(1)The defendant is charged with the crime of embezzlement. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
(2)First, that the [money1 / property] belonged to [name principal].2
(3)Second, that the defendant had a relationship of trust with [name principal] because the defendant was [define relationship].3
(4)Third, that the defendant obtained possession or control of the [money / property] because of this relationship.
(5)Fourth, that the defendant
[Choose (a), (b), or (c):]
(a)dishonestly disposed of the [money / property].
(b)converted the [money / property] to [his / her] own use.
(c)took or hid the [money / property] with the intent to convert it to [his / her] own use without the consent of
[name principal].
(6)Fifth, that at the time the defendant did this, [he / she] intended to defraud or cheat [name principal] of some property.4
(7) Sixth, that the fair market value of the property or amount of money embezzled was:5
[Choose only one of the following unless instructing on lesser offenses:]
(a)$100,000 or more.
(b)$50,000 or more but less than $100,000.
(c)$20,000 or more, but less than $50,000.
(d)$1,000 or more, but less than $20,000.
(e)$200 or more, but less than $1,000.
(f)some amount less than $200.
[Use the following paragraph only if applicable:]
(8)[You may add together the fair market value of property or money embezzled in separate incidents if part of a scheme or course of conduct (within any 12-month period) when deciding whether the prosecutor has proved thevalue of the property or amount of money embezzled beyond a reasonable doubt.]6
Use Note
1 “Money” includes cryptocurrency.
2 The principal must be someone other than the defendant.
3 The statute lists agent, servant, employee, trustee, bailee, or custodian. See the table of contents to Chapter 22 for a list of definitions that may be used.
4 This is a specific intent crime. The defendant’s intent to return or replace the money at a later time does not provide a defense. People v Butts, 128 Mich 208, 87 NW 224 (1901).
5 The Fair Market Value Test, M Crim JI 22.1, should be given when applicable.
6 The 12-month time limit does not apply if the embezzlement scheme or course of conduct was directed against only one legal entity. In those cases, with one victim, do not include the parenthetical phrase referring to the 12-month period.
History
M Crim JI 27.1 (formerly CJI2d 27.1) was CJI 27:1:01; amended September, 1999, to reflect changes made by 1998 PA 312, eff. January 1, 1999; and amended June 2019, to reflect changes made by 2006 PA 573, eff. March 30, 2007. Use Note updated August 2020.
Reference Guide
Statutes
MCL 750.174, .181.
Case Law
People v Kurrle, 335 Mich 180, 55 NW2d 787 (1952); People v Bergman, 246 Mich 68, 71, 224 NW 375 (1929); People v Burns, 242 Mich 345, 348, 218 NW 704 (1928); People v Butts, 128 Mich 208, 87 NW 224 (1901); People v Collins, 239 Mich App 125, 130-131, 607 NW2d 760 (1999); People v Gadient, 185 Mich App 280, 286, 460 NW2d 896 (1990); People v Wood, 182 Mich App 50, 53, 451 NW2d 563 (1990).