Get Quick Legal Help...

    This form is encrypted and protected by attorney-client confidentiality.

    Client reviews
    Criminal Defense Division

    Penal Code § 503 PC – California “Embezzlement” Laws

    Accused of embezzlement? Advice from a former D.A.

    Penal Code § 503 PC defines the crime of embezzlement as “the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom it has been entrusted.” Embezzlement can be charged as a felony if the value of the property is greater than $950.00. Otherwise, it is only a misdemeanor.

    Examples

    • a cashier at Walmart pockets some cash from the cash register to buy drinks at a nightclub that night for herself.
    • the treasurer of a neighborhood sports club takes some money out of the club’s bank account to pay for a personal vacation and hotel expenses.
    • an investor takes some of his client’s money to pay off a gambling debt and other personal expenses.

    Defenses

    Embezzlement charges can be a difficult California theft offense for the prosecutor to prove. Some defenses to the crime of embezzlement are that you:

    • did not fraudulently use money or property,
    • believed in good faith that you had a right to the property, and/or
    • had no intent to deprive.

    Penalties

    Type of property embezzled

    Maximum jail sentence
    • Automobile,
    • Firearm, or
    • Property worth more than $950
    		 Misdemeanor: Up to 1 year in jail

    or

    Felony: 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years in jail
    • Property worth $950 or less
    		 Misdemeanor: Up to 6 months in jail

    Our California criminal defense attorneys will highlight the following in this article:

    1. How does California law define embezzlement?

    Penal Code 503 PC is the California statute that makes it a crime to unlawfully take property that someone entrusts to you.1

    A prosecutor must prove the following four facts to obtain a conviction:

    1. an owner entrusted their property to you,
    2. the owner did so because they trusted you,
    3. you fraudulently converted or used that property for your own benefit, and
    4. you 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 you to return their 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.
    man placing envelope in his suit as an example of embezzlement in California

    Under 503 PC, the definition of embezzlement – larceny crime – is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person in a position of trust to whom the property has been entrusted.

    1.1. Relationship of trust

    A conviction for embezzlement requires a showing of trust between the owner of the property and you.

    Examples of when there is a relationship of trust between the owner of the property and you are when:

    • you are the owner’s employee,
    • the owner gives you temporary possession of their property (for example, giving a valet a car to park), and
    • you are 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 you are an employee is not enough to support an embezzlement charge.4

    Example: You are not necessarily in a relationship of trust with an employer-restaurant if you serve food or bus tables. However, there is a relationship of trust if you are tasked with depositing the restaurant’s money in its bank account.

    1.2. Fraudulently used

    For purposes of this statute, you act fraudulently when you either:

    • take undue advantage of another person, or
    • cause a loss to that person by breaching a duty, trust, or confidence.5

    Example: Michelle is a nanny and the family gives her their credit card every week to buy groceries. She does not fraudulently use the credit card if one day she uses some of it to buy the family a gift. However, she does fraudulently use the credit card if she takes it and pays her bills with it without the family’s permission.

    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

    You can only be guilty of embezzling if you intend to deprive a property owner of their 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. Juan would still be criminally liable even if he 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 you restored the property before you were charged.7

    2. Are there legal defenses to 503 PC?

    You can oppose an embezzlement charge by asserting a legal defense.

    Some common defenses to 503 PC are to show:

    1. no fraudulent use,
    2. good faith belief of a right to property, and/or
    3. no intent to deprive

    (Other defenses concern misconduct by law enforcement, such as entrapment or coercion of a confession.)

    2.1. No fraudulent use

    Recall that you must fraudulently use property or money to be guilty under this code section. This means it is a defense if you 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

    You are not guilty of violating this law if you acted with a good faith belief that you 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 you 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 reasonable claim of right to the money.

    2.3 No intent to deprive

    Recall that you are only guilty of embezzlement if you acted with the intent to deprive the property owner of their property or its use. Therefore, it is a defense to show that you did not have this intent. Perhaps, for example, you took some property to pull off a joke.

    man in jail; a Penal Code 503 PC conviction for felony embezzlement carries a penalty of up to 3 years in custody

    A California conviction in a felony embezzlement case carries a penalty of up to 3 years in jail or prison.

    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:

    1. worth more than $950,
    2. an automobile, or
    3. 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 you are found guilty of embezzling, and the value of the property is worth $950 or less, then you 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 you as a non-citizen:

    • are charged with felony grand theft embezzlement, and
    • the facts show that the felony is an aggravated felony,

    you may face damaging immigration results.

    5. Can I get my conviction expunged?

    If you are convicted of embezzlement, you are entitled to an expungement. This is provided that you:

    1. successfully complete probation, or
    2. complete a jail term (whichever is relevant).

    If you violate a probation term, you could still possibly get the offense expunged. This, though, would be in the judge’s discretion.

    Under Penal Code 1203.4, an expungement releases you from virtually “all penalties and disabilities” arising out of the conviction.12

    6. What is the difference between embezzlement and grand theft?

    Embezzlement is stealing money or property that was entrusted to you. Grand theft is stealing money or property that was not entrusted to you.

    Example: Jim goes into a Target and steals an iPad. Jack is a cashier at that same Target and steals $1,000 in cash from the register for his own use. Here, Jim would face grand theft charges because he stole an item – the iPad – he was never entrusted with; in short, Jim shoplifted. Meanwhile, Jack would face embezzlement charges because he stole company cash for his personal use when he – as a cashier – was entrusted with that cash.

    Grand theft refers to taking property valued at more than $950. Otherwise, stealing would be prosecuted as petty theft. Meanwhile, embezzlement applies to any dollar amount.

    Despite the definitional difference between embezzlement and theft, these two crimes have identical penalties in California.13

    7. Are there related offenses?

    There are five crimes related to the fraudulent conversion of money or property. These are:

    1. burglary – PC 459,
    2. forgery – PC 470, and
    3. misappropriation of public funds – PC 424.
    4. embezzlement/misappropriation by a public officer – PC 504
    5. receiving stolen property – PC 496(a)

    7.1. Burglary – PC 459

    Per Penal Code 459 PC, you commit burglary when you:

    1. enter any residential or commercial building or room, and
    2. do so with the intent to commit a felony or a theft once inside.

    Note that you would be guilty of this crime if you 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 you do any one of the following:

    • sign someone else’s name,
    • fake a seal or someone else’s handwriting,
    • change or falsify any legal document, or
    • fake, alter, or present as genuine a false document pertaining to money, finances, or property.

    As with embezzlement, you 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:

    1. you misuse public funds, and
    2. you were responsible for those funds.

    This crime is similar to embezzlement. 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 they:

    1. fraudulently use any public property or funds, and
    2. use them in a way not consistent with his official authority.

    This crime is punished in the same manner as ordinary embezzlement under PC 503.

    7.5. Receiving stolen property – PC 496(a)

    Penal Code 496(a) PC is the California statute that makes receiving stolen property a crime if you know that it has been stolen. As a wobbler, this crime can be a misdemeanor or a felony.

    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 are resolved through negotiation. However, 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.

    One of the most infamous examples of embezzlement is the Ponzi scheme orchestrated by investor Bernie Madoff – who had a fiduciary relationship with his clients. It has taken a long period of time and several lawsuits for his victims to recover some of their lost personal property.

    Additional reading

    For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:

    Legal References:

    1. California Penal Code 503 PC.
    2. 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. See also People v. Kronemyer (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 314.
    3. People v. Hill (1934), 2 Cal. App. 2d 141. See also People v. Sobiek (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 458.
    4. CALCRIM No. 1806. See also People v. Wooten, supra; and, People v. Threestar (1985) 167 Cal.App.3d 747.
    5. CALCRIM No. 1806. See also People v. Talbot (1934) 220 Cal. 3; and, People v. Stein (1979) 94 Cal.App.3d 235.
    6. CALCRIM No. 1806.
    7. People v. Sisuphan (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 800. See also People v. Davis (1998) 19 Cal.4th 301. People v. Casas (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1242.
    8. CALCRIM No. 1806. See also People v. Stewart (1976) 16 Cal.3d 133.
    9. See same.
    10. California Penal Code 514 PC. See also People v. Warmington (Cal. App. 3d Dist., 2017) 16 Cal. App. 5th 333. Note that PC 12022.6 has been repealed – this law increased grand theft prison terms by: One year if the loss exceeded $65,000; two years if the loss exceeded $200,000; three years if the loss exceeded $1,300,000; and four years if the loss exceeded $3,200,000.
    11. See INA 237 (a) (2) (A).
    12. California Penal Code 1203.4 PC.
    13. PC 487. PC 488.

      Contact Our Firm

      This form is encrypted and protected by attorney-client confidentiality.

      Call or Message Us 24/7