I too came up with the same conclusion.  She is indeed embezzling money from the company.  Before reading the definitions in the book on all three of these, I would also say it is a form of robbery, because she is robbing the company of money.  BUT, she is not performing her theft in front of her victim.  Reading through this section reminds me of all the stories that our company puts out that they call their "Fables."  I work for a loan company, and unfortunately this is all too real in my company.  Fortunately our company has caught on to the embezzling of the money quite quickly.  I just don't understand why people think that they can do this and get away with it.  One of the people in my company even was doing it because he lost his house and was needing a place to live so took the money to find a new place ect. 

I also concluded in my original post that the secretary was embezzling. However, after reading more about it and reading others posts I think that it would actually be considered larceny. I automatically assumed that since she was secretary she was given the password and trust/control over the assets, but it does not actually say this. Someone else brought up the point that if she were in fact authorized why wouldn't she have her own password? I think that is a really great point and I was wrong to assume.