White Collar Crime

What Is Embezzlement?

Embezzlement is a form of theft, legally called “larceny.” It is a white-collar crime where a person has been entrusted with someone else's money or property. This person then steals or misuses those funds for their personal gain.

Examples include:

• A trustee stealing funds from a trust
• A financial advisor misusing a client's investments
• An employee stealing money from their employer

Embezzlement is considered a serious offense and can result in both criminal and civil penalties, such as fines, restitution, and even imprisonment. The severity of the punishment depends on the amount of money or property stolen. The court also considers any aggravating factors such as prior convictions or the use of force to commit the crime.

Virginia’s Embezzlement Penalties

Punishments vary depending on the amount of money that was allegedly stolen.

Less Than $1,000

Class 1 misdemeanor; up to 1 year in jail; fines up to $2,500; financial restitution to the victim

More Than $1,000

Class U felony (“U” is used when the charge does not fit neatly into a predetermined felony category); up to 20 years in prison; fines up to $2,500; financial restitution to the victim

Effective Defenses Against an Embezzlement Charge

The Evidence Does Not Support the Charge

There may be no clear proof that the accused intentionally misused or stole their client.

For example, an employee could have access to company funds use them in ways they believed to be legitimate. Perhaps the money went directly to business expenses, but the suspect made a mistake in accounting procedures.

Remember that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution in criminal cases. They must present sufficient evidence to convince the court of guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

There Was No Intent to Commit Fraud

Embezzlement is a form of theft, but it is also a form of fraud.

A "no intent" defense argues that the accused did not mean to steal or misuse the property. For a person to be convicted of embezzlement, the prosecution must prove that the suspect knowingly, willingly took the money or property for personal gain.

For example, imagine an employee who is given access to company funds. This person mistakenly believes that they are authorized to use those funds for personal expenses. They could argue that they do not have the necessary intent to commit embezzlement.

Similarly, an individual acting on someone else’s behalf could mistakenly uses their funds for personal expenses. The financial world is complicated, and errors like these are common.

However, it's important to note that, even if there was no intent to commit embezzlement, the accused may still face consequences. They could be forced to repay any misused funds or suffer disciplinary action from their employer. It ultimately depends on the specific circumstances of each case and how convincing the "no intent" defense is.

You Operated Under Duress

A duress defense argues that, through another person’s threats or coercion, you were forced to commit a crime. For a duress defense to work, the accused must show that they or their loved ones were under imminent threat of harm, and there was no reasonable way to avoid committing the crime. They had no choice but to follow the aggressor’s orders.

For instance, someone’s supervisor threatens them with physical harm or death unless they embezzled funds from the company. Similarly, if an individual's family member is being held hostage, and they were ordered to commit embezzlement in exchange for a release, this could also be considered duress.

Duress is also a viable defense in situations that are not overtly dangerous. Courts often acknowledge the power dynamics between an employer and their employee. If someone was pressured into an illegal act by their superior, this is a legitimate duress defense.

Duress defenses can be difficult to prove, and the case requires strong evidence. Your attorney must prove that was no other reasonable option available. Additionally, even when a duress defense is successful in court, it may not result in complete exoneration. The accused may still face consequences such as restitution or probation, depending on the specific circumstances of their case.

The Police Used Improper Procedure

Improper police procedure can refer to a variety of issues related to how the police handle the investigation and arrest the accused.

Some examples of improper police procedure in an embezzlement case might include:

• Profiling
  When there is evidence that race, sexual orientation, gender expression, and so on influenced the police investigation, this is considered discrimination and may also be grounds for dismissal of charges.
• Using Excessive Force
  Any use of excessive force during an arrest or interrogation could lead to charges being dropped or dismissed.
• Failing to Follow Proper Procedures
  The police must follow specific procedures when conducting an investigation, such as obtaining search warrants or following chain-of-custody protocols when handling evidence. If they fail to do so, the integrity of the investigation can be compromised. This could result in charges being dropped.
• Violating the Accused Person's Constitutional Rights
  If the police obtained evidence through an illegal search or seizure, or if they coerced a confession out of someone without reading them their Miranda rights, then any evidence obtained may be inadmissible.

It's important for law enforcement officials to follow proper procedures when investigating embezzlement cases, not only to ensure that justice is served but also to protect individuals' constitutional rights.

If you’ve been accused of stealing money or property entrusted to you, The Law Offices of Daniel J. Miller is here to help. You can schedule a free consultation with us by calling (757) 267-4949 or contacting us online.

In a case that's shaking white collar crime news, The Central District Prosecutor's Office in South Korea indicted Samsung heir Lee Jae-yong and 11 other Samsung officials on various charges including illegal transactions, stock manipulation, and perjury.

Samsung has experienced its fair share of legal trouble in recent years, and this case only compounds on that trend. Whether Lee Jae-yong and other officials receive convictions could set a new precedent for white collar crime in South Korea, and have global ramifications for national South Korean companies and partners.

Today, we're looking at Samsung's history of legal issues, the charges Lee and other officials face, and how this case may affect business law going forward.

Samsung & the Law: a Troubled History

Samsung's no stranger to legal issues, but the last five years, in particular, have seen the company in some hot water.

The trouble started with a 2015 merger that kicked off between Samsung C&T and Samsung Electronics. Lee wanted to incorporate Samsung C&T into Samsung Electronics, the company he was (and still is) vice-chairman of. The move would considerably increase how much Lee and his father, Samsung Electronics chairman Lee Kun-hee, owned of the Samsung empire.

Despite facing considerable pushback from C&T stakeholders, including US hedge fund Elliot Associates, the merger pushed through. Elliot Associates claimed the merger undervalued C&T while overvaluing Chiel Industries, the holding company Lee used to execute the merger.

Despite pushback from shareholders, C&T approved a $7.7 billion all-stock takeover from Chiel Industries, the holding company Lee used to conduct the merger. The Lees ended up owning another 4% of the Samsung empire as a result.

But that wasn't the end of the story. In 2017, South Korean news organization and CNN affiliate JTBC uncovered a tablet computer belonging to Choi Soon-sil. Choi, a controversial figure, acted as then-President Park Geun-hye's unofficial advisor.

Data from the tablet showed that Choi abused her closeness to the President to receive secret government documents, which she then used to tamper with government affairs and manipulate powerful individuals. For example, Choi obtained academic favors for her daughter from a prestigious university in a move reminiscent of the celebrity college scandal that rocked US ivy leagues earlier this year.

The data also unveiled that a number of powerful South Korean businesses leveraged their ties to the government, especially Choi and Park, to push for certain business deals.

Lee was implicated in the scandal, which revealed that he used his connections to Choi and Park to push the C&T merger through.

The scandal devastated the South Korean political landscape. The country's parliament voted 234 to 56 to impeach Park, who then stood trial for corruption charges.

Lee also stood trial in one of the most publicized white collar crime cases in the country's history. Prosecutors accused him of abusing ties to government officials and confidential entities, spending millions to curry favor with Park and Choi. Ultimately, the jury sentenced Lee to five years in prison. Samsung went on to appeal the sentences.

Where We Are Today

However, Lee's sentence was short-lived. Less than a year later, a South Korean appeals court threw out several of the charges, reducing the sentence to two and a half years and suspending it for four. He was a free man once again (at least, for the time being).

Legal scholars were hardly surprised. Lee's own father was indicted on corruption charges twice, and both times received a pardon for his "contributions to the economy." Executives in businesses like Samsung, which generate significant capital for the South Korean economy, rarely get stuck with long-lasting sentences.

According to the University of Southern California's Korean Studies Institute Director, David Kand, jail is "like a rite of passage... the question will really be, how long does he serve?"

Now, as Lee and 11 other Samsung officials face charges of stock manipulation, illicit lobbying, and perjury, that question seems more pertinent than ever.

The charges Lee currently faces are still tied to the 2015 merger, with prosecutors claiming they have evidence Lee and other Samsung officials illegally disseminated false information to devalue C&T. Samsung contests the charges, which scholars expect will escalate to the South Korean Supreme Court before a judgment is handed down.

Why Should US Businesses Pay Attention to the Case?

The Samsung conglomerate's combined businesses account for a whopping 15% of South Korea's economy.

Although Lee's father currently acts as Samsung's chairman, many South Korean business executives and pundits assume that Lee is the company's de facto leader, since the elder Lee has struggled with health problems for years. If the South Korean Supreme Court actually hands a hefty jail sentence down to Lee, it will destabilize Samsung, meaning changes for its leadership culture.

The market isn't optimistic about the Court's chances. Even after Lee's recent indictments, shares for Samsung Electronics ended at +0.04%.

If Lee gets a harsh sentence, it will change how South Korean companies operate, and as a result, change how global partners interact with South Korean enterprises. On the other hand, if Lee gets a slap on the wrist or avoids a sentence entirely, South Korean businesses will keep pushing the boundaries of how much they can meddle with government affairs.

At The Law Offices of Daniel J. Miller, we can help you navigate your white collar crime case with confidence. We'll work with you to understand every facet of your case and help you proceed towards an ideal outcome.

To schedule a consultation with our team, contact us online or via phone at (757) 267-4949">(757) 267-4949.