Embezzlement Defense

Embezzlement charges are among the most professionally and personally devastating a person can face. Unlike street crimes, embezzlement allegations typically arise in employment or organizational contexts, which means they often come with termination, public exposure, and reputational harm before any conviction has occurred. The cases are financially complex, and prosecutors frequently rely on accounting records, bank statements, and electronic transactions that require careful and experienced review. An accusation is not proof, and the specific intent required by Michigan law is often more difficult for the prosecution to establish than the paper trail initially suggests.

Michigan Embezzlement Charges We Handle

• Embezzlement Under $200: misdemeanor; up to 93 days in jail (MCL 750.174)
• Embezzlement $200 to $1,000: misdemeanor; up to 1 year in jail
• Embezzlement $1,000 to $20,000: felony; up to 5 years in prison
• Embezzlement $20,000 to $50,000: felony; up to 10 years in prison
• Embezzlement $50,000 to $100,000: felony; up to 15 years in prison
• Embezzlement Over $100,000: felony; up to 20 years in prison
• Embezzlement by a Public Official or Employee: enhanced penalties apply regardless of amount
• Embezzlement from a Vulnerable Adult or Financial Institution: additional enhanced penalties
• Employee Theft / Breach of Fiduciary Duty: related charges often filed alongside embezzlement

What the Prosecution Must Prove

Under MCL 750.174, embezzlement requires proof that: (1) the defendant was an agent, employee, or fiduciary of another; (2) money or property came into the defendant’s possession through that relationship; (3) the defendant fraudulently disposed of or converted the money or property to their own use; and (4) the defendant intended to defraud or deceive. The specific intent to defraud is an essential element. Sloppy bookkeeping, authorized but undocumented expenses, or good-faith disputes about compensation are not embezzlement, even if money moved in ways that look suspicious on paper.

Defense Strategies

Lack of intent to defraud: This is the most common and often most powerful defense. If the defendant had a genuine belief they were authorized to use the funds, or made accounting errors without fraudulent intent, the prosecution cannot establish the mental state embezzlement requires.

Authorization: If there was explicit or implied permission, from an employer, board, or organization, to use the funds in the way alleged, the essential element of unauthorized conversion is absent.

Accounting disputes: Financial records are often ambiguous. What looks like theft in one framing looks like a legitimate expense reimbursement or deferred compensation in another. Hiring a forensic accountant to independently analyze the records is often essential.

Challenging the amount: Because penalties scale dramatically with the dollar amount alleged, contesting the prosecution’s accounting of the total value involved can directly affect the severity of the charge and the sentencing range.

Pre-charge intervention: Embezzlement investigations often proceed over weeks or months before charges are filed. Retaining an attorney during the investigation stage, before you are formally charged, can influence how the case is charged and whether it is charged at all.

How Chris Approaches Embezzlement Cases

Chris reviews the full financial record independently, works with forensic accounting professionals where needed, and evaluates whether the prosecution’s characterization of the alleged conduct is supported by the actual evidence. He pays close attention to the intent element, because in many embezzlement cases, the hardest question for the prosecution to answer is not whether money moved, but whether it moved fraudulently. Early engagement with the prosecutor’s office, before the case hardens, can sometimes lead to outcomes that would not be available later.