United States v. Van Elsen
652 F.3d 955
8th Cir.2011Background
- Eighth Circuit affirmed conviction of James Norman Van Elsen for theft or embezzlement from an employee benefit plan under 18 U.S.C. § 664.
- Van Elsen had withheld employee Simple IRA contributions in 2005–2006 but did not deposit them within statutory periods.
- Van Elsen repeatedly admitted delays and promised repayment to employees; labor and IRS investigations followed.
- In 2006–2007, Van Elsen drained funds from the company for personal use; bankruptcy occurred in 2008 and 2010 reorganization repayments completed.
- On trial, Van Elsen sought to admit evidence of repayment and related efforts; the district court admitted some but excluded repayment as irrelevant to mens rea.
- The district court ruled repayment evidence irrelevant to whether Van Elsen committed embezzlement/stealing under § 664; appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does repayment evidence relate to mens rea under § 664? | Van Elsen | Van Elsen | Evidence properly excluded as irrelevant |
| Does § 664 require intent to permanently deprive the funds? | Van Elsen | Van Elsen | No permanent-deprivation requirement; conversion/stealing can occur without it |
| Was the district court's evidentiary ruling an abuse of discretion? | Van Elsen | Van Elsen | No abuse; repayment evidence not probative of intent to commit the crime |
Key Cases Cited
- Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246 (1952) (defines common-law intent concepts in conversion/stealing contexts)
- United States v. Turley, 352 U.S. 407 (1957) (broad interpretation of 'stolen' beyond common-law larceny)
- United States v. Rehak, 589 F.3d 965 (2009) (section 641 (stolen) includes permanent and temporary takings)
- United States v. Wuagneux, 683 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir.1982) (emphasizes conversion/embezzlement concepts without requiring intent to permanently deprive)
- United States v. Walker, 234 F.3d 780 (1st Cir.2000) (emphasizes lack of requirement for permanent deprivation in embezzlement)
- United States v. Johnson, 575 F.2d 678 (8th Cir.1978) (suggests flexibility in interpretation of 'steal'/purloin in § 2113(b))
- United States v. American Grain & Related Industries, 763 F.2d 312 (8th Cir.1985) (repayment timing relevance to willful conversion distinguished and limited)