The word former

[bmo]

The disgraced former accountant had to cough up the money he embezzled from his employer.

1. Is the sentence grammatically correct?
2. The sentence doesn't imply the employee has been fired. Correct?
3. This employee could still be the president of the company, but in his previous employment, he was once an accountant. Correct?
4. The sentence doesn't imply he/she had been an accountant of the company who was fired because of the embezzlement. Correct?

Thank you very much.

bmo

 

[Kevman]

The disgraced former accountant had to cough up the money he embezzled from his employer.

1. Is the sentence grammatically correct?
It seems fine to me.
2. The sentence doesn't imply the employee has been fired. Correct?
It doesn't explicitly say that the employee has been fired--only that he is no longer an accountant. The implication that he has been fired may be there, but it could also be altered or affected by further information.
3. This employee could still be the president of the company, but in his previous employment, he was once an accountant. Correct?
Correct.
4. The sentence doesn't imply he/she had been an accountant of the company who was fired because of the embezzlement. Correct?
See my answer to #2 regarding implication. The sentence doesn't say that he was fired because of the embezzlement, although without further information that could (possibly erroneously) be inferred.

Thank you very much.
You're welcome.

bmo

 

[Aud Duck]

To me, it seems better to say "The disgraced former accountant had to cough up the money he had embezzled from his employer."

The sentence does fit your other criteria.

 

[bmo]

Much appreciated.

bmo

 

[ruru2006]

I totally agree with Kevman - However, if no further explanation exists, and judging by the choice of words "cough up" (not extremely formal), if I read: "The disgraced former accountant had to cough up the money he embezzled from his employer".
I would probably infer that "the disgraced former accountant" "had to 'cough up' the money embezzled" from "his employer"
in other words, the guy (was an accountant now fired) who had to return the money he embezzed from his employer (who hired him as an accountant). Maybe I have a great imagination... Maybe the sentence leads the reader to that conclusion.