Anastasia Qvist is an outstanding lawyer. My criminal law situation (family violence order) was difficult, complex and Ana's diligence saved me as I was going through the most difficult period of my life. Ana is down to earth, commonsense and she even kept our costs to a minimum. She is a skilled litigator and knows the ins and outs of the ACT Magistrates Court. She dealt skillfully with the DPP and is an excellent negotiator. You will get a fair representation and she genuinely cares about her clients. She has my complete recommendation. The lady goes to bat for her clients.
I would strongly recommend Anastasia to anyone who is seeking legal representation. As a first-time offender who was charged with a Level 2 Drink Driving offence, she walked me through every step of the matter and was very upfront and clear on all aspects of my case. She was always accessible when I needed advice. Her approach and advice were excellent. Under her representation, I received the best possible outcome and managed to avoid a criminal conviction. She was a pleasure to deal with throughout the whole matter.
Anastasia Qvist was very professional and helpful in every step of my matter. I got a very good outcome and I can’t thank you enough for your hard work and the Armstrong Legal team in Canberra. I would highly recommend her!!!
Throughout Angela has been the consummate professional. She maintained a calm, yet strong demeanour remained informative and completely open in her communication and took complete ownership of the situation. We felt confident we finally had an advocate to steer us out of the nightmare we were in, and she did so with great respect and sincerity. I cannot speak more highly of Angela. She has literally rescued our family from what looked very much like a hopeless future.
Words can’t describe how grateful I am to Trudie Cameron being my solicitor and to Andrew Tiedt presenting my case in the court. They both have been very supportive and amazingly professional and effective. I’ve got an absolutely fantastic outcome I couldn’t even dream about.
Soon after meeting Andrew I knew he was the solicitor I wanted to handle my matter. He immediately sprang into action which brought me stability and hope during a tumultuous time in my life. Andrew was never afraid to give me straight answers to my tough questions which is a true mark of integrity. He is clearly at ease in the court environment and I believe his calm and measured demeanour went a long way to helping me secure the best result from my day in court. I would certainly recommend you approach Andrew if you need assistance.
"Andrew Tiedt was very professional and considerate to personal circumstances and gave sound advice that resulted in the best outcome possible. Highly recommended."
Embezzlement By Clerk
In NSW, the offence of Embezzlement by clerk or servants carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. This offence relates to any instance of embezzlement from an employer by an employee.
Local Court penalties
If the matter is dealt with in the Local Court, the penalties available are subject to limitations depending on the value of the property embezzled:
- If the value exceeds $5,000, the maximum penalty is limited to two years imprisonment and/or 100 penalty units.
- If the value does not exceed $5,000, the maximum penalty is two years imprisonment and/or 50 penalty units.
- If the value does not exceed $2,000 the maximum penalty is two years imprisonment and/or 20 penalty units.
The offence of Embezzlement by clerk or servants is contained in section 157 of the Crimes Act 1900 which states: “whosoever, being a clerk, or servant fraudulently embezzles, either the whole or any part of, any property delivered to, or received, or taken into possession by him or her, for, or in the name, or on the account of, his or her master, or employer, shall be deemed to have stolen the same, although such property was not received into the possession of such master, or employer, otherwise than by the actual possession of such clerk, or servant, and shall be liable to imprisonment for ten years.”
What Actions Might Constitute Embezzlement by Clerk?
The following actions could form the basis for a charge of embezzlement by clerk:
- There must be a theft of property. For an offence under this provision, the property taken must be something tangible and must have some value. For example, it could include a cheque but would not include information.
- The property taken must belong to the offender’s ‘master’ or ‘employer’. This is generally taken to be an employer, which could be a single person, a company or a corporation. By law you are a ‘clerk or servant’ if you are “bound to obey the orders of [your] employer,” that is, you are under their control: R v Negus.
- The section sets out that property would be deemed to be ‘stolen’ if it was “delivered to, or received, or taken into possession … for, or in the name, or on the account of his or her master or employer”if the master or employer did not receive that property.
Embezzlement or larceny?
The difference between embezzlement and larceny relates to the possession of the property when it is being taken. If the property was in possession of the master or employer when taken, this is larceny. Where the property is taken by the clerk or servant before the master has possession, it is embezzlement: R v Davenport  1 All ER 602.
A simple example of this would be to say that an employee taking money out of the till is larceny. Embezzlement would have occurred if an employee received money from goods sold (on behalf of the employer) and took possession of that money.
What must be proven?
In order for a person to be found guilty of this offence, the court must be satisfied that:
- The accused was a ‘clerk’ or ‘servant’ of the owner of the property at the time of the offence.
- That they:
- Had delivered to; or
- Took into their possession
- Property for, in the name of, or on account of the master/employer; and
- They fraudulently embezzled that property.
Which Court Will Hear Your Matter?
This will depend on the value of the property alleged to have been taken.
If the value of the property exceeds $5,000, it is a Table 1 offence. This means that the matter will likely be dealt with in the Local Court, however the DPP or the defendant can elect to have the matter dealt with in the District Court.
If the value of the property is does not exceed $5,000, it is a Table 1 offence. This means that the matter will also be likely to be dealt with in the Local Court; however, the DPP can elect to have the matter dealt with in the District Court.
If you require legal advice or representation in any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.
WHERE TO NEXT?
If you suspect that you may be under investigation, or if you have been charged with an offence, it is vital to get competent legal advice as early as possible. Our lawyers are highly specialised in criminal law and will be able to guide you through the process while dealing with the various authorities related to your matter.
WHY CHOOSE ARMSTRONG LEGAL?
201 Elizabeth Street
Sydney NSW 2000
575 Bourke Street
Melbourne VIC 3000
231 North Quay
Brisbane QLD 4000
1 Farrell Place
Canberra ACT 2601
111 St Georges Terrace
Perth WA 6000