## Facts

- Marven E. Riggins owned and operated a Rockford collection agency, Creditors Collection Service, with its own office, employees, and numerous clients.
- Dorothy Tarrant operated Cooper’s Music and Jewelry and orally agreed that Riggins would collect delinquent accounts for a percentage commission (one-third for city accounts, one-half for out-of-city accounts).
- Under the agreement, Riggins was not required to account for amounts collected until an account was paid in full, at which time he was to remit by check; evidence conflicted on whether he would remit gross proceeds or net proceeds after deducting commission.
- Tarrant did not direct the timing or method of collection; Riggins exercised independent judgment in running the collection work.
- Tarrant knew Riggins deposited collections from multiple clients into a single bank account used for general business and personal purposes.
- After roughly two years, Tarrant learned Riggins had collected certain accounts in full but had not remitted the proceeds; Riggins made repeated promises to pay.
- Riggins later filed for bankruptcy and listed Cooper’s Music and Jewelry as a creditor; after the bankruptcy filing, Tarrant pursued criminal charges.
- Riggins was indicted for embezzlement under an Illinois statute applying to an “agent, bailee or other person” receiving money “in a fiduciary capacity,” including where the recipient had a “share or interest” in the money.

## Issues

1. Whether an independent collection-agency operator working under the parties’ arrangement was an “agent” (or similar fiduciary holder) within the Illinois embezzlement statute.
2. Whether the conviction could stand given the evidence and jury instructions concerning the required fiduciary relationship, as opposed to a debtor–creditor or commercial accounting relationship.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Illinois reversed the embezzlement conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court concluded the State had not clearly established that Riggins received and held the money in the fiduciary agency capacity contemplated by the statute.
- The court determined the case was tried and instructed on an improper theory because the instructions did not adequately require the jury to find a fiduciary agency relationship rather than a mere obligation to pay money owed.

## Legal Principles

- Embezzlement under the statute requires proof that the defendant received the funds in a fiduciary capacity and was obligated to account for them as the owner’s property, not merely as part of a commercial settlement.
- A collection-agency operator is not automatically an “agent” for embezzlement purposes; the nature of the relationship controls.
- Where the parties’ arrangement permits commingling of collections into the collector’s general account, and the owner knows and acquiesces, the relationship may resemble debtor–creditor accounting rather than fiduciary custody of identified funds.
- Penal statutes are strictly construed; ambiguous business arrangements are not extended to create criminal liability beyond the statute’s fair meaning.
- A failure to remit may support civil remedies, but it is not criminal embezzlement absent the statute’s fiduciary-receipt element.

## Conclusion

The court reversed and remanded because the evidence and instructions did not support treating the parties’ collection arrangement as a fiduciary agency relationship required for embezzlement, particularly given the owner’s knowledge of commingling and the commercial character of the arrangement.


People v. Riggins, 132 N.E.2d 519 (Ill. 1956)