Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.362 (2026)

Larceny by conversion.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE


Act 328 of 1931


750.362 Larceny by conversion.

Sec. 362.

    Larceny by conversion, etc.—Any person to whom any money, goods or other property, which may be the subject of larceny, shall have been delivered, who shall embezzle or fraudulently convert to his own use, or shall secrete with the intent to embezzle, or fraudulently use such goods, money or other property, or any part thereof, shall be deemed by so doing to have committed the crime of larceny and shall be punished as provided in the first section of this chapter.

History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.362

FormerLaw Notes:

    See section 34 of Ch. 154 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5778; CL 1871, § 7585; How., § 9156; CL 1897, § 11570; CL 1915, § 15315; CL 1929, § 16911; and Act 168 of 1875.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1958–2026 · leading case: People v. March, 499 Mich. 389 (Mich. 2016).
People v. March, 499 Mich. 389 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 2× “In Christenson, 412 Mich at 87 , we observed, “As with common-law larceny, larceny by conversion [MCL 750.362] is a crime against possession and not against title .”
People v. Mason, 634 N.W.2d 382 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 5× “29 When the O’Shea Court revisited this “specific or identical moneys” concept first outlined in Bayer and then continued in Christenson, it concluded that the term could not be interpreted so narrowly that it would preclude virtually any prosecution under MCL 750.362. 30…”
People v. Loper, 830 N.W.2d 836 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “356 (larceny)], or [MCL 750.362 (embezzlement, fraudulent conversion)].”
People v. Zunno, 180 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. 1970). · cites it 24× “That the information to which defendant pled guilty was faulty, in that it did not set forth properly the statutory offense of which the defendant was allegedly pleading guilty to and for which he was sentenced, to wit: MCLA § 750.362 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.594).”
People v. Christenson, 312 N.W.2d 618 (Mich. 1981). · cites it 6× “, which sold and erected modular or prefabricated homes.”
People of Michigan v. Jay Dee Spencer, 909 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “The district court did bind defendant over to the circuit court on charges of obtaining money by false pretenses in the amount of $20,000 or more but less than $50,000, MCL 750.”
People v. Robinson, 194 N.W.2d 537 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). · cites it 4× “MCLA § 750.362 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.594).”
People v. Horace Williams, 258 N.W.2d 737 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “To obtain clothes to be modeled at the show, defendant persuaded various local merchants to lend him the clothing. The five complainants testified that defendant picked up the clothing and promised to return all of it on the first business day after the show.”
People v. Dewald, 705 N.W.2d 167 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “280; and two counts of larceny by conversion, $20,000 or more, MCL 750.362. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of sixteen to sixty months’ imprisonment for the conviction of false pretenses, $1,000 to $20,000; ninety days in jail for the conviction of false pretenses…”
People v. O'Shea, 385 N.W.2d 768 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Defendant was convicted by a jury in Wayne County Circuit Court on a charge of larceny by conversion, MCL 750.362; MSA 28.594. On appeal as of right, defendant raises the follow *270 ing three issues: 1) whether the trial court erred as a matter of law in refusing to quash…”
People v. Robinson, 202 N.W.2d 288 (Mich. 1972). · cites it 2× “[9] MCLA 750.362; MSA 28.594. [10] MCLA 764.16; MSA 28.”
People v. McIntosh, 302 N.W.2d 321 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “MCL 750.362; MSA 28.594. He was sentenced on April 9, 1979, to 20 to 60 months in prison and appeals as of right.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.