Embezzlement Case Defense Resulting in Declination

The client was a mid level financial operations manager employed by a privately held company operating within the District of Columbia, responsible for overseeing daily accounting entries, expense reconciliation, and internal financial reporting. 

After being informed that senior management had identified a significant monetary discrepancy during an internal audit, the client proactively sought legal advice to assess potential criminal exposure. 

Given the seriousness of embezzlement allegations under DC law, the client retained a criminal defense attorney experienced in complex financial investigations. 

Early consultation allowed counsel to intervene before formal charging decisions were made.

During a routine quarterly review, company executives identified what appeared to be an unaccounted shortfall equivalent to several million dollars when comparing internal revenue logs with consolidated bank statements. 

Despite the absence of direct evidence of misappropriation, suspicion quickly focused on the client due to their role in financial oversight.

Management reported the matter to law enforcement, asserting that the discrepancy constituted intentional diversion of company funds. 

In addition to the alleged embezzlement, complainants claimed that the client had previously induced a private loan under false pretenses, leading investigators to review potential fraud related conduct alongside the embezzlement case.

Defense counsel argued that under District of Columbia law, embezzlement requires proof of fraudulent intent and unauthorized conversion of property lawfully entrusted to the accused.

A detailed review of the company’s accounting system revealed that revenue streams were processed through multiple platforms, including delayed settlements, third party payment processors, and manual reconciliation adjustments. 

Counsel demonstrated that timing differences, data entry errors, and pending transactions could plausibly explain the apparent discrepancy without any criminal intent. 

The absence of personal enrichment evidence or unauthorized transfers was highlighted as fatal to the prosecution’s embezzlement theory.

Regarding the alleged fraud claim, the defense presented documentary evidence showing that a substantial portion of the disputed personal loan had already been repaid. 

Employment records further confirmed that the client remained continuously employed with stable income, undermining any assertion that repayment was impossible from the outset. 

Counsel emphasized that under DC standards, fraud requires proof of intentional deception at the time of obtaining funds, not merely a later financial disagreement. 

The prosecution was advised that civil remedies, not criminal sanctions, were more appropriate for such disputes.

After reviewing the defense submissions and supporting documentation, prosecutors concluded that the available evidence was insufficient to establish probable cause for embezzlement or fraud under District of Columbia law. 

The financial discrepancies were determined to be explainable through non criminal accounting factors, and no reliable proof of intent to misappropriate funds was identified. 

As a result, the prosecution issued a formal declination, closing the embezzlement case without indictment or further action. The client avoided criminal charges entirely and was able to resume professional activities without a criminal record.