## Facts

- Yvonne Sayklay worked as a bookkeeper at the Bank of El Paso in El Paso, Texas, with access to employee account numbers, a check-encoding machine, and blank counter checks.
- She obtained blank counter checks, encoded co-employees’ account numbers on them, signed her own name, and cashed the checks through a teller.
- She relied on the teller verifying only account status, not account ownership.
- After the checks returned to bookkeeping, she destroyed them.
- A discrepancy noticed by an employee triggered an internal investigation that identified Sayklay.
- The United States proceeded by information (after waiver of indictment), charging five counts of embezzlement by a bank employee under 18 U.S.C. § 656.
- A jury in the Western District of Texas convicted Sayklay on all five counts; the court denied her motion for judgment of acquittal.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence showing a fraudulent check scheme constituted “embezzlement” under 18 U.S.C. § 656 when the charged offense required lawful possession or entrustment of bank property.
2. Whether a conviction for embezzlement may stand where the proof establishes willful misapplication of bank funds rather than embezzlement as charged.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed and granted Sayklay’s motion for judgment of acquittal.
- The court held the evidence showed a § 656 violation through willful misapplication of bank funds, but did not prove embezzlement.
- Because the government charged embezzlement specifically, it was required to prove the elements of embezzlement rather than another § 656 theory.

## Legal Principles

- “Embezzlement” means the fraudulent appropriation of property by a person to whom the property has been entrusted or into whose hands it has lawfully come.
- Section 656 covers distinct offenses (including embezzlement and willful misapplication), and the prosecution must prove the particular offense charged.
- Proof that fits willful misapplication does not satisfy embezzlement’s requirement of lawful possession or entrustment followed by fraudulent appropriation.

## Conclusion

The conviction was reversed because the government’s evidence established willful misapplication of bank funds, not embezzlement as charged, and § 656 requires proof of the specific offense alleged in the charging instrument.


United States v. Sayklay, 542 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1976)