Final answer:
Tom could still be found guilty of embezzlement despite returning the money because the crime involves the unlawful taking with intent to defraud, regardless of whether the money is later returned or not.
Step-by-step explanation:
Regarding the scenario where Tom hides the money to get his co-employee Mark fired, the legal term in question here is embezzlement. Embezzlement is a form of property theft that occurs when an individual who is entrusted with money or property steals part of it for personal gain. The key factor in such a case is that the person had lawful possession of someone else's property and then converted it to their own use with the intent to defraud. Even if Tom returned the money, the act of secretly taking it with the intent to potentially cause harm to Mark qualifies as embezzlement. Furthermore, his confession provides direct evidence of his intentions and actions.
Moreover, claiming an appeal to a higher authority or facing a moral dilemma, as seen in various scenarios, does not negate the act of embezzlement. The moral and psychological struggle Tom might have gone through, and whether he rightfully returned the money later, do not absolve him from the initial act of malfeasance.
Therefore, although Tom returned the money and confessed, he could still be found guilty of embezzlement as the crime was completed at the moment he appropriated the money with the intent to misuse it.