TITLE	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Do17494 Decided July 19, 2018¡¼Aiding and Abetting Fraud; Embezzlement¡½ [full Text]
Summary
[1] Meaning of and standard for determining ¡°a person in custody of another¡¯s property¡± who is the principal agent in the crime of embezzlement [2] Albeit the nonexistence of a legal relationship between a remitter and an account holder that served as the cause for remittance/transfer, in a case where the remitter¡¯s wire transfer of money to another person¡¯s deposit account resulted in the account holder¡¯s acquisition of the deposited amount, whether the crime of embezzlement is established if the account holder withdrew the remitted amount with the intent of unlawful acquisition rather than leaving it as is in the account (affirmative) In the event a deposit account opened by an account holder was used in the commission of telecommunications-based financial fraud that led a defrauded to wire money to said account, whether the crime of embezzlement may be established against the defrauded if the account holder withdrew said money with the intent of unlawful acquisition (affirmative with restriction), and whether in such case the account holder¡¯s withdrawal constitutes embezzlement in connection with the telecommunications-based financial fraud offender (negative) [3] In the case where: (a) Defendants A and B were charged with having conspired in (i) aiding and abetting Party C (member of a voice phishing organization) in the commission of telecommunications-based financial fraud against Party D (victim) by providing the means of access to a deposit account opened under Defendant A¡¯s name to Party C, (ii) embezzling Party C¡¯s property (primary charge) and Party D¡¯s property (ancillary charge) by arbitrarily withdrawing using a separate means of access the partial amount of money that Party D, upon being deceived by Party C, remitted to said deposit account; and (b) the lower court acquitted the Defendants on all charges, including aiding and abetting of fraud and embezzlement, the case holding that the arbitrary withdrawal of the partial amount constitutes embezzlement insofar as the Defendants are not held accountable for aiding and abetting fraud

Prev	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2018Da22008 Decided July 19, 2018 ¡¼Indemnification¡½
Next	Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Da242409 Decided July 19, 2018 ¡¼Unjust Enrichment¡½