Embezzlement Arrests: Preparing for a Nebbia Hearing

QuickBail Team The QuickBail editorial team — licensed bail bond professionals serving all 67 Florida counties, available 24/7 at (941) 477-6888.

Published on: May 21, 2026

Embezzlement sits in an unusual space within Florida's criminal justice system. It is a theft crime, but it does not look like other theft crimes. There is no broken window, no snatched purse, no masked figure at a cash register. Instead, embezzlement involves a person who was trusted with access to someone else's money, an employer's operating account, a nonprofit's donation fund, an HOA's reserve account, or a client's escrow funds, and who diverted that money for personal use over a period of weeks, months, or years.

That trust element changes the bail equation. When a judge sets bail for a shoplifter or a car thief, the source of the bail money is rarely questioned. But when a defendant is accused of stealing $200,000 from their employer's payroll account, the court has a legitimate interest in knowing whether the $20,000 being used to post a surety bond is derived from the theft itself. This is where the Nebbia hearing enters the picture, and it is where embezzlement defendants often find themselves stuck in jail longer than they expected.

How Embezzlement Arrests Typically Happen

Unlike street crimes, embezzlement arrests are rarely the result of an officer witnessing the crime in progress. Instead, the arrest comes at the end of an investigation that may span months. The typical sequence begins with an employer, a nonprofit board, or an accountant noticing financial irregularities: unexplained withdrawals, missing deposits, duplicate vendor payments to unknown accounts, or discrepancies between reported revenue and bank balances.

The organization hires a forensic accountant or refers the matter to law enforcement. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) handles many large-scale embezzlement investigations, particularly those involving public funds or complex financial schemes. Local law enforcement agencies handle smaller cases. The investigation produces a detailed accounting of the alleged theft, which forms the basis of the charging document.

The arrest itself is often by appointment. Because embezzlement defendants are not flight risks in the traditional sense (they are usually community members with stable addresses and families), law enforcement frequently arranges a voluntary surrender. The defendant's attorney negotiates a date and time for the defendant to turn themselves in at the jail, which avoids the spectacle of an arrest at the defendant's workplace or home. However, not all embezzlement arrests are this orderly. In cases involving large sums, ongoing schemes, or evidence of flight preparation (selling property, transferring assets overseas), law enforcement will execute a standard arrest warrant without warning.

Florida Statutes Governing Embezzlement

Florida does not have a single "embezzlement" statute. Instead, embezzlement is prosecuted under the general theft statutes (Florida Statute 812.014) combined with breach of trust enhancements. The severity of the charge depends on the amount allegedly stolen:

• Under $750: Second-degree misdemeanor (petit theft). Bond: $250 to $1,000.
• $750 to $19,999: Third-degree felony (grand theft). Bond: $5,000 to $25,000.
• $20,000 to $99,999: Second-degree felony (grand theft). Bond: $25,000 to $75,000.
• $100,000 or more: First-degree felony (grand theft). Bond: $100,000 to $500,000+.

Additional charges may apply depending on the circumstances. Scheme to defraud (Florida Statute 817.034) is commonly charged alongside embezzlement when the theft involved an ongoing plan executed over multiple transactions. Organized fraud (Florida Statute 817.034(4)(a)) applies when the amount exceeds $50,000. These additional charges increase both the potential sentence and the bond amount.

The Nebbia Hearing: What It Is and Why It Matters

A Nebbia hearing derives its name from United States v. Nebbia, a federal case that established the court's authority to require proof that bail funds are not derived from illegal activity. In Florida, the Nebbia requirement is applied at the judge's discretion, and it is almost always imposed in embezzlement cases where the alleged theft exceeds $20,000.

The hearing is a separate proceeding from the initial bond hearing. At First Appearance, the judge sets the bond amount and may impose a Nebbia requirement. The defendant cannot post bond until the Nebbia hearing is held and the judge is satisfied with the source-of-funds documentation. This means the defendant remains in custody until the hearing, which may not occur for several days or even weeks depending on the court's calendar and the defense attorney's readiness.

Preparing for the Hearing: A Strategic Approach

The defense attorney's job at a Nebbia hearing is to build a clear, documented paper trail from a legitimate income source to the funds being used for bail. The strongest presentations involve a family member, typically a spouse, parent, or sibling, whose finances are entirely independent from the defendant and whose income can be documented with standard records.

The weakest presentations involve funds that are commingled. If the defendant and their spouse have joint bank accounts, and the alleged embezzlement funds were deposited into those joint accounts, the State Attorney will argue that any money in those accounts is potentially tainted. The defense must then trace specific deposits and withdrawals to demonstrate that the bail funds came from the spouse's independent income, not from the defendant's illegal activity. This forensic tracing is time-consuming and expensive, but it is often the only path to posting bail in high-dollar embezzlement cases.

Using a Bail Bond Agent Strategically

Working with a bail bond agent can simplify the Nebbia analysis because the premium paid to the agent is only 10% of the bond amount, which reduces the total funds that must be traced to legitimate sources. A $100,000 bond requires a $10,000 premium rather than $100,000 in traceable funds. The surety company's backing of the remaining $90,000 does not require Nebbia scrutiny because the surety's funds are obviously not derived from the defendant's alleged crime.

However, the court may still require a Nebbia proffer for the premium payment. If the defendant's family is paying the $10,000 premium, they must demonstrate that the $10,000 is clean money. This is easier to prove than tracing $100,000, but it is not automatic.

Bond Conditions in Embezzlement Cases

Beyond the Nebbia requirement, judges in embezzlement cases frequently impose bond conditions that restrict the defendant's access to financial systems. Common conditions include surrender of passport, prohibition on opening new bank accounts or credit cards, restriction from the former employer's premises, prohibition on accessing the compromised financial accounts, and a requirement to report any changes in financial status to the court.

For defendants who worked in positions of financial trust (accountants, bookkeepers, treasurers, property managers), the court may also prohibit the defendant from accepting any employment that involves handling other people's money while the case is pending. This condition can be financially devastating, as it eliminates the defendant's primary skill set from the job market during what may be a 12 to 24-month pretrial period.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long does a Nebbia hearing take to schedule?

Scheduling depends on two factors: the court's calendar and the defense attorney's readiness to present documentation. In busy circuits like the 11th Circuit (Miami-Dade), a Nebbia hearing may take 5 to 10 business days to schedule after the initial bond setting. In less congested circuits, the hearing can sometimes be set within 2 to 3 days. The defense attorney's preparation time is often the controlling factor; gathering and organizing the financial documentation required for a persuasive Nebbia proffer takes time, particularly when multiple sources of funds are involved.

What happens if the Nebbia hearing fails?

If the judge is not satisfied with the source-of-funds documentation, the judge will deny the current bail posting and the defendant remains in custody. This is not a permanent denial of bail; the defense can re-file the motion with additional or different documentation and request a new hearing. Some defense attorneys use the first hearing as a learning opportunity, discovering what the judge and prosecutor find objectionable about the initial proffer and returning with a stronger presentation. Alternatively, the defense can identify a different source of funds entirely, such as a different family member or a professional bail fund, and present that alternative at the subsequent hearing.

Can the defendant's attorney or accountant testify at the Nebbia hearing?

Yes. Defense attorneys frequently call forensic accountants as expert witnesses at Nebbia hearings to walk the judge through the financial documentation and explain how the bail funds were traced to legitimate sources. The defendant's personal accountant or financial advisor may also testify, though their testimony may carry less weight if they were involved in the defendant's financial management during the period of alleged embezzlement. The person providing the funds (typically a family member) may also be called to testify under oath about their income, employment, and the origin of the money.