Embezzlement of Government Property18 U.S.C.
In Moore v. United States, 160 U.S. 268, 269 (1895), the
Court defined embezzlement in the following terms:|
Embezzlement is the fraudulent appropriation of property by a
to whom such property has been entrusted, or into whose hands it has
come. It differs from larceny in the fact that the original taking was
or with the consent of the owner, while in larceny the felonious intent must
existed at the time of the taking.
There are six elements to the crime of embezzlement, as defined in 18
U.S.C. § 641. These are: (1) a trust or fiduciary relationship between
defendant and the property owner; (2) the property taken falls within the
statute; i.e., it must be government property (see this Manual at 1643 for a discussion of the types of
property which fall within this section); (3) the property came into the
possession or care of the defendant by virtue of his employment; (4) the
belonged to another, in this case the United States; (5) the defendant's
with the property constituted a fraudulent conversion or appropriation of it
his own use; and (6) the defendant acted with the intent to deprive the
the use of this property. See United States v. Dupee, 569
1061 (9th Cir. 1978); United States v. Powell, 294 F. Supp. 1353,
(E.D.Va.), aff'd, 413 F.2d 1037 (4th Cir. 1968).
The requirement that the defendant act with the intent to deprive
owner of his property makes embezzlement a specific intent crime.
United States v. May, 625 F.2d 186, 189-90 (8th Cir. 1980). It
noted, however, that the intent required to violate the law is not an intent
deprive another of his property permanently. Therefore, even if an
intends to return the property, his actions are still criminal. In short,
restitution is no defense to embezzlement. See United States v.
Powell, 294 F. Supp. at 1355.
[cited in USAM 9-66.200]