## Facts

- Anita G. Whitlock worked at a Riggs National Bank branch as the note officer, an assistant cashier, and an assistant manager.
- The branch kept cash reserves in a vault that could be opened only with both (1) a key and (2) the vault combination.
- The head teller had the combination memorized, and three bank officers (including Whitlock) each had a copy of the vault key.
- Although the bank’s practice was designed to require two individuals to open the vault together, officers could in fact obtain the combination and enter the vault alone.
- Whitlock obtained the vault combination, used it along with her key, entered the vault, and took $85,000 belonging to the bank.
- Whitlock was tried in a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and convicted of embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. § 656.
- On appeal, Whitlock acknowledged taking the money but argued that her conduct did not qualify as “embezzlement” because she lacked prior lawful possession of the vault cash.
- She also challenged the sufficiency of the government’s proof of her mental responsibility at the time of the offense and argued that orders and evidence relating to pretrial psychiatric evaluation violated the Fifth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether a bank officer who has a vault key and job-based authority enabling access to vault funds has the kind of prior lawful possession or control required for embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. § 656, even if she violates internal procedures (such as a two-person opening practice).
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that Whitlock was mentally responsible at the time she took the funds.
3. Whether ordering pretrial psychiatric evaluation/commitment and admitting examination-related statements violated Whitlock’s Fifth Amendment rights.

## Decision

- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the judgment.
- The court held that the evidence supported an embezzlement conviction under § 656 because Whitlock’s position, possession of a vault key, and practical ability to obtain the combination gave her constructive lawful control over the funds before she converted them.
- The court rejected Whitlock’s argument that violating internal access practices meant she had only “access” and not lawful possession for embezzlement purposes.
- The court upheld the trial court’s resolution of the mental-responsibility dispute, concluding the record supported the finding that Whitlock was criminally responsible when she took the money.
- The court rejected Whitlock’s Fifth Amendment and related challenges to the psychiatric-evaluation orders and the use of examination-related statements, finding no reversible error.
- One judge expressed the view that the conduct fit willful misapplication under § 656 rather than embezzlement, but the controlling opinions affirmed the embezzlement conviction as entered.

## Legal Principles

- Embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. § 656 may be proved by showing that bank funds came under an officer’s or employee’s lawful possession or control (including constructive control arising from job duties and entrusted authority) and were then fraudulently converted.
- A bank’s internal safeguards (such as a two-person vault-opening practice) do not defeat “lawful possession/control” for § 656 embezzlement when the bank has placed the employee in a position of authority and provided the means to access and manage the funds in the ordinary course of bank operations.
- Section 656 covers related offenses (embezzlement, taking, and willful misapplication), and disputes may arise about classification; however, where the employee’s relationship to the funds reflects entrusted control, embezzlement is available.
- In a bench trial, appellate review of findings on mental responsibility is deferential; where the record supports the trial judge’s weighing of competing testimony, the finding will be upheld.
- When a defendant’s mental condition is placed in issue, the court may order psychiatric evaluation consistent with constitutional limits; admission of evaluation-related statements does not require reversal absent a showing of improper use or prejudicial error.

## Conclusion

United States v. Whitlock affirmed a § 656 embezzlement conviction where a bank officer used her vault key and access to the combination to enter the vault alone and take $85,000, holding that her entrusted authority and practical control over vault access established the prior lawful control required for embezzlement, and also upholding the trial court’s mental-responsibility finding and its handling of pretrial psychiatric-evaluation matters against Fifth Amendment challenge.


United States v. Whitlock, 663 F.2d 1094 (1980)