Embezzling

Example:
Roadico Construction is hired by the city of Rattlesnake Creek to build a small road bridge over the Creek. They are given access to bank account with $800,000 dollars for this purpose. After the bridge is finished they will receive $120,000 in payment and whatever is left in the account. It will take 14 months to build. As construction begins, a wealthy land owner approaches Roadico and asks for a large foot bridge on his property some miles away. His bridge will cost $425,000 and he's willing to pay $750,000 but will not give an advance. It will take 2 months to build his foot bridge. Roadico does not have access to that much capitol so they ask the land owner to wait. He is unwilling and seeks another construction company. 3 months later, costs for constructing the city bridge begin rising and Roadico is left with $500,000 when they project the final cost will rise to 935,000. Finishing the city bridge will cost them more money that they will be paid. Actually it will cost them more money than they have. They cannot finish. Roadico's accountant contacts the wealthy land owner asking if his offer still stands. He was unable to find another company willing to build his bridge for less than $800,000, so he still wants Roadico to build his bridge. The accountant checks the wording of the city bridge contract. The wording is vague but contains no language that would allow Roadico to use the account for any other purpose _unless authorized_. He could ask the city to authorize shifting funds the foot bridge in order to pay for the city bridge. But his assessment of city officials is low and expects they would seek to sue Roadico simply for asking (as they have unsuccessfully done in the past to other contractors). Due to vague wording, it is possible Roadico could get away with misallocation of funds if caught. He decides to secretly use money from the account to build the footbridge in order to get enough money to finish the city bridge and Roadico will still make an overall profit. He quietly approaches a Roadico foreman and explains there is a foot bridge to be built some distance away but he and his crew can tell no one about it and must only work on the bridge after he is officially off duty. His crew will be assigned minimum hours on the city bridge job to provide time for the foot bridge and they will be paid double for their foot bridge hours. Officially, Rodico will be using the land to store equipment currently not in use. The secret crew finishes the foot bridge and Roadico uses the payment to finish the city bridge and there is quite a bit of money left for Roadico.
Suppose no one finds out about the books being shuffled. The land owner got his bridge. The city got their bridge. The foreman and crew get a nice bonus. Roadico makes money. And due to the vague contract wording, it is entirely possible no law was violated. But this is still embezzlement. This is the ideal outcome for many embezzlers that do not mind violating ethics to get it. Note however, such schemes are rarely clean. This activity tends to snowball into bribery, blackmail, conspiracy, and other such unequivocal crimes. Of immediate concern is anyone who knows about the embezzlement can choose to take advantage in a number of ways knowing that is it not in the best interest of everyone involved to do anything that might expose the embezzlement.