United States v. Van Elsen, No. 10-2474 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted for the theft or embezzlement of funds from his employee's IRA accounts in violation of 18 U.S.C. 664. On appeal, defendant argued that his conviction should be reversed because, at trial, the district court barred him from presenting evidence to the jury that he eventually repaid all of the embezzled funds. The court held that because the intent to permanently deprive was neither a required element of, nor a defense to, the conversion or stealing that section 664 criminalized, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded evidence of defendant's eventual repayment of his employees' funds in a bankruptcy proceeding as irrelevant.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. In a prosecution for theft or embezzlement of funds from defendant's employees' IRA accounts, the court did not err in barring defendant from presenting evidence to the jury that he eventually repaid all of the embezzled funds; the intent to permanently deprive is neither a required element of, nor a defense to, the theft of the funds, and the evidence was properly excluded as it was irrelevant.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.