## Facts

- Two investment-division salesmen employed by a bank had access to computer-generated “customer security lists” showing securities held, customer names, and maturity dates.
- The lists were generated through an outside data bank; only the bank could retrieve printouts, which were kept at employee workstations for account servicing and sales solicitations.
- The bank used the lists to create weekly maturity notices to prompt sales contacts for reinvestment and related securities transactions that produced substantial profits.
- One salesman requested an extra copy of a customer security list for a stated “special project,” obtained additional copies, and provided one to the other salesman.
- One salesman took a copy home; the other delivered a copy to a competing bank.
- The bank’s witnesses testified the list had significant commercial value as a long-term sales tool and that a competitor’s access would confer a competitive advantage.
- The defendants resigned and began working for a competitor shortly after obtaining and distributing the list.
- The defendants were convicted of petit larceny by embezzlement and sentenced to 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine each.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the customer security list was “property” with “some value” capable of being the subject of petit larceny by embezzlement under Virginia law.
2. Whether proof of value for petit larceny by embezzlement requires a specific monetary valuation when the property’s worth is shown through its business utility and competitive significance.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed the convictions.
- The Court held the customer security list was property of some value and that the defendants’ unauthorized taking and transfer supported petit larceny by embezzlement.
- The Court concluded the Commonwealth was not required to prove a precise dollar amount where evidence established economic value and profit-related utility.

## Legal Principles

- For petit larceny (including by embezzlement), the Commonwealth must prove the property has some value; a specific market price or exact dollar valuation is not required if value is otherwise shown.
- Confidential business records in tangible form (such as a computer printout) may constitute “property” for larceny/embezzlement when evidence shows commercial usefulness and economic advantage to the owner.
- Embezzlement is established where an employee, entrusted with access to the employer’s property by virtue of employment, fraudulently converts that property to personal or third-party use without authorization.

## Conclusion

The court upheld petit larceny by embezzlement convictions based on the taking and transfer of a proprietary customer securities printout, holding that credible evidence of business utility and competitive advantage was sufficient to show the document was property of value.


Evans v. Commonwealth, 308 S.E.2d 126 (Va. 1983)