Gary works for DG.  DG is a company duly authorized to do business in its state. Gary is punctual, hardworking, and well-liked by his colleagues.  By all accounts Gary is a good guy.  Two years ago, Gary developed a gambling problem. He spends his off hours at the lounge, as his finances permit.  Over that time, Gary has depleted his savings.  As a result of his position at DG, Gary sometimes handles money.  On two occasions in the past, Gary has removed Sixty Dollars ($60.00) in cash and voided the transaction so as to evade detection. On both occasions, Gary used some of the Sixty dollars for food, and some for gambling.  Gary has always replaced the cash and re-instated the transaction at his next payday.  The money was never gone from DG for more than two weeks. Today, DG has suffered no loss of money, everything Gary has taken, he has put back.

Please explain the reasons why Gary has Embezzled from DG.
Please explain the reasons why Gary has not Embezzled from DG.
Instructions: I anticipate your explanations of both topics together will be roughly 3-5 pages, not 3-5 pages for each question.  Though how you allocate your explanations between the two topics within that page range is entirely up to you.

The goal of this assignment is not to be right or correct.  The goal is to give fair consideration to both sides of an issue with attention to analysis of the law on that issue. 

This is a closed universe reasoning and writing assignment.  You can assume, for the purposes of the assignment, that the legal authority cited on page two below constitutes the entirety of the law on the subject.  I am not asking you to do your own research.

You are free to use any resources at your disposal, including talking to your classmates.  However, I expect the writing and thinking to be yours alone. I take honor code violations seriously. Do your own work.  Write your own paper.

Please pay special attention to the language you use.  I am interested in clearly written cogent reasoning. Please use complete sentences which demonstrate attention to organization. Do not respond in the form an outline, poem, or brain-storm. Please type your responses, 12-point double- spaced font is preferred.  Please do not fluff your writing, or add extra spaces, to meet the minimum page limit.  The page limit is a guideline.  State Embezzlement Statute (hereinafter statute)( Can be cited as statute):

If any agent, clerk, employee, or servant of any firm or person, or company, embezzles or fraudulently converts to his own use, money, bank notes, or security for money, or any effects or property of any other person, which shall have come into his possession, or been placed under his care or management, by virtue of his office or employment, he shall be guilty of the embezzlement thereof.

State v. Michael (can be cited as Michael):

Under the statute it is necessary to show, first, the trust relation of the person charged, and that he falls within the class of persons named; second, that the property or thing claimed to have been embezzled or converted is such property as is embraced in the section; third, that it is the property of another person or corporation; fourth, that it came into the possession, or was placed in the care, of the accused under and by virtue of his office, place or employment; fifth, that his manner of dealing with, or disposing of, the property, constituted a conversion and appropriation of the same to his own use; and, sixth, that the embezzlement or fraudulent conversion of the property to his own use was with the intent to deprive the owner of his property.

State v. Gob (can be cited as Gob):

To be guilty of embezzlement, one must convert to his own use the money or goods entrusted to his care. Unless and until there has been an appropriation or conversion no offense of embezzlement has been committed.

State v. Holtz (can be cited as Holtz):

Conversion is an unauthorized assumption and exercise of ownership over goods or money belonging to another, to the alteration of their condition or the exclusion of the owner’s right.

State v. Buster (can be cited as Buster)

The only criminal intent requisite to a conviction for embezzlement is the purpose to do the act in violation of the statute. No moral turpitude or wicked intent is essential to such a crime.

State v. Lindsey (can be cited as Lindsey)

The mere detention of money belonging to another, without a fraudulent intent to deprive that other of his property, does not constitute embezzlement.