Embezzlement Defense Attorney Secures Non Prosecution

The client in this matter was the founder and chief executive officer of a privately held small business operating in the Washington DC metropolitan area, who maintained full managerial authority over daily financial operations, including the use of a corporate credit card for operational expenses. 

During a period of severe cash flow strain caused by delayed receivables and supplier demands, the client purchased gift certificates using the corporate card, converted them to cash through lawful channels, and deposited the combined funds, together with personal savings, into the company’s operating account to stabilize payroll and vendor payments.

Following a contentious divorce, the client’s former spouse alleged that the gift certificate transactions constituted personal enrichment and filed a criminal complaint asserting occupational embezzlement, despite the absence of evidence showing personal diversion or private consumption. 

As a result, the client became subject to a formal investigation that carried the risk of prosecution under Washington DC embezzlement statutes, prompting immediate consultation with an embezzlement defense attorney.

Under Washington DC law, embezzlement requires proof that a person entrusted with property intentionally converted that property for personal use or for a purpose inconsistent with the interests of the property owner or entity.

In cases involving corporate executives, investigators closely scrutinize whether corporate funds were used for private benefit, whether reimbursement structures existed, and whether the transaction resulted in measurable personal gain.

At the initial stage, the gift certificate purchases appeared irregular on their face, and the absence of contemporaneous documentation created a superficial impression of misuse, placing the client at risk of referral for prosecution despite the business oriented purpose of the transactions.

The embezzlement defense attorney first examined whether the complainant possessed proper standing to initiate a criminal complaint premised on corporate harm. 

It was established that the former spouse had divested all ownership interests years earlier and no longer held shareholder or officer status at the time of the alleged conduct.

Based on this, counsel argued that the complainant lacked a direct proprietary interest in the company, undermining the credibility and procedural posture of the complaint, which led investigators to reclassify the matter from a private complaint driven case to a general report subject to heightened evidentiary scrutiny.

Next, the embezzlement defense attorney conducted a comprehensive review of bank records, corporate ledgers, and transaction timelines to demonstrate that the gift certificate proceeds did not remain with the client but were promptly deposited into the corporate account. 

The analysis further showed that a substantial portion of the deposited funds originated from the client’s personal savings and spousal support contributions, exceeding the value of the contested transactions.

By presenting a clear flow of funds narrative, counsel established that the transactions reduced, rather than increased, any alleged personal benefit and functioned as temporary bridge financing to sustain business operations, directly contradicting the prosecution theory of personal appropriation.

After reviewing the defense submissions, investigators concluded that the essential elements of occupational embezzlement were not satisfied, particularly the requirement of intent to permanently deprive the company of property for personal use. 

The evidence demonstrated that the client acted to preserve the business during a financial emergency and did not extract personal gain from the transactions.

Accordingly, the Washington DC investigative authority issued a formal non prosecution decision, allowing the client to avoid criminal charges and reputational harm while continuing lawful business operations.