It is conversion when you are given legal possession, or "given to you in trust, or belonging to your employer." It refers to stealing the title from the person who entrusted you with its possession for whatever reason.mmmnnn wrote:Let's say A and B conspire to steal money. They then steal the money and are both guilty of larceny. Now let's say A tells B, "Hold on to my share, please." B ends up stealing A's share. Why is B's crime against A larceny rather than embezzlement? Is it impossible for B to be in "lawful possession" of A's property under these facts? I've tended to think of embezzlement as taking money/things that you've been given permission to hold (absent fraud/trickery), which seems satisfied here.
So if A owns the money, but gives it to B to go to the store and buy him some cigarettes, and B flees the state, it is embezzlement. A had the entire bundle of rights on the money, gave a 'license' to possess to B for a particular purpose, and B used the opportunity to convert it entirely.
But if the money was stolen, A did not have legal title to the money in the first place. So it satisfies larceny, but not embezzlement.
I guess if the situations were *really* attenuated a court might see it as embezzlement. A stole the money X years ago, and for all intents and purposes has title, or at least some sort of color of title.
Edit: I changed some stuff, but then saw I was quoted below, so reverted it.