## Facts

- Approximately 15 individuals formed the Empire Investment Club in San Mateo County to invest pooled funds in second mortgages.
- Members made an initial contribution and periodic monthly payments into the club fund.
- Charles Sobiek, an insurance and real estate representative, was elected president and gradually obtained broad control over the club’s lending decisions and funds.
- Sobiek allegedly appropriated significant sums of the club’s money for his personal use.
- A grand jury indicted Sobiek on four counts of grand theft (Cal. Penal Code § 487) and one count of forgery (Cal. Penal Code § 470).
- The trial court, on a motion to set aside the indictment, quashed the four grand theft counts on the theory that a partner cannot steal or embezzle partnership property, but left the forgery count intact.
- The prosecution appealed the order quashing the grand theft counts.

## Issues

1. Whether a partner (or member of a partnership-like investment club) may be criminally liable for grand theft/embezzlement of partnership property under California theft statutes.
2. Whether construing the theft statutes to permit such liability violates the federal or state constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws.
3. Whether the defendant was denied the right to a speedy trial.

## Decision

- The order quashing the four grand theft counts was reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings on those counts.
- The court held that a partner may be guilty of stealing or embezzling partnership property under California’s theft scheme.
- The court rejected the claim that this construction violated federal or state ex post facto protections.
- The court held the defendant was not denied a speedy trial.

## Legal Principles

- Partnership property can qualify as “property of another” for theft purposes to the extent it embodies other partners’ ownership interests; exclusive ownership by the victim is not required.
- A partner who is entrusted with or exercises control over partnership funds may satisfy the entrustment element associated with embezzlement-type theft.
- A prior judicial understanding that partners were immune from theft liability does not bar prosecution when the statutory text, fairly construed, covers fraudulent appropriation of co-owners’ interests.
- Speedy-trial claims require a showing that the delay and surrounding circumstances warrant relief; absent sufficient prejudice or violation, dismissal is not required.

## Conclusion

The court held that California theft statutes permit prosecution of a partner who fraudulently appropriates partnership funds because the assets remain “property of another” as to the co-owners’ interests, and it further found no speedy-trial or ex post facto bar to proceeding on the grand theft counts.


People v. Sobiek, 30 Cal. App. 3d 458, 106 Cal. Rptr. 519 (Ct. App. 1973)