Telephone
02-77093611
Line
@fdlaw
address
17th Floor, No. 180, Section 2, Dunhua South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City
Telephone
02-77093611
Line
@fdlaw
address
17th Floor, No. 180, Section 2, Dunhua South Road, Da'an District, Taipei City

News Headline:Exposing the exploitative practices at convenience stores! A female clerk who worked 18 consecutive night shifts making coffee and forgot to collect payments was sued for embezzlement but was acquitted.
Media Source:Sanli News
reporter:You Tao, Jian Hanming
An employee forgetting to settle their bill does not automatically equate to embezzlement. The most important aspects of a criminal case are whether "intention" and "unlawful intent" can be proven; if it's merely due to fatigue, being busy, or negligence, the matter should usually be handled through labor management and civil liability proceedings.
According to news reports, a female convenience store clerk was sued for embezzlement after working an 18-hour night shift and forgetting to pay for coffee she made. After hearing the case, the court found insufficient evidence to prove she had the intent to embezzle and acquitted her.
The reason this case has sparked discussion is not just the value of the goods, but also the line between long working hours, convenience store staffing, employee negligence, and criminal prosecution by the employer. For workers, whether incorrect or missed payments should be criminalized if the work environment is already extremely tiring is a matter that deserves careful consideration.
Attorney Li Yusheng of Fidelity Law Firm stated that Article 335 of the Criminal Code, the crime of embezzlement, requires the perpetrator to "intend to unlawfully possess for himself or a third party" and to embezzle another person's property in his possession. In other words, simply not having paid for the item does not necessarily constitute embezzlement; the prosecution must still prove that the perpetrator subjectively intended to appropriate another person's property.
If an employee forgets to pay due to long working hours, busy store operations, mental fatigue, or operational negligence, legally it may only be considered an oversight or internal management issue. Unless there is repeated failure to pay, deliberate avoidance of surveillance cameras, subsequent concealment, refusal to return the money, or other obvious evidence, directly establishing criminal embezzlement usually presents evidentiary difficulties.
Attorney Li Yusheng also cautioned that Article 336 of the Criminal Code carries a heavier penalty for "embezzlement," but the prerequisite remains proving intent to embezzle and unlawful ownership. Employers cannot simply escalate all accounting errors into criminal offenses just because an employee had contact with goods during their job.
The key to the crime of embezzlement lies in whether the perpetrator had the intent to illegally possess the property. If the loss was merely due to forgetfulness, being busy, or fatigue, it differs from intentionally appropriating the property.
If an employee possesses goods or funds in connection with their job and intentionally misappropriates or embezzles them, it may constitute business misappropriation; however, if intent cannot be proven, it may not constitute a crime.
The Labor Standards Act clearly regulates normal working hours, overtime, and rest days. If an employer arranges excessively long working hours, it may not only affect workplace safety but also lead to labor inspections and disputes over overtime pay.
When encountering shortages of goods or accounting errors, employers should first check surveillance footage, handover records, work schedules, and checkout procedures, rather than handling every oversight as a criminal case.
Not necessarily. Embezzlement requires proof that the employee had the intent to illegally possess the goods. If the omission was due to being busy, fatigued, or negligent in handling the work, it may not constitute a criminal offense.
Not necessarily. Embezzlement still requires proof that the employee possessed the goods for business purposes and had the subjective intent to embezzle. If it was merely forgetfulness or a misunderstanding, it may not be sufficient grounds for conviction.
It's necessary to check whether the work schedule, overtime agreement, total extended working hours, and rest days and holidays comply with the Labor Standards Act. If a day's working hours are excessively long, it may involve violations of the Labor Standards Act and overtime pay issues.
It is recommended to keep the shift schedule, clock-in records, monitor footage, handover records, billing records, conversation records with supervisors, and evidence of any subsequent payments or explanations.
Criminal charges are not a panacea for all workplace errors. If an employee misses a payment due to long working hours, fatigue, or disorganized processes, the rationality of the work environment and management system should be clarified first. Conversely, if an employee discovers a missed payment, they should immediately and proactively correct it and keep a record to avoid being mistakenly accused of intentional embezzlement later.
If you encounter cases involving employee embezzlement, business misappropriation, workplace criminal cases, or disputes over overtime pay or excessive working hours, it is recommended that you first compile the schedule, clock-in/out records, surveillance footage, accounting records, and conversation logs, and then have a lawyer assist you in determining whether it is a criminal issue, a civil issue, or a labor law issue.
Fuda Law Firm
If you encounter embezzlement, business misappropriation, workplace criminal disputes, overtime pay, or labor disputes, it is recommended that you first organize the evidence and timeline, and then have a lawyer assist in assessing the subsequent handling methods.
Line:https://line.me/ti/p/@fdlaw
Tel:0277093611
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/fudalawyer
website:https://fdlaw.com.tw/
e-mail:info@fdlaw.com.tw
References:Sanlih News YouTube Video,Article 335 of the Criminal Law,Article 336 of the Criminal Law,Labor Standards Act,Article 32 of the Labor Standards Act