Katherine Hawcroft was acquitted in the ACT Supreme Court of 230 counts of theft involving a total of $523,000 after visiting Justice Shane Marshall found there was no legal basis to support the accusations that she stole the money.

The businesswoman did not dispute that she had sold a property held in trust for her children, nieces and nephews and gambled most of the proceeds away between 2000 and 2003.

But the judge found that if Hawcroft had stolen anything, it was the rights over the money a legal concept called a ''chose in action'' rather than the cash itself and the indictments as framed by the office of the ACT Director of Public Prosecutions could not be sustained.

In his written judgment, Justice Marshall had a rebuke for the prosecution team, led by Chris Todd, who could have brought alternative charges.

''The accused could have been properly charged with stealing a chose in action in the sum of $2000 belonging to the beneficiaries,'' the judge wrote.

''Charges must be framed with precision to identify the property to be stolen in cases such as this one.''

Hawcroft's parents entrusted her to manage an investment property, the Victor Lodge Hotel in Kingston, in 1994.

She was to hold the property in trust for her three children and the two daughters of her brother, Phillip Prineas, until the youngest of the children reached the age of 25 in 2011.

Prosecutors alleged Hawcroft sold the hotel to its tenants for $700,000 more than $200,000 below market value in November 2000 without telling any of the heirs. They allege she then gambled away most of the proceeds at pokies venues around Canberra.

But Hawcroft's defence team of lawyer Ben Aulich and barrister Shane Gill argued that the 230 charges of theft could not be made out because the property taken was not money but choses in action, or the legal rights over the money.

In the end, Justice Marshall agreed, using count one the alleged theft of $2000 withdrawn from Hawcroft's bank account in November 2000 as an example.

''If the accused stole anything, it was a chose in action and not the actual $2000,'' Justice Marshall wrote in his judgment.

''Whatever the situation, in the current circumstances, no actual money can be said to have been stolen from the beneficiaries.''

Hawcroft is still facing civil action from her two nieces, who are each suing her for $183,000, one third of the market value of Victor Lodge at the time of its sale.