## Facts

- James A. Talbot, Clarence M. Fuller, and Raymond W. McKee were officers of the Richfield Oil Company with access to and control over corporate funds.
- Each defendant maintained a drawing account and made withdrawals from corporate funds.
- The withdrawals were made openly, without concealment; canceled checks were returned to the corporation.
- The withdrawals were recorded on the corporate books, and defendants were charged with the expenditures; there was no manipulation of accounts.
- The defendants used corporate funds for personal stock-market speculation.
- Evidence indicated that advances of this type to corporate officers and employees were common in Richfield and other corporations.
- Evidence also tended to show defendants did not believe their conduct constituted embezzlement, even if it reflected poor business practice.
- The prosecution proceeded under California Penal Code § 504, which criminalizes a corporate officer’s fraudulent appropriation of corporate property under the officer’s control for a purpose not in lawful execution of the trust.

## Issues

1. Whether fraudulent intent, required for embezzlement under Penal Code § 504, may be inferred from corporate officers’ personal use of corporate funds when the withdrawals were openly made and accurately recorded.
2. Whether the absence of concealment and the claimed prevalence of similar practices negate the “fraudulent” element of embezzlement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of California affirmed the convictions and the orders denying new trials.
- The court held that the trial court was entitled to infer fraudulent intent from the admitted appropriation and personal use of corporate funds.
- The court rejected reliance on industry custom as a justification for conduct meeting the statutory elements of embezzlement.
- Because substantial evidence supported the trial court’s inference of intent, the appellate court could not reweigh the evidence or disturb the findings.

## Legal Principles

- Under Penal Code § 504, a corporate officer commits embezzlement by fraudulently appropriating corporate property under the officer’s control for a purpose not in lawful execution of the officer’s trust.
- Fraudulent intent may be inferred from circumstances showing corporate funds were appropriated and used for personal purposes rather than corporate purposes.
- Openness of the transactions, accurate bookkeeping, lack of concealment, and absence of account manipulation do not, by themselves, defeat a finding of fraudulent intent.
- Widespread or customary use of improper corporate advances does not legalize or excuse conduct that satisfies the elements of embezzlement.
- Appellate review defers to trial-level findings on intent when supported by substantial evidence.

## Conclusion

The court upheld embezzlement convictions of corporate officers who openly withdrew and recorded company funds but used them for personal stock speculation, holding that fraudulent intent could be inferred from the personal appropriation and that neither transparency nor industry custom barred criminal liability under Penal Code § 504.


People v. Talbot, 220 Cal. 3, 28 P.2d 1057 (Cal. 1934)