Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Reports of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

  Download original PDF

Paul v Trust Territory [1961] TTLawRp 16; 2 TTR 238 (5 October 1961)

2 TTR 238

ERMES PAUL,
Appellant

v.

TRUST TERRITORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS,
Appellee

Criminal Case No. 124
Trial Division of the High Court
Truk District

October 5, 1961

See, also 2 TTR 603

Appeal from conviction in Truk District Court of embezzlement in violation of T.T.C., Sec. 893. Appellant contends that prosecution failed to show that he carried away money with intent to permanently convert it to his own use. The Trial Division of the High Court, Chief Justice E. P. Furber, held that where evidence is sufficient to establish embezzlement, accused's intention to return money to owner is not valid defense.

Affirmed.

1. Embezzlement - Generally

Evidence of failure to report cash disbursements, and of unaccountable shortage from special and petty cash funds, is sufficient to establish intent to defraud government and to permanently convert money so withheld to accused's own use. (T.T.C., Sec. 393)

2. Embezzlement - Generally

In criminal prosecution for embezzlement, it is not necessary for government to prove exact amount alleged in information has been embezzled. (T.T.C., Sec. 393)

3. Embezzlement - Sentence

Although maximum penalty which is imposed for embezzlement depends on whether amount involved is less than or greater than fifty dollars, actual amount beyond fifty dollars is matter for court to consider in exercising discretion as to punishment to be imposed within limits of law. (T.T.C., Sec. 393)

4. Embezzlement - Intent

Fact that person accused of embezzlement may have intended to replace amounts taken, or may have received no personal profit nor have intended to profit from taking, is not valid defense. (T.T.C., Sec. 393)

5. Criminal Law – Sentence - Modification

Appellate court will not overrule discretion of trial judge in sentencing and restitution requirements made within limits provided by law.

FURBER, Chief Justice

OPINION

This is an appeal from a conviction of embezzlement in the Truk District Court on the ground, "That the prosecution failed to prove that appellant did take and carry away the amount of money alleged in the information with the intent to permanently convert it to his own use."

This appeal appears based on a misconception as to the extent of the burden resting on the prosecution in an embezzlement case.