I have no lack of reasons for speaking in behalf of the plaintiff Nicias; for it so
 happens that he is my friend, that he is in need, that he is the victim of injustice, and
 that he has no ability as a speaker; for all these reasons, therefore, I am compelled to
 speak on his behalf.

The circumstances in which the transaction between Nicias and Euthynus came to be made I
 shall relate to you in as few words as I can. This Nicias, the plaintiff, after the Thirty
 Tyrants came into power and his enemies threatened to expunge his name from the number of
 those who were to have the rights of citizenship, and to include him in Lysander's 
 list, being in fear of the state of affairs, mortgaged his house, sent his slaves outside
 of Attica, conveyed his furniture to my house, gave in trust three talents of silver to
 Euthynus, and went to live in the country.

Not long after this, desiring to take ship, he asked for the return of his money;
 Euthynus restored two talents, but denied that he had received the third. At that time
 Nicias was unable to take any further action, but he went to his friends and with
 complaints and recriminations told them how he had been treated. And yet he regarded
 Euthynus so highly and was in such fear of the government that he would sooner by far have
 been defrauded of a small sum and held his peace than have made complaints where no loss
 was suffered.

Such are the facts. But our cause presents difficulties. For Nicias, both when he was
 depositing the money and when he tried to get it back, had no one with him, either freeman
 or slave ; thus it
 is impossible either by torture of slaves or by testimony to get at the facts, but it is
 by circumstantial evidence that we must plead and you must judge which side speaks the
 truth.

I think that you all know that malicious prosecution is most generally attempted by
 those who are clever speakers but possess nothing, whereas the defendants lack skill in
 speaking but are able to pay money. Well, Nicias is better off than Euthynus, but has less
 ability as a speaker; so that there is no reason why he should have proceeded against
 Euthynus unjustly.

No indeed, but from the very facts in the case anyone can see that it is far more
 probable that Euthynus received the money and then denied having done so than that Nicias
 did not entrust it to him and then entered his complaint. For it is self-evident that it
 is always for the sake of gain that men do wrong. Now those who defraud others are in
 possession of the fruit of their crimes, but their accusers do not even know if they shall
 get back anything.

Besides, when conditions in the city were unsettled and the courts were suspended, it was
 useless for Nicias to sue Euthynus and the latter had no cause for fear though guilty of
 the fraud. It was not surprising, therefore, at a time when those who had borrowed money
 even in the presence of witnesses denied it, that Euthynus should have robbed him of what
 he had received from him when neither was accompanied by witnesses. And it is not probable
 that at a time when not even those to whom money was justly owed could recover it, Nicias
 should have believed that he could obtain anything by an unjust accusation.

And again, even if nothing had stood in his way and he could have brought a false
 accusation against him and wished to do so, it can easily be seen that Nicias would not
 have proceeded against Euthynus. For those who desire to act in this way do not begin with
 their friends, but in alliance with them proceed against others and accuse those for whom
 they have neither respect nor fear, persons whom they see to be rich, but friendless and
 helpless.

Well then, in the case of Euthynus the opposite is true; he is the cousin of Nicias and
 has greater ability in speech and action, and although he has little money, he has many
 friends. In consequence, he is the last person whom Nicias would have proceeded against.
 And, in my opinion, knowing as I do their intimacy, neither would Euthynus ever have acted
 unjustly toward Nicias if he could have defrauded someone else of so large a sum.

But as it was, their transaction was simple. It is possible to choose whomever you please from the whole body of
 citizens for accusation, but you can defraud only the man who has entrusted a deposit with
 you. Thus Nicias, if he had desired to get money by blackmail, would not have proceeded
 against Euthynus, but the latter, when he resorted to fraud, had no other victim
 available.

But here is the strongest evidence and sufficient in every respect. When the charge was
 made, the oligarchy was in power, in which the situation of the two men was as follows:
 Nicias, even if he had been accustomed in former times to bring malicious accusations,
 then would have given up the practice, whereas Euthynus, even if he had never before given
 a thought to wrongdoing, then would have been tempted to act thus.

For his misdeeds were bringing him honors, but Nicias, because of his wealth, was the
 object of plotting. For you are all aware that, at that time, it was a greater danger to
 be wealthy than to engage in wrongdoing, for the evil-doers were seizing the property of
 others, whereas the rich were losing their own. For it was the custom of those in whose
 hands the control of the city was, not to punish those who were guilty of offenses, but to
 despoil the possessors of property, and they regarded the criminals as loyal and the
 wealthy as inimical.

Consequently it was not the problem before Nicias how he might get possession of the
 property of others by bringing malicious accusations, but how he might not be made a
 victim of wrongdoing, although himself innocent. For while any man who possessed the
 influence of Euthynus could steal what he had received on deposit and also bring charges
 against those to whom he had lent nothing, yet those who were in Nicias' position were
 compelled to absolve their debtors of just debts and to surrender their own property to
 blackmailers.

Euthynus himself could testify to the truth of what I say; for he knows that Timodemus
 extorted thirty minas from Nicias, not by demanding the payment of a debt, but by
 threatening him with summary arrest. And yet is it probable that Nicias went so far in
 folly that he was bringing malicious charges against others when his own life was in
 jeopardy;

that he was plotting to get the goods of others when he was unable to protect his own;
 that he was making other enemies in addition to those he already had; that he was unjustly
 accusing persons from whom, even if they confessed the theft, he could not have exacted
 punishment; and that he was trying to get the better of others at the time when even to
 have equality with them was beyond his power; and, finally, at the time when he was being
 forced to pay back what he had not received, he hoped to collect what he had not lent?

Enough has been said concerning these matters. Perhaps Euthynus will repeat what indeed
 he has already said, that, if he had been trying to defraud Nicias, he never would have
 returned two-thirds of the deposit, while withholding merely the third part, but that
 whether he was intent upon acting unjustly or wished to act justly, he would have had the
 same intention in regard to the whole amount.

But you all know, I think, that all men, when they set about committing a crime, at the
 same time are looking about for a plea in defense; consequently, it should occasion no
 surprise that Euthynus, in view of this very argument, committed the crime. Besides, I
 could point out other men also who, after having received money, have restored the major
 portion of it, but retained a small part, and men who, though guilty of dishonesty in
 petty contracts, yet in important ones have shown themselves honest;

therefore, Euthynus is not the only person, nor yet the first, who has acted so. You must
 remember that, if you ever countenance such a plea by defendants, you will be establishing
 a legal provision as to the way a fraud should be committed; consequently, in the future,
 holders of deposits will indeed return a part, but will retain a part for themselves. For
 it will be to their advantage, if they can use their repayment of some as presumptive
 proof so that they will not be punished for their stealing the rest.

Consider, also, that it is easy to use on behalf of Nicias arguments similar to those
 employed in the defense of Euthynus. For instance, when Nicias recovered the two talents,
 no one was present as his witness; so that, if he wanted to make a malicious accusation
 and that seemed best to him, it is obvious that he would not have acknowledged the receipt
 of even the two talents, but would have made the same plea for the entire amount; in that
 case, Euthynus would now be liable to lose even a larger sum, and at the same time he
 would not be able to use the presumptive proof on which he now depends.

And, furthermore, no one can point to any culpable motive whatever that led Nicias to
 enter an accusation against Euthynus, but as to Euthynus, it is easy to see the reasons
 which induced him to commit a crime in that manner. For then Nicias was in adversity, all
 his relations and friends had heard him say that he had deposited his money with Euthynus.

Euthynus knew, therefore, that many persons were aware that the money was in his keeping,
 but that no one knew the amount; in consequence he thought that if he diminished the
 amount he would not be found out, but if he withheld the whole sum, his guilt would be
 manifest. Therefore, he chose to take enough and have left a plea in his defense rather
 than to pay nothing back and be left without a possibility of denial.