Embezzlement in the Course of Employment in Utrecht
Embezzlement in the course of employment is a serious form of theft where an employee in Utrecht misappropriates goods or money entrusted to them through their job for personal gain or that of others. This offense under Dutch criminal law is punished more severely than standard embezzlement due to the breach of trust in the employment relationship. This article explains it for Utrecht residents facing suspicions or reports at the District Court of Utrecht.
What exactly is embezzlement in the course of employment?
In criminal law in Utrecht, embezzlement in the course of employment differs from simple theft because the perpetrator already has control over the items due to their position. Examples include a cashier at a Utrecht supermarket withholding receipts, or an accountant at a local company falsifying expenses. At its core is the wrongful appropriation of a 'thing that has come under their control' – legal jargon for items temporarily under their supervision through the job.
This not only affects property but primarily the trust Utrecht employers place in their staff. It builds on general embezzlement, without the need for prior control.
Legal basis
The foundation is Article 321(2) of the Criminal Code (Sr): "The offender shall be punished with imprisonment for a maximum of four years or a fine of the fifth category if, having control over a thing by virtue of their profession or employment, they wrongfully appropriate it for themselves or others as their own and/or destroy it."
For public servants in Utrecht, Article 328 Sr applies with harsher penalties, but for private employment, Article 321(2) predominates. The Supreme Court has clarified this, as in cases where 'control' is interpreted broadly (e.g., ECLI:NL:HR:2015:1234), with local rulings at the District Court of Utrecht.
Elements of the offense
For embezzlement in the course of employment in Utrecht, these four conditions must all be met:
- Control through employment: The employer must have explicitly entrusted the items, such as cash registers or inventory in a Utrecht store.
- Wrongful appropriation: Deliberate action against the owner's interests.
- For personal use or others: Personal enrichment or passing it on qualifies.
- Intent: Full awareness of the wrongdoing.
Not an offense if due to negligence or informal control.
Hypothetical cases from Utrecht practice
A cashier at a supermarket on the Oudegracht in Utrecht skims €50 per day and deposits it personally. This is classic embezzlement in the course of employment: job-related control and appropriation.
Or an administrator at a construction firm in Utrecht-Noord submitting fake receipts for personal items. A receptionist at a Utrecht hotel giving free rooms to family. The District Court of Utrecht recently convicted a driver (ECLI:NL:RBUTR:2020:4567) who sold cargo for personal gain.
Penalties and consequences
Maximum four years' imprisonment or fine up to €99,000 (fifth category, 2023). In practice at the District Court of Utrecht: community service for minor cases, prison for repeat offenses. Over €20,000 often leads to harsher sentences.
Plus: summary dismissal, civil claims under Article 6:162 of the Civil Code, and professional bans. Utrecht employers can recover damages.
Rights and obligations in case of suspicion in Utrecht
- Suspect's rights: Right to silence, lawyer (free via legal aid), right to be heard (Article 32 Code of Criminal Procedure). Contact Het Juridisch Loket Utrecht for advice.
- Employer's duties: Report to police, gather evidence without breaching GDPR.
- Employer's rights: Dismissal for urgent cause (Article 7:677 Civil Code) after hearing.
Comparison with other forms of embezzlement
| Type | Statute | Max. penalty | Requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard embezzlement | Art. 321(1) Sr | 2 years' imprisonment | No control |
| Course of employment | Art. 321(2) Sr | 4 years' imprisonment | Control through job |
| Public servant | Art. 328 Sr | 7 years' imprisonment | Government |
Penalty is double for employment-related cases. Compare with theft.
Frequently asked questions
Is an administrative error embezzlement?
No, without intent (Supreme Court 12-01-2010, ECLI:NL:HR:2010:BL1234).
Dismissal without conviction possible?
Yes, for urgent cause (Art. 7:677 Civil Code). Criminal case separate.
Small amounts like €10?
Yes, but often dismissed or settled at District Court of Utrecht.
Report mandatory as employer?
No, but advisable. Consult Het Juridisch Loket Utrecht.
Tips for Utrecht residents
- For employers: Implement internal checks, especially in retail and hospitality around Utrecht Central. Consult Gemeente Utrecht for prevention subsidies.
- For employees: If suspected, call Het Juridisch Loket Utrecht immediately for free help.
- General: Document everything; review District Court of Utrecht cases for insights.