Top Law Schools

What you guys think the answer is to the following question....

If I am a gas station attendant and someone gives me 20 bucks for their gas and I take that money and directly put it in my pocket with the intention of keeping it, is it Larceny or Embezzlement?

larceny.

and now i can't remember why. but i'm 85% sure

pizzasodafries wrote:What you guys think the answer is to the following question....

If I am a gas station attendant and someone gives me 20 bucks for their gas and I take that money and directly put it in my pocket with the intention of keeping it, is it Larceny or Embezzlement?

larceny.

and now i can't remember why. but i'm 85% sure

Most likely as an employee of the gas station and not its president/manager you are not in lawful possession of the money so it's larceny (trespassory taking and carrying away of property of another with intent to permanently deprive - you are stealing from the gas station).
Embezzlement = the fraudulent conversion of property of another by a person in lawful possession of the property. You're not in lawful "possession" of the $ you're holding onto it for the couple minutes it takes to put it in the cash register.

^^^yep that's it.

Law-So-Hard wrote:

pizzasodafries wrote:What you guys think the answer is to the following question....

If I am a gas station attendant and someone gives me 20 bucks for their gas and I take that money and directly put it in my pocket with the intention of keeping it, is it Larceny or Embezzlement?

larceny.

and now i can't remember why. but i'm 85% sure

Most likely as an employee of the gas station and not its president/manager you are not in lawful possession of the money so it's larceny (trespassory taking and carrying away of property of another with intent to permanently deprive - you are stealing from the gas station).
Embezzlement = the fraudulent conversion of property of another by a person in lawful possession of the property. You're not in lawful "possession" of the $ you're holding onto it for the couple minutes it takes to put it in the cash register.

This is what I though, but what does "lawful possession" actually mean if the gas station attendant is not in lawful possession of the money before he puts it into register?

I can see you saying he has no lawful possession of the money once he puts it INTO the register, but I can't rap my head around why embezzlement cant apply to a low level employee in certain circumstances.

I thought it was embezzlement because the original giving money to the gas station attendant was with consent and without deceit. I remember doing a MBE question where the lady leaves her car at the body shop and the mechanic tried to steal her tires at night, and the answer said it was embezzlement, because she left that car at his possession with consent.

For me, larceny means the initial exchange was without consent.

I think the rule of thumb is that "low level" employees (e.g., cashiers) have mere custody of property like cash, while "higher level" employees (e.g., an accountant) are more likely to have possessory rights.

It doesn't necessarily make sense to me either, but that's the distinction our lecturer seemed to indicate was important on the bar exam.

LouEVille wrote:I think the rule of thumb is that "low level" employees (e.g., cashiers) have mere custody of property like cash, while "higher level" employees (e.g., an accountant) are more likely to have possessory rights.

It doesn't necessarily make sense to me either, but that's the distinction our lecturer seemed to indicate was important on the bar exam.

Didn't know that rule... good to know.

Barbri had a question like this that supposedly hinged on whether the employee took the money before or after she put it into the cash register. It was supposed to be larceny if she took the money before putting it into the cash register, and embezzlement if she took the money out of the cash register. Anyone have any idea why that might make a difference?

tsutsik wrote:Barbri had a question like this that supposedly hinged on whether the employee took the money before or after she put it into the cash register. It was supposed to be larceny if she took the money before putting it into the cash register, and embezzlement if she took the money out of the cash register. Anyone have any idea why that might make a difference?

I think you have it backwards... It's larceny when she takes it out of the register because she didn't have lawful possession of the money (the employer did) although she had control or custody over it, but it's embezzlement if she takes it before putting it in the register because she had lawful possession of it at that point. Is that fucking stupid? Yes but that's the distinction they made.

tsutsik wrote:Barbri had a question like this that supposedly hinged on whether the employee took the money before or after she put it into the cash register. It was supposed to be larceny if she took the money before putting it into the cash register, and embezzlement if she took the money out of the cash register. Anyone have any idea why that might make a difference?

THATS why i asked this question now to clear this up in my head.

You are getting it twisted up, the question was AFTER she put it in the register so it was a larceny since she had not "rights" or lawful possession to that money anymore. The answer intimated that IF she had taken the money BEFORE she put it in the register it could have been an embezzlement.

The woman who did the review video totally missed that distinction and said the general rule about upper level employees being embezzlement and lower level employees like clerks/cashiers/janitors being larceny.

MoneyMay wrote:

tsutsik wrote:Barbri had a question like this that supposedly hinged on whether the employee took the money before or after she put it into the cash register. It was supposed to be larceny if she took the money before putting it into the cash register, and embezzlement if she took the money out of the cash register. Anyone have any idea why that might make a difference?

I think you have it backwards... It's larceny when she takes it out of the register because she didn't have lawful possession of the money (the employer did) although she had control or custody over it, but it's embezzlement if she takes it before putting it in the register because she had lawful possession of it at that point. Is that fucking stupid? Yes but that's the distinction they made.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/example/ ... -raw%5D_15

encore1101 wrote:

MoneyMay wrote:

tsutsik wrote:Barbri had a question like this that supposedly hinged on whether the employee took the money before or after she put it into the cash register. It was supposed to be larceny if she took the money before putting it into the cash register, and embezzlement if she took the money out of the cash register. Anyone have any idea why that might make a difference?

I think you have it backwards... It's larceny when she takes it out of the register because she didn't have lawful possession of the money (the employer did) although she had control or custody over it, but it's embezzlement if she takes it before putting it in the register because she had lawful possession of it at that point. Is that fucking stupid? Yes but that's the distinction they made.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/example/ ... -raw%5D_15

I'M SO CONFUSED!!!!!

encore1101 wrote:

MoneyMay wrote:

tsutsik wrote:Barbri had a question like this that supposedly hinged on whether the employee took the money before or after she put it into the cash register. It was supposed to be larceny if she took the money before putting it into the cash register, and embezzlement if she took the money out of the cash register. Anyone have any idea why that might make a difference?

I think you have it backwards... It's larceny when she takes it out of the register because she didn't have lawful possession of the money (the employer did) although she had control or custody over it, but it's embezzlement if she takes it before putting it in the register because she had lawful possession of it at that point. Is that fucking stupid? Yes but that's the distinction they made.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/example/ ... -raw%5D_15

So I got the right answer for the wrong reason lol.

encore1101 wrote:

MoneyMay wrote:

tsutsik wrote:Barbri had a question like this that supposedly hinged on whether the employee took the money before or after she put it into the cash register. It was supposed to be larceny if she took the money before putting it into the cash register, and embezzlement if she took the money out of the cash register. Anyone have any idea why that might make a difference?

I think you have it backwards... It's larceny when she takes it out of the register because she didn't have lawful possession of the money (the employer did) although she had control or custody over it, but it's embezzlement if she takes it before putting it in the register because she had lawful possession of it at that point. Is that fucking stupid? Yes but that's the distinction they made.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/example/ ... -raw%5D_15

If you're taking barbri look @ question 93 of the simulated MBE, unless I'm reading it incorrectly, they explained it how I explained it.

MoneyMay wrote:

encore1101 wrote:

MoneyMay wrote:

tsutsik wrote:Barbri had a question like this that supposedly hinged on whether the employee took the money before or after she put it into the cash register. It was supposed to be larceny if she took the money before putting it into the cash register, and embezzlement if she took the money out of the cash register. Anyone have any idea why that might make a difference?

I think you have it backwards... It's larceny when she takes it out of the register because she didn't have lawful possession of the money (the employer did) although she had control or custody over it, but it's embezzlement if she takes it before putting it in the register because she had lawful possession of it at that point. Is that fucking stupid? Yes but that's the distinction they made.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/example/ ... -raw%5D_15

If you're taking barbri look @ question 93 of the simulated MBE, unless I'm reading it incorrectly, they explained it how I explained it.

I'm playing Hearthstone atm, but from my understanding, the difference is the level of control that the employee or "holder" is entitled to exercise over it.

For example, in the example above, a gas station employee, whose custody and discretion with money paid is limited to "Take it from customer to cashier," doesn't exercise sufficient control to warrant the money being "entrusted" to the employee.

Contrast that with a cashier, who by virtue of their job, has to handle money by receiving it from customers, giving out change and refunds, and being responsible for their drawers.

larceny questions are some of the trickiest.

i think money may has to be right as far as the cash register point goes. The reverse makes no sense--you have to be lawfully entrusted with the thing taken for embezzlement, so there's no set of facts where taking it out of the cash register after putting it in would be embezzlement where simply taking it straight away wouldn't also be embezzlement.

The converse makes more sense--it's embezzlement before you put it in the cash register because you are lawfully entrusted with it for the purposes of putting it in the cash register. It's larceny afterward because you have no business in there taking it out.


Now, it seems like that makes the OP example embezzlement as well.

encore's explanation makes sense too. nvm. just ignore what i said. i'm not suer what the answer is. it seems like this is too close a fact pattern for them to ask on the MBE (or they will include some other facts to make the distinction obvious).

in a sense, it's all entrusted to the cashier when the customer gives it to him (embezzlment), but if you buy the low level employee distinction they'd arguably both be larceny.

MoneyMay wrote:

tsutsik wrote:Barbri had a question like this that supposedly hinged on whether the employee took the money before or after she put it into the cash register. It was supposed to be larceny if she took the money before putting it into the cash register, and embezzlement if she took the money out of the cash register. Anyone have any idea why that might make a difference?

I think you have it backwards... It's larceny when she takes it out of the register because she didn't have lawful possession of the money (the employer did) although she had control or custody over it, but it's embezzlement if she takes it before putting it in the register because she had lawful possession of it at that point. Is that fucking stupid? Yes but that's the distinction they made.

Right. Thanks.

jd20132013 wrote:encore's explanation makes sense too. nvm. just ignore what i said. i'm not suer what the answer is. it seems like this is too close a fact pattern for them to ask on the MBE (or they will include some other facts to make the distinction obvious).

in a sense, it's all entrusted to the cashier when the customer gives it to him (embezzlment), but if you buy the low level employee distinction they'd arguably both be larceny.

I think the reason it's embezzlement is because the company never even came in possession of the money. If a cashier jacks some cash from the register that's clearly larceny. I think the high level/ low level employee distinction comes into play when the company is in possession of the money (so it would be embezzlement for high level employees and larceny for low level employees), but if they never even come into possession of it, then I think that's embezzlement even for a low level employee. But yeah both explanations make sense to me too so who the fuck really knows.

Also, FUCK the MBE.

MoneyMay wrote:

jd20132013 wrote:encore's explanation makes sense too. nvm. just ignore what i said. i'm not suer what the answer is. it seems like this is too close a fact pattern for them to ask on the MBE (or they will include some other facts to make the distinction obvious).

in a sense, it's all entrusted to the cashier when the customer gives it to him (embezzlment), but if you buy the low level employee distinction they'd arguably both be larceny.

I think the reason it's embezzlement is because the company never even came in possession of the money. If a cashier jacks some cash from the register that's clearly larceny. I think the high level/ low level employee distinction comes into play when the company is in possession of the money (so it would be embezzlement for high level employees and larceny for low level employees), but if they never even come into possession of it, then I think that's embezzlement even for a low level employee. But yeah both explanations make sense to me too so who the fuck really knows.

Also, FUCK the MBE.

I'm reading problem 93, and you're right; Barbri says that stealing from the register is larceny, but stealing from the customer directly is embezzlement. I'm reading different articles about larceny versus embezzlement and custody versus possession (http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_doc ... arceny.asp, http://www.bayarea-attorney.com/CM/Arti ... rceny-.asp) and it could just be a fact-intensive inquiry.

Side note: I hate Barbri because there's things that, I don't know if its just me, but I don't see as "reasonably foreseeable," but they mark it as their answer. For example, a truck driver ignoring accident signs and traffic warnings drives into an overpass bridge that's too low for his truck and knocks some rubble onto a person who was in an accident just prior = foreseeable. But an airplane pilot with an expired license who crashes upon landing with a novice pilot who ignored the control tower = unforeseeable.

encore1101 wrote:

MoneyMay wrote:

jd20132013 wrote:encore's explanation makes sense too. nvm. just ignore what i said. i'm not suer what the answer is. it seems like this is too close a fact pattern for them to ask on the MBE (or they will include some other facts to make the distinction obvious).

in a sense, it's all entrusted to the cashier when the customer gives it to him (embezzlment), but if you buy the low level employee distinction they'd arguably both be larceny.

I think the reason it's embezzlement is because the company never even came in possession of the money. If a cashier jacks some cash from the register that's clearly larceny. I think the high level/ low level employee distinction comes into play when the company is in possession of the money (so it would be embezzlement for high level employees and larceny for low level employees), but if they never even come into possession of it, then I think that's embezzlement even for a low level employee. But yeah both explanations make sense to me too so who the fuck really knows.

Also, FUCK the MBE.

I'm reading problem 93, and you're right; Barbri says that stealing from the register is larceny, but stealing from the customer directly is embezzlement. I'm reading different articles about larceny versus embezzlement and custody versus possession (http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_doc ... arceny.asp, http://www.bayarea-attorney.com/CM/Arti ... rceny-.asp) and it could just be a fact-intensive inquiry.

Side note: I hate Barbri because there's things that, I don't know if its just me, but I don't see as "reasonably foreseeable," but they mark it as their answer. For example, a truck driver ignoring accident signs and traffic warnings drives into an overpass bridge that's too low for his truck and knocks some rubble onto a person who was in an accident just prior = foreseeable. But an airplane pilot with an expired license who crashes upon landing with a novice pilot who ignored the control tower = unforeseeable.

What questions are those? if you don't mind.

MoneyMay wrote:

encore1101 wrote:

MoneyMay wrote:

jd20132013 wrote:encore's explanation makes sense too. nvm. just ignore what i said. i'm not suer what the answer is. it seems like this is too close a fact pattern for them to ask on the MBE (or they will include some other facts to make the distinction obvious).

in a sense, it's all entrusted to the cashier when the customer gives it to him (embezzlment), but if you buy the low level employee distinction they'd arguably both be larceny.

I think the reason it's embezzlement is because the company never even came in possession of the money. If a cashier jacks some cash from the register that's clearly larceny. I think the high level/ low level employee distinction comes into play when the company is in possession of the money (so it would be embezzlement for high level employees and larceny for low level employees), but if they never even come into possession of it, then I think that's embezzlement even for a low level employee. But yeah both explanations make sense to me too so who the fuck really knows.

Also, FUCK the MBE.

I'm reading problem 93, and you're right; Barbri says that stealing from the register is larceny, but stealing from the customer directly is embezzlement. I'm reading different articles about larceny versus embezzlement and custody versus possession (http://nationalparalegal.edu/public_doc ... arceny.asp, http://www.bayarea-attorney.com/CM/Arti ... rceny-.asp) and it could just be a fact-intensive inquiry.

Side note: I hate Barbri because there's things that, I don't know if its just me, but I don't see as "reasonably foreseeable," but they mark it as their answer. For example, a truck driver ignoring accident signs and traffic warnings drives into an overpass bridge that's too low for his truck and knocks some rubble onto a person who was in an accident just prior = foreseeable. But an airplane pilot with an expired license who crashes upon landing with a novice pilot who ignored the control tower = unforeseeable.

What questions are those? if you don't mind.

I'll have to find them. I did all the StudySmart questions this past week so its all just one big blur.

edit: When I'm Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, I'm going to eliminate the bar exam.

I hate this question and all of the stupidity that it represents. This exam is not a test of anything that remotely borders on useful.

Also, Kaplan agrees with the cash register distinction mentioned above.

Eh, yeah, you can't overthink these things, just go with what the bar prep company tells you. Conform