This is the definition of theft in CA from our Penal Code:
484. (a) Every person who shall feloniously steal, take, carry,
lead, or drive away the personal property of another, or who shall
fraudulently appropriate property which has been entrusted to him or
her, or who shall knowingly and designedly, by any false or
fraudulent representation or pretense, defraud any other person of
money, labor or real or personal property, or who causes or procures
others to report falsely of his or her wealth or mercantile character
and by thus imposing upon any person, obtains credit and thereby
fraudulently gets or obtains possession of money, or property or
obtains the labor or service of another, is guilty of theft. In
determining the value of the property obtained, for the purposes of
this section, the reasonable and fair market value shall be the test,
and in determining the value of services received the contract price
shall be the test. If there be no contract price, the reasonable
and going wage for the service rendered shall govern. For the
purposes of this section, any false or fraudulent representation or
pretense made shall be treated as continuing, so as to cover any
money, property or service received as a result thereof, and the
complaint, information or indictment may charge that the crime was
committed on any date during the particular period in question. The
hiring of any additional employee or employees without advising each
of them of every labor claim due and unpaid and every judgment that
the employer has been unable to meet shall be prima facie evidence of
intent to defraud.
Note that the various terms refer to "feloniously" steal, or "fraudulently appropriate", or even "knowingly and designedly" defraud someone ... these all require intent be proven. Merely receiving funds is not enough. Certainly, those invoices or requisitions can go a way to proving this, but it is not always as easy as you might think. If the suspect is smart, and has come up with a plausible explanation, then the case gets harder to prove.
Civil suits have a much lower burden of proof than criminal offenses so you may want to look at the civil remedy a little more closely. if the police are not going to be abel to build a case soon enough, you might want to pursue the civil action. After all, they have about three years from the time the crime was discovered to file - I believe you only have ONE year for a civil suit.
Here is some further information from the CA Attorney General on the matter:
Theft by False Pretenses (Pen. Code, §§ 532, 484)
Theft by false pretenses is defined within Penal Code section 484 and again separately in section 532. Its elements are:
- a promise made without an intention to perform it, or a false representation of an existing or past fact known to be false; and
- the specific intent to defraud at the time the promise or false representation is made; and
- reliance upon the promise or false representation by the other person; and
- completion, i.e., a transfer or parting of the owner from his money or property.
Notice that a case of theft by false pretenses is that it resembles a legitimate transaction, usually in the nature of an exchange, transfer, or sale of property.
A representation of a future fact is not sufficient. The false pretense must be of a past fact or present one to qualify as a fraudulent pretense.
The promise or false representation may be done verbally (if there is corroboration) or in writing, or by the act or silence of a person.
If a person makes a false statement believing it to be true, it would not constitute theft by false pretenses as there would be no intent to defraud.
The victim must have relied upon the truth of the promise or false representation, although it does not have to be the sole reason he or she parted with the property. The victim is not obligated to investigate into the truthfulness of representations.
Statements that amount to no more than an expression of opinion are not false pretenses.
If there is no false representation as to the character, quality, or quantity of merchandise sold, an owner can make false and exaggerated statements to induce a sale without violating the statute.
- Carl