Statute of Limitations Embezzlement

The law specifically targets individuals who hold a position of trust and responsibility over the property or funds of another, and then convert those assets unlawfully. This distinction elevates the crime beyond simple theft, acknowledging the betrayal of confidence inherent in fiduciary embezzlement.

• Trust Relationship: The accused must have been entrusted with the property by the victim.
• Fraudulent Conversion: The accused must have unlawfully used or taken the property for their own benefit.
• No Intent at Time of Possession: Unlike larceny, the intent to steal is formed after lawful possession of the property is obtained.

The statute of limitations begins when the embezzlement act has been completed and the offense becomes discoverable. According to legal precedent and interpretations of $23–113, if the embezzlement is part of a continuous scheme, the statute does not begin until the last act of embezzlement has occurred. This crucial legal principle aligns with how D.C. law treats conspiratorial or ongoing conduct, ensuring that the time limit does not expire while the criminal activity is still in progress.

As stated, the statute of limitations for felony-level theft or embezzlement in D.C. is generally three years. This time frame is based on the maximum punishment available under the law, which dictates that any crime punishable by more than one year of imprisonment is considered a felony and thus subject to the three-year limit under $23–113(a)(1). The application of this three-year limitation period is consistent for most fiduciary embezzlement cases unless a different legal provision extends it due to aggravating circumstances or interruption events.

The statute of limitations for embezzlement can be legally suspended in the following situations, effectively stopping the three-year clock:

• When the defendant is outside the District of Columbia: As per $23–103, the clock stops while the accused is not physically present in the District, preventing individuals from evading justice by leaving the jurisdiction when facing an embezzlement charge.
• When a warrant or indictment has been issued: If legal proceedings such as an arrest warrant or grand jury indictment are initiated, the limitation period is halted until the defendant is apprehended, signifying the state’s timely intent to prosecute the embezzlement charge.
• When the offense is not reasonably discoverable: In cases where embezzlement was actively concealed, courts may apply the “discovery rule” to delay the start of the limitations clock, holding that the clock shouldn't start running until the crime was known or should have been known by the victim or authorities.

Embezzlement cases often involve repeated transactions and conduct over an extended period. In such scenarios, courts may treat the offense as a continuing crime, delaying the beginning of the statute until the final misappropriation occurs. This legal treatment is significant because it allows prosecutors to pursue embezzlement charges years after the initial act, as long as the fraudulent scheme remained active within the three-year window.

Because embezzlement is frequently a concealed crime, prosecutors may argue the clock should not start until the fraud was discovered or reasonably could have been discovered through due diligence. This "discovery rule" is particularly relevant when financial audits or whistleblower reports trigger investigations years after the fact, making the presentation of evidence regarding the defendant's concealment and the victim's reasonable timeline for discovery a critical component of the legal argument concerning the statute of limitations for embezzlement.