Opinion ID: 160577
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Proof of Embezzlement and Misapplication

Text: 9 The statute under which Ms. Weller was charged, 18 U.S.C. 656, applies wherever the employee of a federally insured bank embezzles, abstracts, purloins or willfully misapplies any of the moneys, funds or credits of that bank. Ms. Weller argues that the evidence was insufficient to convict her of either embezzlement or misapplication of funds, the two actions with which she was charged. Embezzlement requires proof of 'fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom such property has been entrusted, or into whose hands it has lawfully come.' United States v. Holmes, 611 F.2d 329, 331 (10th Cir. 1979) (quoting Moore v. United States, 160 U.S. 268, 269 (1895)). Ms. Weller suggests that, because the crime occurred after the bank had closed for the business day, her presence was unauthorized and therefore her possession of the funds was not lawful. In other words, she claims the evidence might be sufficient to support a conviction for burglary and larceny, but not for embezzlement. 10 We agree with the district court that the distinction Ms. Weller attempts to draw concerning the timing of the crime and her authority to be present in the bank is not relevant to the question of whether, as the bank's branch manager, she had lawful possession of the money or was a person to whom the money had been entrusted. The relevant inquiry is not one of timing, since [a]ll crimes of embezzlement involve an unlawful act at some point. United States v. Campbell, 52 F.3d 521, 524 (5th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). Rather, the question is whether a bank employee has been given all the means for effective access to and control of the money by virtue of a special trust placed in her by her employer. United States v. Whitlock, 663 F.2d 1094, 1107 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (per curiam); see also Campbell, 52 F.3d at 524 (employee had constructive legal control of funds where bank had vested her with control and authority over the funds in the usual course of routine banking transactions). As branch manager, Ms. Weller was given an alarm code, the combination to the safe, and access to the safe key, and as such she was a person to whom the bank's money had been entrusted. See, e.g., Whitlock, 663 F.2d at 1112 (by virtue of [defendant's management position] and the special access she was given to the key and the combination, the funds in the vault were under her effective control and she was guilty of embezzlement). 11 Because Ms. Weller was found guilty of embezzlement and the evidence was sufficient to convict her on that count, we need not consider the weight of evidence relating to the alternative charge of misapplication of funds. See United States v. Bell, 154 F.3d 1205, 1209 (10th Cir. 1998) (if an indictment charges several acts in the conjunctive, the jury's 'verdict stands if the evidence is sufficient with respect to any one of the acts charged.') (quoting Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 56-57 (1991)).