Cengage Advantage Books: Fundamentals of Business Law Today 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

Exercise 20

People v. Sisuphan
Court of Appeal of California, First District, 181 Cal.App.4th 800, 104 Cal.Rptr.3d 654 (2010).
FACTS Lou Sisuphan was the director of finance at a Toyota dealership. His responsibilities included managing the financing contracts for vehicle sales and working with lenders to obtain payments. Sisuphan complained repeatedly to management about the attitude of Ian McClelland, another employee. The general manager, Michael Christian, would not terminate McClelland "because he brought a lot of money into the dealership." One day, McClelland accepted $22,600 in cash and two checks from a customer. McClelland placed the cash and the checks in a large envelope. As he tried to drop the envelope into the safe through a mechanism at its top, the envelope became stuck. While McClelland went for assistance, Sisuphan wiggled the envelope free and kept it. On McClelland's return, Sisuphan told him that the envelope had dropped into the safe.
When the payment turned up missing, Christian told all the managers he would not bring criminal charges if the payment was returned. Sisuphan told Christian that he had taken the envelope, and he returned the cash and checks to Christian. Sisuphan claimed that he had no intention of stealing the payment but had taken it to get McClelland fired. Christian fired Sisuphan the next day, and the district attorney later charged Sisuphan with embezzlement.
After a jury trial, Sisuphan was found guilty. Sisuphan appealed, arguing that the trial court had erred by excluding evidence that he had returned the funds.
Issue Did Sisuphan take the funds with the intent to defraud his employer?
Decision Yes. The appellate court affirmed Sisuphan's conviction for embezzlement. Sisuphan had the required intent at the time of taking the funds, and the evidence that he repaid the dealership was properly excluded.
Reason The court reasoned that evidence of repayment is admissible only if it shows that a defendant's intent at the time of the taking was not fraudulent. In determining whether Sisuphan's intent was fraudulent at the time of the taking, the main issue was not whether he intended to spend the cash that he had taken.
Rather, the deciding factor was whether Sisuphan intended to use the funds "for a purpose other than that for which the dealership entrusted it to him." Sisuphan's stated purpose was to get McClelland fired. Because this purpose was beyond the scope of his responsibility, it was "outside the trust afforded him by the dealership" and indicated that he had fraudulent intent.
FOR CRITICAL ANALYSIS-Legal Consideration Why was Sisuphan convicted of embezzlement instead of larceny ? What is the difference between these two crimes?