compensation statute, but the claimant must prove all elements of the alleged criminal act. Gillana v. Paniaguas, 708 N.E.2d 895, 899 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), trans. denied. As to whether or not Ruman and RCH committed criminal conversion, they argue that any failure to pay Tobin his share of the retained earnings is, at most, the failure to pay a debt, which does not constitute criminal conversion as a matter of law. We agree. Tobin has not shown that he entrusted money to RCH for any particular purpose; to the contrary, the funds at issue are and always have been in the possession of and generated by RCH. RCH's wrongful withholding of these funds from Tobin is, at most, the failure to pay a debt, which does not constitute criminal conversion as a matter of law. See Huff. 654 N.E2d at 886 (<HOLDING>). Because summary judgment was inappropriate
holding that wrongful withholding of money from commissions did not constitute eriminal conversion where there was no evidence that the money was entrusted to the defendant for a particular purpose or that the defendant retained specific funds that could be directly attributed to plaintiff holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs holding that defendant could not be required to reimburse state for buy money in drug case because the state was not a victim holding the commissions recommendation that the attorney be ordered to refund his clients funds could not be adopted because the stipulation failed to detail the amount of such funds and no witness testimony or evidence was taken on the matter holding that a money laundering enhancement was applicable because defendant knew the funds were represented to be proceeds of a drug transaction