Embezzlement Defense Attorney Massachusetts
Charged with embezzlement in Massachusetts? Larceny by embezzlement and fiduciary statutes carry up to 10-15 years. Free consultation 24/7.
Over 30 Years Defending Embezzlement Charges in Massachusetts Courts
Embezzlement charges in Massachusetts arise from a position of trust, and the central allegation is that someone with access to property converted it to their own use without authorization. Penalties range from misdemeanor exposure to up to 15 years in state prison depending on the role and the value involved. We defend individuals charged with embezzlement offenses in Essex County and throughout Eastern Massachusetts.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation available 24/7.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation available 24/7.
Understanding Your Situation
Embezzlement charges almost always follow an internal investigation by the alleged victim, often a former employer, business partner, or family member, and they typically arrive with significant documentation already assembled. We have defended people facing embezzlement charges for over 30 years in Massachusetts courts.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation.
Understanding Embezzlement Charges in Massachusetts
If you are looking at charging documents that mention embezzlement, the first thing to understand is that Massachusetts treats embezzlement primarily as a form of larceny, not as a separate offense. Most cases are charged as larceny by embezzlement under M.G.L. c. 266, § 30. The Commonwealth then has additional, more serious statutes that apply when the alleged embezzler held a specific role: fiduciary, corporate officer, bank employee, or government official. The role determines the penalty.
Massachusetts embezzlement law shares a single set of core elements across all variants. The Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant occupied a position of trust or fiduciary capacity, that the defendant came into possession of property through that position, that the defendant converted the property to personal use or to the use of a third party without authorization, and that the defendant acted with fraudulent intent. Mere access to funds is not embezzlement. Honest mistakes, accounting errors, claims of right, and authorized transactions later disputed are all defenses to the charge.
Massachusetts embezzlement law shares a single set of core elements across all variants. The Commonwealth must prove four things beyond a reasonable doubt: that the defendant occupied a position of trust or fiduciary capacity, that the defendant came into possession of property through that position, that the defendant converted the property to personal use or to the use of a third party without authorization, and that the defendant acted with fraudulent intent. Mere access to funds is not embezzlement. Honest mistakes, accounting errors, claims of right, and authorized transactions later disputed are all defenses to the charge.
Larceny by Embezzlement
Larceny by embezzlement under M.G.L. c. 266, § 30 is the most commonly charged embezzlement statute in Massachusetts and applies to any case that does not fall within one of the enhanced fiduciary or institutional statutes. It is the workhorse provision for employee theft, cashier and bookkeeper cases, contractor disputes, and similar fact patterns. The same value thresholds that apply to general larceny apply here: property over $1,200 is a felony with up to 5 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail and a fine of up to $25,000; property of $1,200 or less is a misdemeanor with up to 1 year in jail and a fine of up to $1,500.
Where the property is taken from someone 60 or older or a person with a disability and exceeds $250, an enhanced penalty applies under § 30(5): up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2.5 years in the house of correction. This often arises in cases involving caregivers, family members handling money for elderly relatives, and power-of-attorney arrangements. The pattern is captured in detail on the Elder Larceny page.
Where the property is taken from someone 60 or older or a person with a disability and exceeds $250, an enhanced penalty applies under § 30(5): up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2.5 years in the house of correction. This often arises in cases involving caregivers, family members handling money for elderly relatives, and power-of-attorney arrangements. The pattern is captured in detail on the Elder Larceny page.
Embezzlement by Fiduciary
Embezzlement by a fiduciary under M.G.L. c. 266, § 57 carries enhanced penalties when the defendant held a formal fiduciary role: a trustee under an express written trust, a guardian, a conservator, an executor, an administrator, or any person to whom such a trust devolved. The Commonwealth must prove the formal fiduciary status as an additional element beyond the standard embezzlement elements. Conviction carries up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail and a fine of up to $2,000.
Fiduciary cases are document-intensive. The trust instrument, the appointment papers, the accountings filed with the court, and the written instructions from beneficiaries often determine whether the alleged conduct was authorized or not. Many fiduciary cases involve close family situations where conduct that looked routine at the time later becomes the basis for charges after a dispute or a death. Authorization, course of dealing, and reasonable interpretation of ambiguous instructions are powerful defenses.
Fiduciary cases are document-intensive. The trust instrument, the appointment papers, the accountings filed with the court, and the written instructions from beneficiaries often determine whether the alleged conduct was authorized or not. Many fiduciary cases involve close family situations where conduct that looked routine at the time later becomes the basis for charges after a dispute or a death. Authorization, course of dealing, and reasonable interpretation of ambiguous instructions are powerful defenses.
Embezzlement by Corporate Officer or Broker
Embezzlement by a broker, or by an officer, manager, or agent of a corporation, is governed by M.G.L. c. 266, § 56. The statute applies where the defendant was entrusted with money, stock, or property of others through their corporate or brokerage role and converted it to their own use. Conviction carries up to 5 years in state prison or up to 1 year in jail and a fine of up to $500.
Corporate embezzlement cases often arise from employee terminations, partnership disputes, or regulatory referrals. The cases turn on the scope of the defendant's authority, the company's internal authorization policies, and the difference between unauthorized self-dealing and conduct within the defendant's discretion. Where the defendant had legitimate authority over the funds and used them in a manner consistent with the company's ordinary practices, the case may be defensible even where the conduct was later disputed.
Corporate embezzlement cases often arise from employee terminations, partnership disputes, or regulatory referrals. The cases turn on the scope of the defendant's authority, the company's internal authorization policies, and the difference between unauthorized self-dealing and conduct within the defendant's discretion. Where the defendant had legitimate authority over the funds and used them in a manner consistent with the company's ordinary practices, the case may be defensible even where the conduct was later disputed.
Embezzlement by Bank Officer or Employee
Embezzlement by an officer, director, trustee, agent, or employee of a bank carries the most serious state penalties of any embezzlement offense in Massachusetts under M.G.L. c. 266, § 52: up to 15 years in state prison or up to 2.5 years in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. The enhanced penalty reflects the heightened public trust associated with the banking role.
Federal jurisdiction often overlaps in bank embezzlement cases, and prosecutors sometimes have a choice between state and federal prosecution. Federal bank embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. § 656 generally carries similar maximum sentences, but federal cases proceed under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which can produce significantly different practical outcomes. An early defense priority is to understand which jurisdiction is investigating and to engage with prosecutors before formal charges issue.
Federal jurisdiction often overlaps in bank embezzlement cases, and prosecutors sometimes have a choice between state and federal prosecution. Federal bank embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. § 656 generally carries similar maximum sentences, but federal cases proceed under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, which can produce significantly different practical outcomes. An early defense priority is to understand which jurisdiction is investigating and to engage with prosecutors before formal charges issue.
Embezzlement by Public Official
Two related public-official statutes apply when the defendant held a government role. Embezzlement by a municipal or county officer under M.G.L. c. 266, § 51 carries up to 10 years in state prison or up to 2 years in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. Embezzlement by a state treasury employee under M.G.L. c. 266, § 50 carries the most severe penalty in the chapter: up to life in state prison.
Public-official embezzlement cases typically begin with state auditor referrals, internal agency investigations, or whistleblower complaints. The cases are politically sensitive and often involve detailed forensic accounting. Procurement irregularities, fund commingling, and informal accommodations within agencies (some lawful, some not) are common fact patterns. The State Ethics Commission may have a parallel administrative proceeding underway, with consequences for public employment that operate independently of the criminal case.
Public-official embezzlement cases typically begin with state auditor referrals, internal agency investigations, or whistleblower complaints. The cases are politically sensitive and often involve detailed forensic accounting. Procurement irregularities, fund commingling, and informal accommodations within agencies (some lawful, some not) are common fact patterns. The State Ethics Commission may have a parallel administrative proceeding underway, with consequences for public employment that operate independently of the criminal case.
Potential Consequences Under Massachusetts Law
We know you are already worried about what could happen, particularly if the alleged loss is large or if the case has been the subject of a long internal investigation by your former employer or by an agency. The exact consequences depend entirely on which statute is charged, the value involved, and your role at the time. Most embezzlement charges are felonies, although general larceny by embezzlement of $1,200 or less remains a misdemeanor. Felony exposure ranges from 5 years (corporate broker cases) to 10 years (general larceny by embezzlement of property over $1,200, fiduciary cases, municipal officer cases, elder cases) to 15 years (bank cases) to life (state treasury employee cases). Restitution is mandatory upon conviction in essentially every embezzlement case and is typically ordered for the full amount of the alleged loss, often with interest.
Beyond direct sentencing, embezzlement convictions carry collateral consequences that often matter more than the criminal sentence. They are classified as crimes involving moral turpitude and as crimes of dishonesty under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, meaning they remain admissible to impeach credibility for at least 10 years. Professional licenses in finance, real estate, healthcare, law, and public employment are at risk: the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, the Department of Insurance, the Real Estate Board, the Board of Public Accountancy, and similar agencies routinely impose discipline on embezzlement convictions, frequently including license suspension or revocation. Federal employment, security clearances, and bonded positions become difficult or impossible. Non-citizens face serious immigration consequences, particularly where the alleged loss exceeds $10,000, which makes the offense an aggravated felony under federal immigration law and triggers mandatory detention and removal in most cases.
A charge is not a conviction. Embezzlement cases turn on contested questions of authorization, intent, scope of role, and the distinction between honest mistake and fraudulent conversion. The Commonwealth carries the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt, and that proof is almost always built from documents, witness testimony, and forensic accounting that can be challenged.
Beyond direct sentencing, embezzlement convictions carry collateral consequences that often matter more than the criminal sentence. They are classified as crimes involving moral turpitude and as crimes of dishonesty under Federal Rule of Evidence 609, meaning they remain admissible to impeach credibility for at least 10 years. Professional licenses in finance, real estate, healthcare, law, and public employment are at risk: the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers, the Department of Insurance, the Real Estate Board, the Board of Public Accountancy, and similar agencies routinely impose discipline on embezzlement convictions, frequently including license suspension or revocation. Federal employment, security clearances, and bonded positions become difficult or impossible. Non-citizens face serious immigration consequences, particularly where the alleged loss exceeds $10,000, which makes the offense an aggravated felony under federal immigration law and triggers mandatory detention and removal in most cases.
A charge is not a conviction. Embezzlement cases turn on contested questions of authorization, intent, scope of role, and the distinction between honest mistake and fraudulent conversion. The Commonwealth carries the burden of proving each element beyond a reasonable doubt, and that proof is almost always built from documents, witness testimony, and forensic accounting that can be challenged.
Possible Defenses Under Massachusetts Law
Right now this may feel hopeless, especially if a former employer or family member has already drawn conclusions and pointed to the documents. There are real defenses available across the entire embezzlement category, and the Commonwealth's burden on intent and authorization is high. Possible defenses include:
Authorization. Authorization is the central defense in most embezzlement cases. If the defendant had actual or apparent authority for the transaction at the time it occurred, the conversion element fails. Verbal authorization, course of dealing, ambiguous policy, and authority delegated by superiors all support this defense.
Lack of fraudulent intent. Embezzlement requires specific fraudulent intent. Honest belief that funds could be borrowed and replaced, mistaken interpretation of authority, accounting errors, intent to make full restitution, and good faith reliance on professional advice all defeat this element under Commonwealth v. Garrity and similar cases.
Claim of right. An honest, reasonable claim of right to the property defeats criminal intent. This is particularly important in cases involving disputed compensation, commission disputes, partnership disagreements over distributions, and inheritance or trust matters where the defendant believed he or she was entitled to the funds.
No fiduciary relationship. For the enhanced fiduciary, broker, bank, and public-official statutes, the Commonwealth must prove the specific relationship as an additional element. Where the formal status is contested, where the appointment was defective, or where the defendant's role did not actually fall within the statutory category, the enhanced charge may not apply at all.
Insufficient evidence of conversion. The Commonwealth must prove the property was converted to personal use or to the use of a third party. Evidence of disorganized records, commingled accounts, or unexplained discrepancies is not the same as evidence of conversion. Forensic accounting can frequently identify innocent explanations for apparent shortfalls.
Disputed valuation. Where the alleged loss is at or near a felony threshold or near an aggravated-felony immigration threshold, contesting the valuation can dramatically change the case. Inflated estimates, double-counting, and inclusion of legitimate compensation in alleged loss totals are all subject to challenge.
Constitutional violations. Document seizures, computer searches, and statements during internal investigations must comply with the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Internal investigators may not have followed Miranda when their conduct effectively became custodial interrogation, and improperly obtained statements can be suppressed.
Charge reduction strategies. Many embezzlement cases can be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, from one statutory tier to another, or to a non-criminal civil resolution depending on what the evidence supports.
Every case is different. Call (978) 705-4537 to discuss your situation and your options.
Authorization. Authorization is the central defense in most embezzlement cases. If the defendant had actual or apparent authority for the transaction at the time it occurred, the conversion element fails. Verbal authorization, course of dealing, ambiguous policy, and authority delegated by superiors all support this defense.
Lack of fraudulent intent. Embezzlement requires specific fraudulent intent. Honest belief that funds could be borrowed and replaced, mistaken interpretation of authority, accounting errors, intent to make full restitution, and good faith reliance on professional advice all defeat this element under Commonwealth v. Garrity and similar cases.
Claim of right. An honest, reasonable claim of right to the property defeats criminal intent. This is particularly important in cases involving disputed compensation, commission disputes, partnership disagreements over distributions, and inheritance or trust matters where the defendant believed he or she was entitled to the funds.
No fiduciary relationship. For the enhanced fiduciary, broker, bank, and public-official statutes, the Commonwealth must prove the specific relationship as an additional element. Where the formal status is contested, where the appointment was defective, or where the defendant's role did not actually fall within the statutory category, the enhanced charge may not apply at all.
Insufficient evidence of conversion. The Commonwealth must prove the property was converted to personal use or to the use of a third party. Evidence of disorganized records, commingled accounts, or unexplained discrepancies is not the same as evidence of conversion. Forensic accounting can frequently identify innocent explanations for apparent shortfalls.
Disputed valuation. Where the alleged loss is at or near a felony threshold or near an aggravated-felony immigration threshold, contesting the valuation can dramatically change the case. Inflated estimates, double-counting, and inclusion of legitimate compensation in alleged loss totals are all subject to challenge.
Constitutional violations. Document seizures, computer searches, and statements during internal investigations must comply with the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. Internal investigators may not have followed Miranda when their conduct effectively became custodial interrogation, and improperly obtained statements can be suppressed.
Charge reduction strategies. Many embezzlement cases can be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor, from one statutory tier to another, or to a non-criminal civil resolution depending on what the evidence supports.
Every case is different. Call (978) 705-4537 to discuss your situation and your options.
If You've Just Been Charged with Embezzlement
If you have just been confronted by a former employer, contacted by an investigator, served with a subpoena, or formally charged, take a breath. Here is what you need to do right now.
● Don't talk to investigators from any agency, your former employer, or your former employer's outside counsel without a lawyer present, even if you are told this is "just a conversation"
● Don't sign anything presented by your former employer, including general releases, repayment agreements, or admissions, without consulting an attorney
● Don't repay the alleged loss before consulting counsel. Repayment is sometimes the right strategy, but it must be timed and structured carefully; uncoordinated repayment can be used as evidence of fraudulent intent
● Don't discuss your case with anyone except your attorney, including former coworkers, family members, or anyone who might later be interviewed
● Don't destroy or alter records of any kind. Spoliation of evidence creates additional charges, and it converts a defensible embezzlement case into an obstruction case
● Preserve everything including emails, text messages, expense reports, employment agreements, written authorizations, training materials, and any documents that might show authorization or course of dealing
● Write down everything you remember about the relevant transactions, conversations with supervisors, and authorization patterns while details are fresh
● Don't post anything about your case, your former employer, the investigation, or your finances on social media
● Contact an experienced Massachusetts embezzlement defense attorney as soon as possible, ideally before responding to any company communication
Call (978) 705-4537 — we answer 24/7.
Acting quickly gives your attorney the best chance to engage with prosecutors before formal charges issue, preserve favorable evidence, and build the strongest possible defense.
● Don't talk to investigators from any agency, your former employer, or your former employer's outside counsel without a lawyer present, even if you are told this is "just a conversation"
● Don't sign anything presented by your former employer, including general releases, repayment agreements, or admissions, without consulting an attorney
● Don't repay the alleged loss before consulting counsel. Repayment is sometimes the right strategy, but it must be timed and structured carefully; uncoordinated repayment can be used as evidence of fraudulent intent
● Don't discuss your case with anyone except your attorney, including former coworkers, family members, or anyone who might later be interviewed
● Don't destroy or alter records of any kind. Spoliation of evidence creates additional charges, and it converts a defensible embezzlement case into an obstruction case
● Preserve everything including emails, text messages, expense reports, employment agreements, written authorizations, training materials, and any documents that might show authorization or course of dealing
● Write down everything you remember about the relevant transactions, conversations with supervisors, and authorization patterns while details are fresh
● Don't post anything about your case, your former employer, the investigation, or your finances on social media
● Contact an experienced Massachusetts embezzlement defense attorney as soon as possible, ideally before responding to any company communication
Call (978) 705-4537 — we answer 24/7.
Acting quickly gives your attorney the best chance to engage with prosecutors before formal charges issue, preserve favorable evidence, and build the strongest possible defense.
“I would absolutely recommend Ernie to anyone.”
He was more than just my lawyer. He was my guardian angel during a very scary and desperate time in my life. He walked with me every step of the way and looked out for my best interest at every twist and turn. He stayed available seven days a week and within moments of my reaching out to him. I will be indebted to him forever. I knew I was in safe hands even though my matter kept me in constant fear. He gave me the courage to keep pushing forward and spent countless hours cheerleading me through an unspeakable experience.
Diane
"Attorney Stone was excellent."
He was extremely knowledgeable and knew his way around the Diversion Program and the Court. He gave us all the information and potential results upfront. He explained the entire process to us from start to finish and he mapped out a plan of action that resulted in a favorable outcome for my child. I would recommend Attorney Stone 100 percent. Thanks to him my child has no criminal record.
Lisa
"I knew Ernie was the real deal."
I knew the moment I spoke to Ernie on the phone he was the real deal. He made us feel at ease during a very stressful time and fought for us. We won our case because of his perseverance and professionalism. He’s just a really good person who’s in your corner fighting for you. Thanks Ernie you’re the best!!!!
Cheryl
"I can't say enough about Ernie and his team. "
They helped our family navigate a very delicate and complicated legal situation. We couldn't be more pleased with the outcome. And Ernie's down-to-earth demeanor helped us feel like we were being listened to and never being talked down to. I would highly recommend Ernie, as I am certain he would do his absolute best to achieve a best-case-scenario outcome for every single one of his clients.
R. H.
"Much love and appreciation to this group"
I would recommend them to anyone. From the first call I knew this was the right choice. Ernie kept my best interests in mind when representing me with results better than expected! I can’t thank them enough. Special shout-out to Joanne who is truly the nicest person. Their whole vibe was homely like family. Much love and appreciation to this group... even the 4 legged nugget running around their office.
A. R.
"I was in good hands..."
Before working with Ernie I was very unaware of how my future would be and felt alone in my case; that all changed once I had Ernie Stone as my lawyer. Very professional, very reassuring, very caring and helpful with any questions you may have. I can definitely say that there was always a smile on their faces and made me feel welcomed and well taken care of. I had no doubt in mind that I was in good hands and that I was going to be alright.
R. J.
What to Expect When You Call
We know this call is hard to make. You may feel ashamed, worried about your career, or unsure of what to say. That is okay. You do not need to have the right words.
● We will listen to your story and answer your questions
● We will explain the specific embezzlement charge and what the Commonwealth must prove
● We will discuss possible defense strategies and resolution options for your specific situation
● We will explain how an investigation might be addressed before formal charges issue
● We will explain our approach and how we can help you through this
● Everything you tell us is confidential
● There is no obligation to hire us
You do not need to have the answers. Just call, and we will take it from there. Phones answered 24/7 by a real person. Free, confidential consultation.
● We will listen to your story and answer your questions
● We will explain the specific embezzlement charge and what the Commonwealth must prove
● We will discuss possible defense strategies and resolution options for your specific situation
● We will explain how an investigation might be addressed before formal charges issue
● We will explain our approach and how we can help you through this
● Everything you tell us is confidential
● There is no obligation to hire us
You do not need to have the answers. Just call, and we will take it from there. Phones answered 24/7 by a real person. Free, confidential consultation.
We'll Get You Through the Storm
Embezzlement charges demand experienced legal representation. We can help you through this storm.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation.
Over 30 years of Massachusetts criminal defense experience. Serving Essex County and Eastern Massachusetts including Beverly, Salem, Lynn, Peabody, Gloucester, Newburyport, Lawrence, and Haverhill.
Call (978) 705-4537 for a free consultation.
Over 30 years of Massachusetts criminal defense experience. Serving Essex County and Eastern Massachusetts including Beverly, Salem, Lynn, Peabody, Gloucester, Newburyport, Lawrence, and Haverhill.
We'll Get You Through the Storm
Contact our team today for a free consultation. We are available 24/7.
