NC · jury_instructions
N.C.P.I.—Crim. 216.62
EMBEZZLEMENT BY INSURANCE [AGENTS] [BROKERS] [ADMINISTRATORS]. FELONY.
NOTE WELL: For offenses occurring on or after
December 1, 1997, if the value of the money,
negotiable instrument, or other consideration
embezzled is $100,000 or more, a violation is a Class C
felony. If the value is less than $100,000, a violation
is a Class H felony. For offenses occurring before
December 1, 1997, a violation is a Class H felony
regardless of the value.
The defendant has been accused of embezzlement of $100,000 or
more by an insurance [agent] [broker] [administrator].
For you to find the defendant guilty of embezzlement of $100,000
or more by an insurance [agent] [broker] [administrator], the State must
prove three things beyond a reasonable doubt:
First, that the defendant was an insurance [agent] [broker]
[administrator].
Second, that the defendant [embezzled]1 [fraudulently converted to
the defendant’s own use] [[with the intent to use or embezzle [took]
[secreted] [otherwise disposed of]] [[fraudulently [withheld]
[appropriated] [lent] [invested] [used] [applied]] any [money]
[negotiable instrument] [other consideration] received by the defendant
in the defendant’s performance as an [agent] [broker] [administrator].
And Third, that the value of the [money] [negotiable instrument]
[other consideration] was $100,000 or more.
If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or
about the alleged date, the defendant was an insurance [agent] [broker]
[administrator], the defendant [embezzled] [[fraudulently converted to
the defendant’s own use] [[with the intent to use or embezzle [took]
[secreted] [otherwise disposed of]] [fraudulently [withheld]
[appropriated] [lent] [invested] [used] [applied]] any [money]
[negotiable instrument] [other consideration] received by the defendant
in the defendant’s performance as an [agent] [broker] [administrator],
and that the value of the [money] [negotiable instrument] [other
consideration] was $100,000 or more, it would be your duty to return a
verdict of guilty. If you do not so find, or have a reasonable doubt as to
one or more of these things, it would be your duty to return a verdict of
not guilty.
If you do not find the defendant guilty of embezzlement of
$100,000 or more by an insurance [agent] [broker] [administrator], you
must determine whether the defendant is guilty of embezzlement of less
than $100,000 by an insurance [agent] [broker] [administrator].
If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or
about the alleged date, the defendant was an insurance [agent] [broker]
[administrator], and that the defendant [embezzled] [fraudulently
converted to the defendant’s own use] [[with the intent to use or
embezzle [took] [secreted] [otherwise disposed of]] [[fraudulently
[withheld] [appropriated] [lent] [invested] [used] [applied]] any [money]
[negotiable instrument] [other consideration] received by the defendant
in the defendant’s performance as an [agent] [broker] [administrator], it
would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty. If you do not so find, or
have a reasonable doubt as to one or both of these things, it would be
your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.
History
N.C.P.I.—Crim. 216.62 (June 2010). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 58-2-162. Prepared by the North Carolina Conference of Superior Court Judges' Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions, assisted by the UNC School of Government; published by the School of Government.
Provenance
- Source
- sog.unc.edu
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
7b8bdfbd6cbdff195c08f04293b86ed9ccb26360b5141d783b79beeef89a2ff9
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.