The theft of an asset received with power of attorney to act in relation to it; the theft of an asset deposited for safekeeping or use; the theft of an asset received for possession for the benefit of another; and theft from the proceeds of a security intended for a specific purpose or a specific person.
Theft by an authorized person, Section 393
Section 393 defines several situations of theft by an authorized person, all carrying a penalty of up to 7 years' imprisonment:
The theft of an asset received with power of attorney to act in relation to it; the theft of an asset deposited for safekeeping or use; the theft of an asset received for possession for the benefit of another; and theft from the proceeds of a security intended for a specific purpose or a specific person.
An "authorized person" is defined as anyone between whom and the owner of the asset there are relations of authorization or agency, that is, power of attorney over the specific asset. The asset may be physical or intangible (copyrights, services, virtual assets). These offenses are common among investment managers, bankers, receivers, and sometimes also lawyers who embezzle their clients' funds.
Why is the punishment so severe?
The harm in these offenses is twofold: harm to the property of the corporation and its shareholders; and harm to special fiduciary relationships created between the office holder and the corporation. The fiduciary duty of the office holder, established in section 254(a) of the Companies Law, requires him to act in good faith and for the benefit of the company; theft of its assets is a material breach of this duty.
In CrimA 281/82 Abu Hatzira v. State of Israel, the Supreme Court held that in offenses of this type, "laying hands on another's property and breach of the trust given by a public that relied on their honesty and decency are concentrated and intertwined," and held that real and tangible punishment, including actual imprisonment, is essential.
The Supreme Court's position, a trend toward harsher punishment
In CrimA 4430/13 Netanel Sharon v. State of Israel, the Supreme Court held unequivocally that the time has come to raise the sentencing threshold in economic offenses, including the imposition of actual imprisonment. The Court emphasized that these are sophisticated offenses that are difficult to detect, committed by people of status and education while exploiting their power and authority. The damage, when it is discovered, is far more severe than in ordinary property offenses. One should not rely on the "white-collar" nature of the offense as a mitigating factor; the Supreme Court said so expressly.
Why is early representation critical in these offenses?
Offenses of this type are investigated over a long period, sometimes years, before leading to arrest or an invitation for questioning. When the defendant receives an invitation for questioning, a detailed evidentiary file has usually already been formed. Anyone who is not represented from the earliest stage arrives at the questioning empty-handed. Advocate Israel Arama, a former member of the Tel Aviv District Attorney's Office, is familiar from the inside with how complex economic cases are built, both how the prosecution builds them and where they can be attacked. Contact us for an initial consultation with no obligation before taking any step.
Section 393 defines several situations of theft by an authorized person, all carrying a penalty of up to 7 years' imprisonment — what is important to know?
The theft of an asset received with power of attorney to act in relation to it; the theft of an asset deposited for safekeeping or use; the theft of an asset received for possession for the benefit of another; and theft from the proceeds of a security intended for a specific purpose or a specific person. An "authorized person" is defined as anyone between whom and the owner of the asset there are relations of authorization or agency, that is, power of attorney over the specific asset. The asset may be physical or intangible (copyrights, services, virtual assets). These offenses are common among investment managers, bankers, receivers, and sometimes also lawyers who embezzle their clients' funds.
Why is the punishment so severe?
The harm in these offenses is twofold: harm to the property of the corporation and its shareholders; and harm to special fiduciary relationships created between the office holder and the corporation. The fiduciary duty of the office holder, established in section 254(a) of the Companies Law, requires him to act in good faith and for the benefit of the company; theft of its assets is a material breach of this duty. In CrimA 281/82 Abu Hatzira v. State of Israel, the Supreme Court held that in offenses of this kind, "the misappropriation of another's property and the breach of trust bestowed by a public that relied on their honesty and integrity are exhausted and intertwined," and held that real and tangible punishment, including actual imprisonment, is necessary.
The Supreme Court's position, a trend toward harsher punishment — what is important to know?
In CrimA 4430/13 Netanel Sharon v. State of Israel, the Supreme Court held unequivocally that the time has come to raise the sentencing threshold in economic offenses, including the imposition of actual imprisonment. The Court emphasized that these are sophisticated offenses that are difficult to detect, committed by people of status and education while exploiting their power and authority. The damage, when it is discovered, is far more severe than in ordinary property offenses. One should not rely on the "white-collar" nature of the offense as a mitigating factor; the Supreme Court said so expressly.
Why is early representation critical in these offenses?
Offenses of this type are investigated over a long period, sometimes years, before leading to arrest or an invitation for questioning. When the defendant receives an invitation for questioning, a detailed evidentiary file has usually already been formed. Anyone who is not represented from the earliest stage arrives at the questioning empty-handed.
This information is for initial orientation about the service and contact process. It is not individual legal advice.
Initial call No obligation