South Carolina Law Separates Unlawful Taking From Misuse of Entrusted Property
Theft and embezzlement are often discussed as though they mean the same thing. Under South Carolina law, however, the allegations can involve different criminal offenses, different elements, and different defense strategies.
Both involve accusations that someone intentionally deprived another person of money or property. The key distinction usually concerns how the accused obtained possession. Theft, commonly prosecuted as larceny in South Carolina, generally involves property taken without the owner’s consent. Conduct often described as embezzlement involves property that was initially entrusted to the accused or lawfully placed in their possession before allegedly being converted for an unauthorized purpose.
That difference can determine what prosecutors must prove and which evidence matters most.
At Matt Bodman, P.A., we defend people accused of theft, breach of trust with fraudulent intent, and other white collar crimes throughout Columbia and South Carolina. Attorney Matt Bodman spent five years as an Assistant Solicitor before founding his defense practice in 2002. His experience investigating and prosecuting criminal cases gives him insight into how the state builds these allegations and where its evidence may be challenged.
What Separates Theft From Breach of Trust With Fraudulent Intent
“Theft” is a broad term rather than the name of one universal South Carolina offense. A traditional theft accusation may be prosecuted as petit or grand larceny under South Carolina Code § 16-13-30.
Conduct people commonly call embezzlement is often prosecuted under South Carolina Code § 16-13-230 as breach of trust with fraudulent intent. South Carolina courts have described this offense as larceny after trust because the accused allegedly obtained possession lawfully before later converting the property.
Several distinctions can separate the two charges:
- How Possession Began: Larceny generally involves taking property without the owner’s consent. Breach of trust begins with lawful possession or entrustment.
- The Relationship Between the Parties: A breach of trust case requires evidence that the property was placed in the accused’s possession through a relationship of trust or confidence. This could involve an employee, business manager, bookkeeper, contractor, agent, or another person authorized to handle property.
- The Alleged Conversion: Prosecutors must show more than missing property or an unpaid balance. They must connect the accused to an unauthorized conversion of the entrusted property.
- Fraudulent Intent: A breach of trust charge requires evidence that the accused acted with fraudulent intent. A mistake, accounting problem, contract dispute, or misunderstanding isn’t automatically a crime.
- The Timing of the Intent: In a larceny case, the alleged unlawful intent generally accompanies the taking. In a breach of trust case, the accused initially receives the property lawfully and allegedly develops the intent to convert it afterward.
These distinctions aren’t mere technicalities. If the evidence doesn’t establish the type of possession, relationship, or intent required for the charged offense, the prosecution may be unable to prove its case.
South Carolina Uses Different Charges for Different Types of Embezzlement
South Carolina doesn’t use one embezzlement statute for every alleged misuse of money or property.
Private-property cases involving an employee, manager, contractor, or another entrusted person are often charged as breach of trust with fraudulent intent. Embezzlement of public funds is covered by a separate statute that applies to officers and other people responsible for safeguarding, transferring, or disbursing government money.
This distinction matters because the appropriate charge depends on the type of property, who owned it, how the accused received it, and what authority the accused had over it.
An investigation should begin by examining the actual statute listed on the warrant, indictment, or charging document rather than relying only on an investigator’s or employer’s description of the conduct as “embezzlement.”
Penalties Depend on the Value of the Property
South Carolina grades ordinary larceny and breach of trust with fraudulent intent according to the value of the property or money involved.
Property Valued at $2,000 or Less
The offense is generally a misdemeanor. A conviction can result in a fine of up to $1,000 or imprisonment for up to 30 days.
Property Valued at More Than $2,000 but Less Than $10,000
The offense is a felony. A conviction can result in a fine determined by the court or imprisonment for up to five years.
Property Valued at $10,000 or More
The offense is a felony. A conviction can result in a fine determined by the court or imprisonment for up to 10 years.
Because the grading depends on value, prosecutors must prove more than the fact that property was allegedly taken or converted. They must also establish the amount involved.
A disputed valuation can affect whether the charge is a misdemeanor or felony and whether the maximum potential sentence is 30 days, five years, or 10 years.
A Conviction Can Affect More Than Freedom and Finances
The criminal penalties are only part of what may be at stake.
A theft or breach of trust conviction can create a criminal record involving dishonesty. That record may affect employment, professional licenses, security clearances, educational opportunities, housing applications, loans, and a person’s reputation.
The consequences can be particularly serious when the accused works in banking, healthcare, accounting, government, education, insurance, or another field involving access to money or confidential information.
An employer may also begin its own disciplinary or termination process before the criminal case is resolved. Statements made during an internal investigation can later become evidence for law enforcement.
That makes it important to understand your rights before giving a written statement, participating in a recorded interview, signing a repayment agreement, or trying to explain missing money without legal advice.
Prosecutors Often Build These Cases From Financial Records
Theft and breach of trust cases may depend less on eyewitness testimony than on documents, account activity, and the inferences prosecutors draw from them.
Common evidence can include:
- Bank statements and transaction histories
- Accounting software and audit reports
- Payroll and expense records
- Checks, invoices, receipts, and purchase orders
- Company policies and employment agreements
- Emails, text messages, and internal communications
- Computer access logs
- Surveillance footage
- Statements made to employers, auditors, or investigators
Financial records may show that money moved, but they don’t always explain why it moved, who authorized the transaction, or whether the accused acted with fraudulent intent.
A defense investigation may need to reconstruct the entire financial history rather than relying on the limited selection of transactions highlighted by the prosecution.
Defenses to Theft and Breach of Trust Charges
The appropriate defense depends on the charge and the evidence. Potential issues may include:
- No Unlawful Taking: A larceny charge can be challenged when the accused had permission to possess or use the property, reasonably believed they had permission, or didn’t take it at all.
- No Trust or Entrustment Relationship: A breach of trust case requires proof that the accused lawfully received the property through a relationship of trust or confidence. A contractual disagreement or unpaid debt doesn’t automatically establish that relationship.
- Lack of Fraudulent Intent: Missing money isn’t enough by itself. The state must prove criminal intent. An honest mistake, bookkeeping error, unclear company policy, or misunderstanding about authorization may undermine that element.
- Authorization or Consent: The accused may have acted with the owner’s permission or within authority granted by an employer, business partner, or account holder.
- A Good-Faith Claim to the Property: Evidence that the accused honestly believed they owned the property or had a legal right to use it can conflict with an allegation of fraudulent intent.
- An Inflated or Unsupported Valuation: The state’s valuation may rely on incomplete records, replacement cost rather than actual value, or transactions that shouldn’t be included in the total. Challenging the amount can significantly reduce the potential charge.
- Accounting or Recordkeeping Problems: Poor bookkeeping can create discrepancies that look suspicious without proving a crime. Missing receipts, duplicate entries, misclassified expenses, and failures by multiple employees may all need to be investigated.
- Insufficient Evidence Identifying the Accused: Several people may have had access to an account, cash drawer, inventory system, company credit card, or financial software. Access alone doesn’t prove who completed a transaction or acted with criminal intent.
- Improperly Obtained Statements or Evidence: A defense attorney may review how law enforcement conducted interviews, obtained financial records, searched electronic devices, or used statements made during the investigation.
These issues are also common in broader white collar fraud defenses, where the state’s interpretation of financial records may be just as important as the records themselves.
Early Statements Can Shape the Entire Case
People accused of taking money from an employer often feel pressured to explain themselves immediately. They may believe cooperation will resolve the misunderstanding or prevent the police from becoming involved.
Those conversations can have the opposite effect.
An employer may have already contacted law enforcement, an insurance company, or an auditor. A supposedly informal meeting may be designed to obtain admissions, identify inconsistencies, or secure a written statement that can be used later.
Trying to explain complicated financial activity without reviewing the records first can make an innocent mistake sound intentional. Paying money back can also be portrayed as an admission, even when the person believed they were resolving a civil disagreement.
Speaking with a criminal defense attorney before providing detailed statements can help protect your rights and prevent avoidable mistakes.
Facing Theft or Embezzlement Charges in Columbia?
A theft, embezzlement, or breach of trust allegation doesn’t determine the outcome. The state still has to prove every element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
At Matt Bodman, P.A., we examine how the accused obtained the property, what authority they had, whether a genuine trust relationship existed, how the state calculated the value, and whether the evidence actually proves fraudulent intent.
Matt Bodman is a former Richland County prosecutor with decades of legal experience. He personally handles every case and begins preparing for trial from the first meeting rather than waiting to see how the prosecution proceeds.
If you’ve been charged with theft, breach of trust, or embezzlement in Columbia or elsewhere in South Carolina, contact Matt Bodman, P.A. for a free consultation. The earlier the financial records, statements, and charging documents are reviewed, the more opportunities there may be to challenge the state’s case.
“Matt represented me for two different charges and did it in a very professional manner. I was kept up to date on any matters regarding my case and the entire time felt like my case was a priority for him. He maintained a confident attitude, which gave me confidence and eased any worries I had regarding my case. Matt is a very skilled and experienced attorney, and I highly recommend his services.” – Former Client, ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
