United States v. Gregory Alan Simpson

Simpson was convicted of embezzling a California automobile ownership certificate from his employer bank in violation of 18 U.S.C § 656. His major contention is that though a crime may have been committed, there is an absence of proof as to the essential elements of a violation of section 656. We affirm.

The basis of the government’s case was that Simpson’s employer had made a loan on a Datsun automobile and had in its possession a note, security agreement and ownership certificate (pink slip). Simpson worked in the department where the certificate was kept. The claim is that in return for $800, Simpson provided the certificate with the forged signature of a bank officer releasing the bank’s interest to a third party so that the Datsun could be sold free of the lien.

Section 656 states in part:

To constitute a violation, the ownership certificate must qualify as an “asset” and must have been in the possession of the bank. Simpson contends that neither requirement was met. We disagree.

Simpson contends that the certificate is a mere indicium of ownership and cannot be considered an asset. He concedes that a stock certificate is an asset but contends the ownership…