When a company discovers that money is missing, the most common question is: "Is this embezzlement or breach of trust?" For example, a salesperson might receive payment from a customer but fail to return it to the company; a finance staff member might transfer funds from the company account to their own; a company executive might transfer funds to a related company; or a director might conduct a transaction with terms clearly unfavorable to the company. Superficially, these all appear to constitute "damage to company assets," but the legal judgments may differ. The truly important first question isn't choosing a charge, but rather: "Who originally held this property based on a business relationship? Did the perpetrator subsequently convert company property originally held into their own, or did they abuse their position of authority to conduct a transaction contrary to their duties?" This is usually the starting point for distinguishing between business embezzlement and breach of trust. I. What is the biggest difference between business embezzlement and breach of trust? Simply put, the core of business embezzlement is "appropriating another person's property originally held for business purposes";…

First, establish clear permissions, cash flow, documents, and transaction purposes before deciding on the next steps. When a company discovers unusual withdrawals from its accounts, customer payments that the company hasn't received, managers transferring funds to their own or related parties' accounts, or discrepancies between accounting records and bank statements, the first step is usually not to immediately summon the other party for questioning, nor to assume a crime based solely on a single unusual remittance. In corporate criminal cases, the first step should be to establish clear permissions, cash flow, documents, and transaction purposes. This includes: bank transaction details, online banking and withdrawal records; accounting vouchers, general ledger and subsidiary ledgers; invoices, payment requests, quotations and contracts; legally held company work communications such as email, LINE, and WhatsApp; payment records, online banking documents, company seals, and approval processes; actual payments and transactions with customers and suppliers; the period, amount, flow of funds, and relevant personnel involved. Do not hack into personal mobile phones, log into personal accounts, illegally eavesdrop, or…

First, reconstruct the entire transaction; don't just look at whether the company lost money. When a company's head, director, or senior executive is accused of breach of trust, the first thing to do is not simply ask, "Did the company really lose money?", but to reconstruct the entire transaction. Corporate criminal cases often involve authority, contracts, accounting, bank flows, and internal decision-making simultaneously; you can't judge based on just a remittance or an accounting slip. Who proposed and made this decision? What position and authority did they hold at the time? Was there board of directors, shareholder meeting, executive, or other authorization? What was the purpose of the transaction and what were the expected company benefits? Where did the funds ultimately flow? Did the person or a third party gain any benefit? What is the actual damage claimed by the company? What contracts, emails, LINE messages, accounting records, and bank records can prove the background of the decision-making process? When a company's head is accused of breach of trust, what do prosecutors and police usually investigate first? The core of judging breach of trust under criminal law is not just the company's accounts showing losses, but the conduct…

Upon receiving an indictment for fraud, money laundering, or nominee accounts, don't just look at the charges, the prosecutor's sentencing recommendations, or the last page of the indictment. The indictment means the case will be heard in court. What truly influences the preparation for the first trial is how the prosecutor combines the facts of the crime, the defendant's role, the flow of funds, and communication evidence. After receiving the indictment, you should immediately check each item: the facts of the crime identified in the indictment, the defendant's identified role, the evidence cited by the prosecutor, how the flow of funds is interpreted, how the communication records are interpreted, whether it's a guilty plea, and the scope of the guilty plea. Which facts are still in dispute? Is there any important evidence yet to be presented? The earlier you compare the indictment with the case file, the better you can avoid discovering crucial information that wasn't organized, discrepancies in previous statements, or differences between the prosecutor's assessment of the defendant's role and the actual situation only during the first preparation stage or on the trial date. Does being indicted necessarily mean being found guilty? No. Indictment is initiated when the prosecutor, after investigation, believes there is sufficient evidence to warrant prosecution…