of public funds is a crime when:
- the defendant misuses public funds, and
- he was responsible for those funds.
This crime is similar to embezzlement. But note that the major difference is that this offense can only be committed by the misuse of public funds, while embezzlement applies more to private funds.
7.4. Embezzlement/misappropriation by a public officer – PC 504
Penal Code 504 PC is the California statute that makes a public officer guilty of embezzlement if he or she:
- fraudulently uses any public property or funds, and
- uses them in a way not consistent with his official authority.
This crime is punished in the same manner as ordinary embezzlement under PC 503.
8. Are there civil remedies for victims of embezzlement?
Embezzlement victims can also file civil lawsuits against the embezzler. Depending on the case, possible claims include:
- Breach of contract,
- Conversion, and
- Unjust enrichment
Most civil cases resolve through negotiation. But if the plaintiff (victim) goes to trial and wins, the court may order that the defendant (embezzler) pay full restitution. The court can also set up a constructive trust as a mechanism to return the money.
Note that civil lawsuits may be unnecessary. If the defendant gets convicted of criminal charges, the court can order that the defendant pay restitution.
For additional help…
For additional guidance or to discuss your case with a criminal defense attorney, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group.
For similar accusations in Nevada, please see our article on NRS 205.300 – Nevada Embezzlement Laws.
For similar accusations in Colorado, please see our article on Embezzlement in Colorado (CRS 18-4-401).
- California Penal Code 503 PC.
- CALCRIM No. 1806 – Theft by Embezzlement. Judicial Council of California Criminal Jury Instructions (2017 edition). See also In re Basinger (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1348; and, People v. Wooten (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 1834.
- People v. Hill (1934), 2 Cal. App. 2d 141.
- CALCRIM No. 1806. See also People v. Wooten, supra; and, People v. Threestar (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 747.
- CALCRIM No. 1806. See also People v. Talbot (1934) 220 Cal. 3; and, People v. Stein (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 235.
- CALCRIM No. 1806.
- People v. Sisuphan (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 800.
- CALCRIM No. 1806. See also People v. Stewart (1976) 16 Cal.3d 133.
- See same.
- California Penal Code 514 PC.
- See INA 237 (a) (2) (A).
- California Penal Code 1203.4 PC.