In what circumstances will the court accept an offer of restitution as evidence in an embezzlement case?

In People v. Dubrin, supra, 232 Cal.App.3d 674, the court, in dictum, stated in an embezzlement case: "[I]t is undoubtedly true that evidence of an offer of restitution is relevant to the question as to whether the [defendant] had a fraudulent intent when he appropriated the funds to his own use[.]" (Id. at p. 679.) Because that case involved the fraudulent intent required for embezzlement and that language was dictum, it is inapposite and, in any event, we nevertheless are not persuaded that the reasoning of its dictum should apply to the circumstances in this case.