Meeting the Elements of Embezzlement.
Meeting the Elements of Embezzlement
Before you begin this assignment, be sure to complete your reading assignment.
Please review the following scenario and answer the questions below.
- Explain what a prosecutor would have to prove in order to charge someone with embezzlement.
- As the prosecutor, write a paragraph summarizing your argument that Miller’s conviction of embezzlement in the trial court was the correct result. Be sure to state how the facts meet the required elements of the offense.
- As Miller’s defense attorney, write a paragraph summarizing your argument that Miller’s conviction of embezzlement in the trial court was the wrong result. Is there evidence of Miller’s intent, and does that affect the outcome?
- As a judge hearing this appeal, reach a decision as to Miller’s guilt or innocence. Should Miller’s conviction be affirmed or reversed? Explain your decision.
- Write your answers in complete sentences.
- Use correct spelling and grammar.
- Cite any sources used in proper APA format (both in-text and on a reference page).
Arguably, for the prosecutor to charge someone with embezzlement elements accrued to the aspects will have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Notably, the prosecutor must affirm that the property owner entrusted their possession to the defendant. The approach utilized in exchange must be willful with the elimination of any forceful act. Additionally, the prosecutor must be in a position to justify that the plaintiff acts due to trust in the defendant. Also, the jury must be provided with evidence that the defendant utilized the property for their good (ECPI, 2020). The aspect requires an informed proof of fraud when one commits a crime by misrepresentation of critical facts. It can be a case scenario in statement form or informed elimination of vital details in the property. Ultimately, the prosecutor must be in a position to prove that the defendant had intentions of depriving the owner property in question.
Miller’s conviction at the trial court was justified, and thus, even if the case can be taken to an appeal court, the most likely outcome is an affirmation. Thus occupying the position of the prosecutor, I am convinced that the defendant was guilty regarding embezzlement. Brogan property was issued to Stephen due to trust, which in return transmitted a similar level of confidence to Miller, who failed to observe integrity. Arguably the money meant to cater to the loan was issued by Brogan willingly (ECPI, 2020). Also, Miller fraudulently occupied possession of the funds presented to her by Stephens and utilized it for her good. It is worth noting that there was no directive or permission to use the money for other functions besides unsettling the loan. Finally, it was vivid that Miller intended to deprive Brogan use of the loan money. Therefore the decision reached by the jury was functional valid and justified.
The court’s convictions sadden me, and thus, I stand to define Miller as her appointed attorney. Notably, the evidence before the jury is not essential, and therefore the ruling might be justified. Further, it will be an honor if other case scenarios can be brought to the book, affirming the rationale behind the occurrence. (ECPI, 2020) My client has never been part of any fund embezzlement in the past, and I tend to believe that financial errors must have conjured the current mishappenings. Miller has been diligent, honest, and committed to her bank duties, and it is for that reason that commercial banks entrusted her with the position. It will serve human justice if room for rational and probability scenarios can be drafted into the case. The evidence of miller’s intent is not available, and it will variegate the outcome.
As a judge and powers entrusted to me by the court, I find the defendant guilty of the convictions for having committed the crime of funds embezzlement. The sentence should be affirmed since I see all the justifications valid. The evidence before the court mentions that the money was issued to the defendant, but she failed to execute the intended task (Andryanto, 2018). Arguably the defendant was unable to present any valid evidence to outweigh the plaintiff’s voice of reason. The prosecutor has justified all the embezzlement elements, and it will be an unconstitutional ruling against the confines of the law.
Andryanto, C. (2018). Law Enforcement against Fraud and/or Embezzlement. JILS, 3, 43.
ECPI. (2020). Unit 3 Application Assignment: Meeting the Elements of Embezzlement. Retrieved from https://media.ecpi.net/media/CJ107/cj107_U3%20-%20Storyline%20output/story_html5.html