Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.095 (2026)

Misapplication of entrusted property

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      165.095 Misapplication of entrusted property. (1) A person commits the crime of misapplication of entrusted property if, with knowledge that the misapplication is unlawful and that it involves a substantial risk of loss or detriment to the owner or beneficiary of such property, the person intentionally misapplies or disposes of property that has been entrusted to the person as a fiduciary or that is property of the government or a financial institution.

      (2) Misapplication of entrusted property is a Class A misdemeanor. [1971 c.743 §166]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1976–2012 · leading case: State v. Hitz, 766 P.2d 373 (Or. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Hitz, 766 P.2d 373 (Or. 1988). · cites it 8× “' At the time of defendant's acts, there was no statute or regulation, apart from ORS 165.095, that forbade what she did with Sanarov's money.”
Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd., 879 P.2d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “ORS 165.095(1) provides that a person who “misapplies” property entrusted to a financial institution commits a crime.”
Kotera v. Daioh Int'l U.S.A. Corp., 40 P.3d 506 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “085, theft by receiving, ORS 164.095, the fraudulent obtaining of a signature, ORS 165.”
State v. Voetberg, 781 P.2d 387 (Or. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “ORS 165.095. He assigns as error the provision of the sentence requiring him to pay restitution to a victim of a crime for which he was originally charged but which was dismissed as a result of a plea agreement.”
Stevens v. First Interstate Bank, 999 P.2d 551 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “ORS 165.095(1) provides that a person who `misapplies' property entrusted to a financial institution commits a crime.”
State v. Smith, 288 P.3d 974 (Or. Ct. App. 2012). “Stuart, 250 Or 303 , 442 P2d 231 (1968) (embezzlement of motor vehicle by bailee); ORS 165.095 (criminalizing, under the classification “business and commercial offenses,” knowing misapplication or disposal of property originally “entrusted to [a] person as a fiduciary”…”
Schafroth v. Baker, 553 P.2d 1046 (Or. 1976). “Plaintiff first argues that defendant’s statement to President MacVicar charged plaintiff with the commission of the crime of misapplication of entrusted property, ORS 165.095, and that the doctrine of qualified privilege is not available as a defense to an accusation of…”
State v. Cooper, 852 P.2d 948 (Or. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “The Supreme Court reversed, noting: "Defendant argued to the trial court that the state had not proved her knowledge `that any misapplication of funds, if it has been shown that there was a misapplication, was done unlawfully.' She argued to the Court of Appeals that the state…”
State v. Hitz, 757 P.2d 448 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “ORS 165.095. She contends that the state failed to prove one element of the crime and, therefore, that she is entitled to an acquittal.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 165.095(1) — 5 cases
State v. Hitz, 766 P.2d 373 (Or. 1988). “' At the time of defendant's acts, there was no statute or regulation, apart from ORS 165.095, that forbade what she did with Sanarov's money.”
Banaitis v. Mitsubishi Bank, Ltd., 879 P.2d 1288 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “ORS 165.095(1) provides that a person who “misapplies” property entrusted to a financial institution commits a crime.”
Stevens v. First Interstate Bank, 999 P.2d 551 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “ORS 165.095(1) provides that a person who `misapplies' property entrusted to a financial institution commits a crime.”
Kotera v. Daioh Int'l U.S.A. Corp., 40 P.3d 506 (Or. Ct. App. 2002). “085, theft by receiving, ORS 164.095, the fraudulent obtaining of a signature, ORS 165.”
State v. Hitz, 757 P.2d 448 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “ORS 165.095. She contends that the state failed to prove one element of the crime and, therefore, that she is entitled to an acquittal.”
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.