What is the test for establishing a relationship of trust between a defendant and a victim?

Defendant argues that CALCRIM No. 1806 is inadequate on the subject of trust because it is essential that the jury know that the relationship of trust is "between two persons" and is "not limited to the owner's trust." Defendant asserts that the prosecution only presented evidence as to Faruk's trust in defendant and that it failed to establish that defendant trusted Faruk. We disagree. There is no requirement that, in order to be guilty of embezzlement, a defendant must trust the victim. Rather, when embezzling another's property, the wrongdoer knows that the victim trusts him or her and takes advantage of that fact to obtain access to the property. (See, e.g., People v. Nazary (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 727, 742.) The language of CALCRIM No. 1806 clearly conveys this.