At this point, it is important to have a clear understanding on what these Quadruplet Modes of Misappropriation, Conversion, Use and Disposal mean, in order to apply either of them to the evidence adduced before the Court. Misappropriation is the Intentional and Illegal Use of Property or Funds and it is also the Improper Application of Funds entrusted to a Person’s care. The Legal Scholar NWAMARA at PAGE 621 defined Misappropriation of Money to be the wrongful setting apart or assigning of a Sum of Money to a purpose or use, for which it should not lawfully be assigned or set apart. Reference is also made to ALL INDIA LAW REPORT MANUAL VOLUME 28 PAGE 678. It is not enough to establish that the Money has not been accounted for or that it was mismanaged. It has to be established that the Defendant had dishonestly put the Property to his own use or to some unauthorized use. See the case of Y.O. BAKARE & 2ORS VS THE STATE PER COKER JSC SC. 338/67; LC VOL. 1 2004 AT PAGE 173, where His Lordship held that the necessary Criminal Intent under Section 16 of the Penal Code had to be proved. It is the Wrongful Conversion or dealing with anything by the Person to whom it has been entrusted. Dishonest Intention to Misappropriate is a crucial fact to be proved to bring home the Charge of Criminal Breach of Trust. In the case of I.G. TIRAH VS COP (1973) NNLR AT PAGE 143, PER JONES SPJ, it was held that the Defendant, in dealing with the Money or Property entrusted to him, did something else with it, constituting Misappropriation. In addition, Misappropriation is the Umbrella Term under which the different ways of misusing someone else’s Funds are grouped. Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, defines it as the unauthorized, improper, or unlawful use of Funds or other Property for purposes other than that for which it is intended including not only stealing but also unauthorized temporary use for ones own purpose, whether or not he derives any gain or benefit therefrom. It thus includes defalcation, defined in Black's as misappropriation of trust Funds or Money held in any fiduciary capacity, and failure to properly account for such Funds, and conversion, which is any unauthorized act which deprives an owner of his Property permanently or for an indefinite time. See the case of Re Lunt, 255 Kan. 529, 1994. As regards, Conversion, it is an unauthorized control, wrongfully and intentionally, exerted over another’s Property, in denial of, or inconsistent with, his Title or Rights therein, or in derogation, exclusion, or defiance of such Title or Rights, WITHOUT the Owner’s consent and WITHOUT lawful justification. It involves an unauthorized assumption of the right of ownership over another's Property. Generally, any type of Conversion that occurs after a Person obtains lawful possession of the Property is sufficient. The element of knowledge is found when the Defendant engages in the conduct and he is aware to a high probability that he is doing so. An essential element of Criminal Conversion is that “the Property must be owned by another and the Conversion thereof must be without the consent and against the will of the party, to whom the Property belongs, coupled with the fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of the Property. See the case of PEOPLE VS FIELDEN, 162 COLORADO 574, 576 (COLORADO 196). Knowledge coupled with the intentional exertion and Criminal Intent of unauthorized control, forms the crux of the crime of Conversion. Exerting control over the Property means, “to obtain, take, carry, drive, lead away, conceal, abandon, sell, convey, encumber or possess Property, or to secure, transfer, or extend a right over the Property. See the case of the case of IRVIN VS STATE, 501 N.E.2D 111