In a prosecution against a person accused of embezzling or fraudulently converting to his own use bullion, money, bank notes or other security for money or items of personal property subject to larceny it shall be lawful in the same indictment or accusation to charge and thereon to proceed against the accused for any number of distinct acts of such embezzlements or fraudulent conversions which may have been committed by him within six months from the first to the last of the acts charged in the indictment; and it shall be sufficient to allege the embezzlement or fraudulent conversion to be of money without specifying any particular money, gold, silver, note or security. Such allegation, so far as it regards the description of the property, shall be sustained if the accused be proved to have embezzled any bullion, money, bank note or other security for money or items of personal property subject to larceny although the particular species be not proved.
And in a prosecution for the larceny of United States currency or for obtaining United States currency by a false pretense or token, or for receiving United States currency knowing the same to have been stolen, it shall be sufficient if the accused be proved guilty of the larceny of national bank notes or United States treasury notes, certificates for either gold or silver coin, fractional coin, currency, or any other form of money issued by the United States government, or of obtaining the same by false pretense or token, or of receiving the same knowing it to have been stolen although the particular species be not proved.
Code 1950, § 19.1-168; 1960, c. 366; 1975, c. 495; 1989, c. 370.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1990–2026 · leading case:
Bragg v. Commonwealth, 593 S.E.2d 558 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
Bragg v. Commonwealth, 593 S.E.2d 558 (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 26× “1-168 (recodified at Code § 19.2-223), which permitted a single indictment for "`any number of distinct acts of .”
Commonwealth v. McWhirt, 44 Va. 594 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1990).
· cites it 3× “Joinder is permitted under Va. Code § 19.2-223. A motion for a bill of particulars should not be granted if the indictment sufficiently informs defendant of the charge to be tried.”
Santique Kanu, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 9× “Code § 19.2-223. Appellant first contends that although he embezzled from Macy’s twenty separate times, the Commonwealth’s evidence proved that he embezzled as a result of a single, continuing impulse to steal, and therefore he could only be convicted of one count of…”
Justin Douglas Peery v. Commonwealth of Virginia (Va. Ct. App. 2026).
· cites it 4× “Under Code § 19.2-223, “it shall be sufficient to allege the embezzlement or fraudulent conversion to be of money without specifying any particular money.”
Commonwealth v. Kerin, 28 Va. Cir. 472 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 1992).
· cites it 8× “Va. Code Ann. § 19.2-223 (1990) (emphasis added).”
Beverly Bush Kinglsey v. Commonwealth (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Other than relying on the single larceny doctrine, Kingsley cites to us no legal authority for defining the unit of prosecution inherent in the embezzlement statute so narrowly as to require ⎯ much less permit, see Code § 19.2-223 (authorizing consolidation for a period not…”
Commonwealth v. Frazier, 28 Va. Cir. 369 (Hanover Cir. Ct. 1992).
“(See, however, the “six-month rule” codified in § 19.2-223 with reference to embezzlements.”
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.