## Facts

- Jose Cepeda Mafnas worked for an armored car service hired by Bank of Hawaii and Bank of America to transport and deliver sealed bags of money.
- Mafnas received sealed money bags from the banks for the limited purpose of delivering them to designated destinations.
- On three occasions, Mafnas opened the sealed bags during transit and removed cash.
- He was charged and convicted in the District of Guam on three counts of stealing money belonging to federally insured banks, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b).
- On appeal, Mafnas argued his conduct was embezzlement (lawful possession followed by conversion), not larceny (trespassory taking), and therefore fell outside § 2113(b) as interpreted in Ninth Circuit precedent.

## Issues

1. Whether an armored-car employee who receives sealed bank money bags for delivery has possession or only custody of the money for purposes of common-law larceny under 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b).
2. Whether removing cash from sealed bank money bags during transit constitutes a trespassory taking (larceny) rather than embezzlement, making § 2113(b) applicable.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the convictions in a per curiam decision.
- The court held that § 2113(b), as applied in the Ninth Circuit, reaches common-law larceny requiring a trespassory taking.
- Mafnas had only temporary custody of the money bags for delivery; the banks retained constructive possession until delivery was completed.
- Because the banks retained constructive possession, Mafnas’s unauthorized opening of the bags and removal of money was a trespassory interference with the banks’ possessory interest and therefore larceny under § 2113(b).
- The court rejected the contention that the theft was from the armored car service rather than from the banks, treating the money as money belonging to the banks during transit.

## Legal Principles

- In the Ninth Circuit, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b) is limited to common-law larceny and requires a trespassory taking.
- When property is delivered to a person for a limited or temporary purpose (such as delivery), the recipient generally has custody, not possession; the owner may retain constructive possession until the task is completed.
- A custodian’s later decision to appropriate the property for personal use can constitute larceny because it exceeds the owner’s consent while the owner retains constructive possession.
- Even if characterized as a bailee relationship, opening a container and taking its contents (“breaking bulk”) can satisfy larceny’s trespass requirement when done without authorization.
- Money transported under a bank’s direction remains “money belonging to” the bank for purposes of § 2113(b) while the bank retains ownership and possessory interests.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Mafnas’s § 2113(b) convictions, holding that an armored-car employee tasked with delivering sealed bank money bags has custody rather than possession, so taking money from the bags before delivery is a trespassory taking—common-law larceny—of money belonging to the banks.


United States v. Mafnas, 701 F.2d 83 (9th Cir. 1983)