Bank error in customer's favour
Bystander
the lines of "can I keep it?"
Here is the answer from today's Times:-
WHEN a woman discovered that more than £24,000 had accidentally been paid
into her bank account, the temptation was too great to resist.
It was a few weeks before Christmas and the windfall came at a time when
Louise Inger, 34, who had been off work because illness, had just £49 to her
name.
In six days she and her boyfriend, Nathan Sault, 32, managed to spend all
but £400 of their £24,150 "gift", on holidays to Egypt and France, a £2,700
television, furniture, clothes, mobile phones and generous Christmas
presents for their family and friends.
When they were arrested Sault admitted: "We've spent the lot."
Derby Crown Court heard that the money, from Derby City Council, was
supposed to have been paid to Inger's landlord.
Yesterday Inger and Sault were both jailed for six months for the theft.
Inger also admitted obtaining property by deception.
Fat Freddy's Cat
>
> Yesterday Inger and Sault were both jailed for six months for the theft.
> Inger also admitted obtaining property by deception.
>
>
Quite right too.
I would never be upfront with the bank, but i would shuffle the money
off to another account, earning interest until *they* realise *their*
mistake. After a couple of years, I think it would then be safe enough
to spend it.
Spending it right away on holidays etc was stupid beyond belief.
g.
Bystander
"Fat Freddy's Cat" wrote (snipped)
>
> I would never be upfront with the bank, but i would shuffle the money
> off to another account, earning interest until *they* realise *their*
> mistake. After a couple of years, I think it would then be safe enough
> to spend it.
So you too would steal the money, but you would try to be a bit more clever
about it. How about the other way round - would you expect the Bank to repay
you if it had under-credited your account, or do you think they should hang
on to it for a couple of years to see if you have noticed?
Theft is theft, from a bank, or an old lady, or a blind beggar.
Fat Freddy's Cat
You dont get me.
I wouldn't spend it, just move it to another account to protect it as I
realise a mistake has been made. As soon as the bank let me know about
the mistake, be it one day later or 365 days later, they can get their
money back right away.
g.
Benedict White
money back subject to the defence of change of position.
That defence however rather relies on it being possible to genuinly
believe the money is yours.
It would be very hard to convince anyone in these circumstances that
this was the case.
In most cases where this crops up here the person asking the question
normally has some basis for having believed they were entitled to the
money, and therefore the situation is completly different from the case
here, where someone on benefits is not entitled to believe that ?24,000
turning up in there account is theirs.
This case is on the extremities of unjust enrichment, not the norm.
Normally it would not be anything like a criminal offence.
I hope that helps clarify the position.
Fortunatly this case was in a crown court rather than a magistrates
court.
--
Kind regards
Benedict White
I am not a lawyer.
Please note that my email address is not checked regularly and will
be used for harvesting UCE. If you want to email me work out my address
from the following, my first name at law 4 free daht org daht uk.
If this cause accessibility problems to those who are blind etc., please
post a follow up, and I will try and improve the situation.
Troy Steadman
> >>After a couple of years, I think it would then be safe enough
> >>to spend it.
Bystander wrote:
> >So you too would steal the money...
> >Theft is theft, from a bank, or an old lady, or a blind beggar.
"Fat Freddy's Cat" wrote:
> You dont get me.
> I wouldn't spend it...
<plonk>
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
john boyle
<por...@hotmail.com> writes
>You dont get me.
>I wouldn't spend it, just move it to another account to protect it as I
>realise a mistake has been made. As soon as the bank let me know about
>the mistake, be it one day later or 365 days later, they can get their
>money back right away.
In this case I dont think it was the banks mistake. The council sent the
whole amount due to a housing association directly to one tenant. All
council expenditure is funded by the public, one way or another, so you
would be depriving us all of that dosh.
--
John Boyle
Hiram Hackenbacker
Which bit of "After a couple of years, I think it would then be safe
enough to spend it" didn't I understand then?
--
Hiram Hackenbacker
.
Marco de Innocentis
news:2lsa4rF...@uni-berlin.de
> I would never be upfront with the bank, but i would shuffle the money
> off to another account, earning interest until *they* realise *their*
> mistake. After a couple of years, I think it would then be safe enough
> to spend it.
>
> Spending it right away on holidays etc was stupid beyond belief.
That would still send you to jail, so I'm not sure it would be
worth it.
Marco
Frank X
"john boyle" <j...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:gxwx9$NRTR+...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk...
>>You dont get me.
>>I wouldn't spend it, just move it to another account to protect it as I
>>realise a mistake has been made. As soon as the bank let me know about
>>the mistake, be it one day later or 365 days later, they can get their
>>money back right away.
>
> In this case I dont think it was the banks mistake. The council sent the
> whole amount due to a housing association directly to one tenant. All
> council expenditure is funded by the public, one way or another, so you
> would be depriving us all of that dosh.
> --
No the coucil's incompetence would be depriving us of the dosh. FFC is just
describing a practice that is routinely followed by banks and financial
institutions. It seems as if there is one law for the individual and
another for the banks.
I was surprised that a criminal action was taken against these two as they
did not appear to have lied or decieved etc?
Obviously they should be liable to repay the cash but I would have thought
this should have been handled as a normal debt?
Fat Freddy's Cat
> "Fat Freddy's Cat" wrote:
>
>>>>After a couple of years, I think it would then be safe enough
>>>>to spend it.
>
>
> Bystander wrote:
>
>>>So you too would steal the money...
>>>Theft is theft, from a bank, or an old lady, or a blind beggar.
>
>
> "Fat Freddy's Cat" wrote:
>
>>You dont get me.
>>I wouldn't spend it...
>
>
> <plonk>
>
I would have thought my intention is clear even if the wording is rather
poor - if thats enough to get me into your killfile then I'm sorry I
don't live up to your high expectations in life.
I would not spend the money... until at least a couple of years later. I
am 100% sure that that amount of money error would be discovered pretty
quickly. If it isnt within that period of time, then yes, I'd spend it
and would be guilty of a theft that would never be detected.
g.
tim
"Frank X" <frank...@yahoo.ie> wrote in message
news:2lska8F...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> "john boyle" <j...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:gxwx9$NRTR+...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk...
> >>You dont get me.
> >>I wouldn't spend it, just move it to another account to protect it as I
> >>realise a mistake has been made. As soon as the bank let me know about
> >>the mistake, be it one day later or 365 days later, they can get their
> >>money back right away.
> >
> > In this case I dont think it was the banks mistake. The council sent the
> > whole amount due to a housing association directly to one tenant. All
> > council expenditure is funded by the public, one way or another, so you
> > would be depriving us all of that dosh.
> > --
>
> No the coucil's incompetence would be depriving us of the dosh. FFC is
just
> describing a practice that is routinely followed by banks and financial
> institutions. It seems as if there is one law for the individual and
> another for the banks.
The point is that there is no one individual in a corporate body
who can be seen to be responsible for doing the wrong thing
with a sum of money this size. It requires a complete audit trail
for someone to notice that the money isn't theirs. OTOH if a
single payment of *100* times usual weekly income was
paid into a coprorate they *would* be expected to notice
and might be liable if they did the wrong thing.
>
> I was surprised that a criminal action was taken against these two as they
> did not appear to have lied or decieved etc?
what does spending money that isn't yours count as in your book
then?
> tim
>
Richard Faulkner
<marl...@fsmail.net> writes
>When they were arrested Sault admitted: "We've spent the lot."
>
>Derby Crown Court heard that the money, from Derby City Council, was
>supposed to have been paid to Inger's landlord.
>
>Yesterday Inger and Sault were both jailed for six months for the
>theft.
Where they will again live rent free <g>
>Inger also admitted obtaining property by deception.
--
Richard Faulkner
Essex Computers
news:2ls80uF...@uni-berlin.de...
Gopod luck to the couple, they were having a bad time before Xmas and im
glad they spent it on a nice Holiday together, They got six months, will be
out in 3 or less, which is not bad for £24k
The Todal
That's morally no better than "would be guilty of a murder that would never
be detected".
I think there are many who would keep and spend the money if they thought
they would get away with it. Until I face that particular temptation I do
not know how I would respond to it, only that it would have to be a much
larger sum before I was seriously tempted. After all, they could at any time
sack an inefficient bank manager and send in a team of auditors and find all
the incorrectly credited payments. There is no statute of limitations for
criminal charges.
Essex Computers
"Richard Faulkner" <ric...@estate.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:otIBDwBz...@estate.demon.co.uk...
> In message <2ls80uF...@uni-berlin.de>, Bystander
> <marl...@fsmail.net> writes
> >When they were arrested Sault admitted: "We've spent the lot."
> >
> >Derby Crown Court heard that the money, from Derby City Council, was
> >supposed to have been paid to Inger's landlord.
> >
> >Yesterday Inger and Sault were both jailed for six months for the
> >theft.
>
> Where they will again live rent free <g>
>
Its even easier to find accomodation on leaving prison.
Frank X
"tim" <52001097350...@t-online.de> wrote in message
news:cdb87a$3rs$03$1...@news.t-online.com...
The stuff about audit trails is a red herring. Banks or any financial
organisations often have access to money that is someone else's, it is
standard practice to hold onto it for as long as possible. Banks have
policies regarding dormant accounts. What Fat Freddy's Cat suggested,
putting the money somewhere where it would earn interest until someone
claims it back, is just standard practice.
I myself have had money wrongly deposited in my personal accounts twice in
the last 5 years. Firstly was somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000. It was in
an interest bearing account so I left it there, about 2 months later the
bank realised their mistake and asked for it back nicely so I gave it to
them, I kept the interest.
Another time I had been having a lot of trouble with a motor insurance
premium. Eventually after months of telling me I hadn't paid they refunded
my premium (twice for some reason, without my permission) and then asked me
to transfer it to another of their accounts (apparently an internal transfer
being to difficult for them). By this time I was utterly p*&sed off with
them and told them that I would only give them the money back if they
accepted a charge of £100 compensation, which they did.
In neither instance did it even occur to me that I acted illegally.
>
>>
>> I was surprised that a criminal action was taken against these two as
>> they
>> did not appear to have lied or deceived etc?
>
> what does spending money that isn't yours count as in your book
> then?
>
In this case it was selfish, morally reprehensible, but not dishonest.
Morally I don't see it as any different from a company that accepts new
payments when it knows it is going belly up, like one of the life assurance
companies did recently.
john boyle
writes
>
>No the coucil's incompetence would be depriving us of the dosh. FFC is just
>describing a practice that is routinely followed by banks and financial
>institutions. It seems as if there is one law for the individual and
>another for the banks.
>
>I was surprised that a criminal action was taken against these two as they
>did not appear to have lied or decieved etc?
>
>Obviously they should be liable to repay the cash but I would have thought
>this should have been handled as a normal debt?
Hmm, it would only be a debt if the debtor acknowledged the debt and
intended to repay. I dont think there was any intention to repay here
--
John Boyle
john boyle
writes
>In this case it was selfish, morally reprehensible, but not dishonest.
But they had no intention of repaying it!
>Morally I don't see it as any different from a company that accepts new
>payments when it knows it is going belly up, like one of the life assurance
>companies did recently.
>
Im not sure which ins co you mean but continuing to trade whilst
insolvent is a criminal offence on the directors, so it is illegal.
--
John Boyle
Fat Freddy's Cat
> On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 14:05:06 +0100, Fat Freddy's Cat
> <por...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> unlike you I would not have condemned some one else who did the
> something similar.
> smicker
I don't see how that is anything different either?
You are not exactly saying you'd contact the bank immediately to alert
them to the error are you?
Yup, theft is theft, but there is also stupidity which the couple in
this case were very guilty of.
As I see it, keeping the dosh in a seperate account until asked for is
no different to what banks do every day themselves -
For the record, I know someone who had Ł2.5k wrongly deposited in their
account and I gave them just the advice I stated in this thread. It lay
in an account earning interest for over 4 years before the person
plucked up the courage to start spending it. That was more than 3 years
ago. Yes, its theft, no its hardly crime of the century, and for those
attempting to take a moral high ground, if its never happened to you or
someone you know, then you are only surmising what you would do.
So far as I see it, even if the error was discovered now, the bank won't
dare the publicity of having 8 year errors unnoticed.
To drift slightly, what about the old question of 'what do you do if you
find a bag in the street with Ł1000 in it'?
g.
n...@email.com
wrote:
>That's morally no better than "would be guilty of a murder that would never
>be detected".
Wouldn't that rather depend on your moral code?
--
Me
Troy Steadman
news:2lt2p6F...@uni-berlin.de
> smicker wrote:
> >
> > unlike you I would not have condemned some one else who did the
> > something similar.
> > smicker
>
> I don't see how that is anything different either?
Are you testing out a proposed new language Tiddles or is this meant to
be an intelligible statement/question?
> To drift slightly, what about the old question of 'what do you do if you
> find a bag in the street with £1000 in it'?
£1,000 isn't a lot and I would reason that the person who had lost it is
(possibly) a needy person and might desperately need it back. I would
probably hang on to it for a while and see if anything appeared in the
local rag.
If it was *more* I'd be *less* inclined to hand it in, and if I handed
it in at a Police Station I don't think I'd be any closer to returning
it to the rightful than I would be if I hung on to it.
FWIW I'd do exactly as you have suggested with the bank mis-crediting.
Pat Winstanley
> I was surprised that a criminal action was taken against these two as they
> did not appear to have lied or decieved etc?
>
> Obviously they should be liable to repay the cash but I would have thought
> this should have been handled as a normal debt?
>
However, is it likely they would ever be able to fully repay it?
Clearly they were well aware it was money that had been credited to them
in error given the magnitude of the error compared to what was expected
to be in that account.
Benedict White
A very important point, hence the charge of theft.
Over payment of wages over a period of time is a different matter
altogether, not that Bystander can spot the difference which no doubt
explains the confidence we all have in magistrates.
Bystander
> Over payment of wages over a period of time is a different matter
> altogether,
How?
not that Bystander can spot the difference which no doubt
> explains the confidence we all have in magistrates.
I do not understand what that means.
Ian Henden
> Bystander wrote:
>
> >
> > Yesterday Inger and Sault were both jailed for six months for the theft.
> >
> >
>
>
> I would never be upfront with the bank, but i would shuffle the money
> off to another account, earning interest until *they* realise *their*
> to spend it.
>
> Spending it right away on holidays etc was stupid beyond belief.
>
Better to write to the Bank, pointing out that there appears to be a
discrepancy. (Don't tell them which way...)
When you get the letter back saying "We don't make mistakes" .... then the
dosh is yours, surely?
Francis Davey
>
>
> I don't see how that is anything different either?
> You are not exactly saying you'd contact the bank immediately to alert
> them to the error are you?
>
> Yup, theft is theft, but there is also stupidity which the couple in
> this case were very guilty of.
>
> As I see it, keeping the dosh in a seperate account until asked for is
> no different to what banks do every day themselves -
>
> For the record, I know someone who had £2.5k wrongly deposited in their
> account and I gave them just the advice I stated in this thread. It lay
> in an account earning interest for over 4 years before the person
> plucked up the courage to start spending it. That was more than 3 years
> ago. Yes, its theft, no its hardly crime of the century, and for those
> attempting to take a moral high ground, if its never happened to you or
> someone you know, then you are only surmising what you would do.
>
And you are guilty of incitement to the theft (or as a secondary party).
I am assuming this is a troll because I can't believe someone would so
openly admit to a serious criminal offence in a public forum such as
this. Saying its "hardly the crime of the century" is misleading, by
definition most crimes aren't, but they are serious enough and most
impact on all of us, one way or another.
My advice to you, as a lawyer, is do not give this advice to anyone
again. What you may not have realised is that if the bank were to have
discovered the error and asked for the money back, you (or your friend)
would almost certainly be constructive trustees of the money for the
bank and liable to account for it, which might mean paying more interest
than was actually earned on the money in the meantime.
In the scenario above you would be guilty of assisting in a fraudelent
breach of trust, and would therefore be liable to pay over all the money
the bank lost (plus compound interest). The bank could pursue you for
the money if they wanted to.
There is no limitation period for such an action.
> So far as I see it, even if the error was discovered now, the bank won't
> dare the publicity of having 8 year errors unnoticed.
>
> To drift slightly, what about the old question of 'what do you do if you
> find a bag in the street with £1000 in it'?
>
>
Well, a good general rule is: something that is unidentifiable and
likely to have been abandoned (eg 2p in a gutter) should be picked up
and used.
Anything of low value (such as a glove or scarf), should be left where
it is: the owner can then come back and find it.
Anything of a higher value (notes, wallet, bag with money in etc) should
be taken to the police (or whoever).
Surely this is Standard Operating Procedure?
If it doesn't belong to you and it hasn't been abandoned by its owner,
then you don't take it. Simple.
Francis Davey
bigbrian
wrote:
>
>> Over payment of wages over a period of time is a different matter
>> altogether,
>
>How?
Because its more credible that it could happen without the recipient
realising that they weren't entitled to the money.
Which means there's no theft.
Brian
Fat Freddy's Cat
>
> If it doesn't belong to you and it hasn't been abandoned by its owner,
> then you don't take it. Simple.
>
> Francis Davey
(snipped most of your post)
Your tone clearly indicates you think myself and the person I spoke to
donned ski masks and charged into a bank with guns blazing and stole £2.5k
The circumstances are slightly different I would argue and TBH, we could
pay back the £2.5k tomorrow if it was required.
So technically, yes its theft, but your over the top dramatic assessment
of the situation hardly fits the bill, but then again you are a lawyer.
g.
Fat Freddy's Cat
>
> If it was *more* I'd be *less* inclined to hand it in, and if I handed
> it in at a Police Station I don't think I'd be any closer to returning
> it to the rightful than I would be if I hung on to it.
>
Be careful what you admit to here :0)
s'funny though, cos Ł1,000 wasn't a figure plucked out of thin air, it
kinda sits where finding a bag with that in it is my borderline for
handing in...
Anything less, few hundred and I'd probably keep it... much more than
Ł1,000 and I think I am in the realms of somebody not just shrugging and
saying ah well I lost my cash today.
By the time I get to about Ł10k, I owuld *defo* hand it in - nobody is
gonna just leave that kind of money and not investigate where it went.
g.
n...@email.com
wrote:
>What you may not have realised is that if the bank were to have
>discovered the error and asked for the money back, you (or your friend)
>would almost certainly be constructive trustees of the money for the
>bank and liable to account for it
Are there any cases where this has been established in a court of law
in England or Wales?
>which might mean paying more interest
>than was actually earned on the money in the meantime.
Can you cite where such a ruling has been made in a court of law in
England or Wales?
>In the scenario above you would be guilty of assisting in a fraudelent
>breach of trust, and would therefore be liable to pay over all the money
>the bank lost (plus compound interest).
Wouldn't the bank first have to prove its "loss"?
I ask these questions because there is an air of theory surrounding
this which makes me wonder what actually happens in practice.
--
Me
Troy Steadman
news:2lts2uF...@uni-berlin.de
>
> The circumstances are slightly different I would argue and TBH, we could
> pay back the £2.5k tomorrow if it was required.
>
> So technically, yes its theft, but your over the top dramatic assessment
> of the situation hardly fits the bill, but then again you are a lawyer.
>
> g.
Indeed, Francis can be pious over this situation because (like me) he:
(1) Hasn't found £1,000 in the street.
(2) Hasn't found somebody else's £25k in his current account.
I'm sure if he gave a shop girl £10 and she gave him change of £20 he
would return it because he is an honest guy, but I wonder if he
warns a client a job will take 5 hours and it in fact takes 2 hours does
he invoice him for just 2 hours? Or add a bit more into the equation?
Don't we all of us do whatever we think we can get away with?
Tickettyboo
Francis Davey whispered softly in my ear....:
> Well, a good general rule is: something that is unidentifiable and
> likely to have been abandoned (eg 2p in a gutter) should be picked up
> and used.
>
> Anything of low value (such as a glove or scarf), should be left where
> it is: the owner can then come back and find it.
Oh no it doesn't...its the law that an old lady has to come and pick up
*any* glove or scarf lying around and put it on a wall...must be law, it
always happens!
--
Ticketty᧧
Tim
> ... constructive trustees of the money for the bank and
> liable to account for it, which might mean paying more
> interest than was actually earned on the money in the meantime.
> ... liable to pay over all the money the bank lost (plus compound
interest).
What rate of interest would be chargeable?
Over what period exactly??
Also - what if you notified the bank as soon as you noticed? Surely they
couldn't charge you interest just because *they* dumped some money into one
of your (lower interest) accounts for a while, without you even knowing??
"Francis Davey" wrote
> (eg 2p in a gutter) should be picked up and used.
Did you really mean that? - You said *s*hould, rather than *c*ould !? :-(
[I actually make a point of *not* picking up 2p from the gutter - personal
hygiene reasons!]
Bystander
> pay back the £2.5k tomorrow if it was required.
So could any other thief who had not yet spent the loot.
> So technically, yes its theft, but your over the top dramatic assessment
> of the situation hardly fits the bill, but then again you are a lawyer.
Technically theft - so that's all right then.
I hope your technical theft doesn't get you a technical prison sentence one
day. I believe that these are as inconvenient as the non-technical ones.
Tim
> Better to write to the Bank, pointing out that there
> appears to be a discrepancy. (Don't tell them which way...)
>
> When you get the letter back saying "We don't
> make mistakes" .... then the dosh is yours, surely?
Ah, but what if the Bank *does* make mistakes - and sending you the letter
saying "We don't make mistakes" was one of their mistakes?!!
john boyle
<por...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>As I see it, keeping the dosh in a seperate account until asked for is
>no different to what banks do every day themselves -
>
Eh, what kind of ogic is that?
>For the record, I know someone who had Ł2.5k wrongly deposited in their
>account and I gave them just the advice I stated in this thread. It lay
>in an account earning interest for over 4 years before the person
>plucked up the courage to start spending it. That was more than 3 years
>ago. Yes, its theft, no its hardly crime of the century, and for those
>attempting to take a moral high ground, if its never happened to you or
>someone you know, then you are only surmising what you would do.
>
>So far as I see it, even if the error was discovered now, the bank won't
>dare the publicity of having 8 year errors unnoticed.
What makes you think it was the bank's error? Most of these sort of
things are customer errors.
--
John Boyle
john boyle
writes
You are right, in Lloyds Bank v Brooks, 1950, Lloyds lost and Brooks
kept the dosh they had mistakenly paid her. However this was a bank
error, and you can not assume the same would apply where the wrongful
credit occurred as a result of an error by a third party.
--
John Boyle
john boyle
<ian.h...@ntlworld.com> writes
>Better to write to the Bank, pointing out that there appears to be a
>discrepancy. (Don't tell them which way...)
>
>When you get the letter back saying "We don't make mistakes" .... then the
>dosh is yours, surely?
In the case in the paper the bank wasnt a party to the error, it was
another customer who had sent the dosh to the wrong account.
--
John Boyle
john boyle
<benedic...@uk2.net> writes
>A very important point, hence the charge of theft.
>
>Over payment of wages over a period of time is a different matter
>altogether,
Yes, Skyring V Greenwood (1825) established that the employer couldnt
claim its dosh back.
--
John Boyle
dave @ stejonda
<por...@hotmail.com> writes
>By the time I get to about Ł10k, I owuld *defo* hand it in - nobody is
>gonna just leave that kind of money and not investigate where it went.
unless it was someone who wouldn't want to admit to having that amount
of cash in the first place - a drug dealer perhaps
--
dave @ stejonda
Bring culture back to NTL.
http://www.performance-channel.com/
Marco de Innocentis
news:2lscgjF...@uni-berlin.de
> You dont get me.
> I wouldn't spend it, just move it to another account to protect it as I
> realise a mistake has been made. As soon as the bank let me know about
> the mistake, be it one day later or 365 days later, they can get their
> money back right away.
It doesn't matter in the least, for the following reasons
1) As far as the law is concerned, you would still be trying to
obtain property by deception
2) The bank would successfully argue that they would have got a
much higher return on that money than you did and would sue you
for compensation, which would probably send you into bankruptcy,
considering you would most likely have to pay legal costs as well.
Exactly the same result as with those two people, except that maybe
they enjoyed it a bit more while it lasted.
The only way you could make a profit would be for you to invest your
money in highly risky transaction (e.g. derivative instruments,
casino betting, etc). But you would still go to jail...
Marco
Troy Steadman
news:2luuk5F...@uni-berlin.de
> > The circumstances are slightly different I would argue and TBH, we could
> > pay back the £2.5k tomorrow if it was required.
>
> So could any other thief who had not yet spent the loot.
I don't understand this Bystander. If someone pays into your account
money which is not yours are you *obliged* to tell them about it ASAP,
or are you merely obliged to give it back to them when they ask for it?
If the latter then money is not an object and if it has got mixed up and
swirled around with legitimate funds surely that doesn't alter the fact
that it is still there.
Can you explain to me at what precises moment the crime is committed?
Marco de Innocentis
news:2ltq44F...@uni-berlin.de
> Better to write to the Bank, pointing out that there appears to be a
> discrepancy. (Don't tell them which way...)
>
> When you get the letter back saying "We don't make mistakes" .... then the
> dosh is yours, surely?
Luckily no bank would be silly enough to write something like
that.
Marco
Marco
in their "Eye Need" column, where people ask for help and give their
bank account details while remaining anonymous. Then if one day a
"mistake" like this happens you will successfully be able to claim
in court you thought it was a gift in reply to your ad.
Gary
>
> Luckily no bank would be silly enough to write something like
> that.
>
> Marco
>
>
I'm sure (but no references, sadly) that they do exactly such things
when presented with phantom withdrawls from cash machines. IANAL.
--
Remove stars for email
g*a*r*y*@*k*l*i*n*g*o*n*.*o*r*g*.*u*k*
.
Jonathan Bryce
> I'm sure if he gave a shop girl £10 and she gave him change of £20 he
> would return it because he is an honest guy, but I wonder if he
> warns a client a job will take 5 hours and it in fact takes 2 hours does
> he invoice him for just 2 hours? Or add a bit more into the equation?
The main question is, if it took 8 hours, would he still only invoice for 5
hours.
If he can answer yes to that, then I don't think it is dishonesty, just
taking business risk.
Benedict White
Many thanks for that Brian.
Anyone got a spare ladybord book fo basic law available for Bystander?
Benedict White
> > Over payment of wages over a period of time is a different matter
> > altogether,
> How?
As Brian says, because an overpayment in wages is much more likelyto go
un noticed by the receipient than a sudden windfall of ?24,000, unless
of course you play in the premiership.
> not that Bystander can spot the difference which no doubt
> > explains the confidence we all have in magistrates.
> I do not understand what that means.
Well, it means that I do not have confidence in a magistrate who has no
idea of what constitutes theft, which is an intent to pernamently
deprive. Clearly if you have a reasonable beliefe taht you are entitled
to something, you can't have had any intent to permanently deprive
someone else of something you own.
Benedict White
> "Bystander" <marl...@fsmail.net> wrote in message
> news:2luuk5F...@uni-berlin.de
> > > The circumstances are slightly different I would argue and TBH, we could
> > > pay back the ?2.5k tomorrow if it was required.
> >
> > So could any other thief who had not yet spent the loot.
> I don't understand this Bystander. If someone pays into your account
> money which is not yours are you *obliged* to tell them about it ASAP,
> or are you merely obliged to give it back to them when they ask for it?
Generally you are obliged o pay it back when you are shown the mistake.
It is known as a payment made due to a mistake of fact. People do get it
wrong and you are not entitled to a windfall, otherwise you would be
unjustly enriched.
> If the latter then money is not an object and if it has got mixed up and
> swirled around with legitimate funds surely that doesn't alter the fact
> that it is still there.
It sort of does. If for example you get paid a pension which is wrong
for a period of time and you have asked for it to be double checked then
when they spot the error you do not have to pay back all the money you
had, because you had a reasonable beliefe the money was yours and had
spent it. That said it does not allow you to keep getting paid the same
pension. It is not theft. See Derby v Scottish equitable
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2001/369.html
> Can you explain to me at what precises moment the crime is committed?
Well, if there was a reasonable beliefe the money was theirs there is no
crime as there is no intent.
If on the other hand the sum is so vast compared to their expectations,
that there could be no reasonable beliefe then it was commited as soon
as some of the money was irrovacably spent.
Please not that had it been spent in a recoverable way, then there may
well have been no attempt to permanently deprive an no crime.
It went before a Crown court, because it would appear that the situation
is too complex for some magistrates to understand the key legal points
involved, though at least one I hope has been educated by this thread.
Paul Cummins
(Bystander) wrote:
> WHEN a woman discovered that more than £24,000 had accidentally been
> paid
> into her bank account, the temptation was too great to resist.
Surely the correct thing to do is draw it out and put it in a secure
location, notify the bank of the unsolicited goods you have had
delivered, and that if they do not make arrangements collect it at their
own expense within 30 days it will be treated as an unconditional gift,
together with any further unsolicited deposits.
Seems perfectly legal to me.
--
Paul Cummins - Always a NetHead
Wasting Bandwidth since 1981
Paul Cummins
ross...@hotmail.com (smicker) wrote:
> There is a word for that
Bank, IIRC.
Paul Cummins
j...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk (john boyle) wrote:
> Yes, Skyring V Greenwood (1825) established that the employer couldnt
> claim its dosh back.
And this is now enshrined in the Wages Act 1986.
Jo Lonergan
>Marco de Innocentis wrote:
>
>> Luckily no bank would be silly enough to write something like
>> that.
>>
>> Marco
>
>I'm sure (but no references, sadly) that they do exactly such things
>when presented with phantom withdrawls from cash machines. IANAL.
There was the infamous Munden case, where a Halifax customer
complained and was prosecuted, initially successfully, for fraud:
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~ids/dotdot/misc/titbits/phantom_ATM_withdrawals.html
--
Jo Lonergan
GB
A life assurance company in error paid a fairly significant sum of money
into my account. For various reasons I was unaware of this for several
months until they pointed out their mistake. I then returned the capital,
and they have agreed that I can keep any interest earned. They say they are
being 'generous' in agreeing to that. From a legal point of view, would they
be entitled to ask me to account for the interest?
Also, if I am a 'constructive trustee' of the life assurance company's money
am I entitled to charge for my services? I should mention that I act
professionally as a trustee, for which I charge. Of course, those trusts
have an appropriate charging clause in them. Where the life assurance
company has effectively foisted a trusteeship upon me, is it right that they
should get a service free that I normally charge for?
Geoff
GB
"Frank X" <frank...@yahoo.ie> wrote in message
news:2lsvdiF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> Morally I don't see it as any different from a company that accepts new
> payments when it knows it is going belly up, like one of the life
assurance
> companies did recently.
I think that's totally unfair to the life assurance company directors. They
lost a court case, which is what caused them problems. Like most litigants,
they had expected to win, and to be fair they had won in the lower courts.
They closed the company pretty soon afterwards, once it became clear they
could not sell it.
The management were a bit full of themselves, they made lots of mistakes and
took undue risks, and they should have given a clearer warning of the risks
to policyholders, but they were hardly trading knowing the company was
'going belly up'.
Geoff
Benedict White
> In article <IG4Lw1Bx...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk>,
> j...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk (john boyle) wrote:
> > Yes, Skyring V Greenwood (1825) established that the employer couldnt
> > claim its dosh back.
> And this is now enshrined in the Wages Act 1986.
Sorry, that act is not online.
So if there is an overpayment under what circumstances can they ask for
it back?
Bystander
> As Brian says, because an overpayment in wages is much more likelyto go
> un noticed by the receipient than a sudden windfall of ?24,000, unless
> of course you play in the premiership.
>
>
> > not that Bystander can spot the difference which no doubt
> > > explains the confidence we all have in magistrates.
>
> > I do not understand what that means.
>
> Well, it means that I do not have confidence in a magistrate who has no
> idea of what constitutes theft, which is an intent to pernamently
> deprive. Clearly if you have a reasonable beliefe taht you are entitled
> to something, you can't have had any intent to permanently deprive
> someone else of something you own.
Don't be silly. If you just want to take the piss out of a magistrate, then
feel free - I am big enough and ugly enough to take it, but let's do a Greg
Dyke and cut the crap. As has been paraphrased above:- If it is not yours
and you know it is not yours (nb) then you should give it back to its owner.
All the sophistry and verbiage in the world will not disguise the fact that
some people on this thread are, or rather say that they would be, dishonest.
That's it.
Benedict White
> > As Brian says, because an overpayment in wages is much more likelyto go
> > un noticed by the receipient than a sudden windfall of ?24,000, unless
> > of course you play in the premiership.
> >
> >
> > > not that Bystander can spot the difference which no doubt
> > > > explains the confidence we all have in magistrates.
> >
> > > I do not understand what that means.
> >
> > Well, it means that I do not have confidence in a magistrate who has no
> > idea of what constitutes theft, which is an intent to pernamently
> > deprive. Clearly if you have a reasonable beliefe taht you are entitled
> > to something, you can't have had any intent to permanently deprive
> > someone else of something you own.
> Don't be silly. If you just want to take the piss out of a magistrate, then
> feel free - I am big enough and ugly enough to take it, but let's do a Greg
> Dyke and cut the crap. As has been paraphrased above:- If it is not yours
> and you know it is not yours (nb) then you should give it back to its owner.
Yes, if and when you find out it is not yours.
The OP seems to say that getting a prison sentence is what you get for
not paying money back when you have been unjustly enriched. This case is
so far removed from the norm of these cases it throughs no light on UE
cases at all.
When you discover someone has paid you money by mistake you give it back
if you have not changed your position, if you have you can "keep it"
(well you can't the implication is that you have sepnt it)
The difference here is that there could not have been a reasonable
beliefe, that however is unusual.
> All the sophistry and verbiage in the world will not disguise the fact that
> some people on this thread are, or rather say that they would be, dishonest.
> That's it.
Yes, to some extent.
There is nothing wrong however with trying to get as much interest on it
as you can provided that you do not risk the money, nor is there any
harm or dishonesty in requiring proof when you are asked to return it
that it is being returned to the correct person.
Spending money known to be not yours is of course theft.
Fred
>
> > As Brian says, because an overpayment in wages is much more likelyto go
> > un noticed by the receipient than a sudden windfall of ?24,000, unless
> > of course you play in the premiership.
> >
> >
> > > not that Bystander can spot the difference which no doubt
> > > > explains the confidence we all have in magistrates.
> >
> > > I do not understand what that means.
> >
> > Well, it means that I do not have confidence in a magistrate who has no
> > idea of what constitutes theft, which is an intent to pernamently
> > deprive. Clearly if you have a reasonable beliefe taht you are entitled
> > to something, you can't have had any intent to permanently deprive
> > someone else of something you own.
>
> Don't be silly. If you just want to take the piss out of a magistrate,
then
> feel free - I am big enough and ugly enough to take it, but let's do a
Greg
> Dyke and cut the crap. As has been paraphrased above:- If it is not yours
> and you know it is not yours (nb) then you should give it back to its
owner.
>
This is where I disagree with you. If the rightful owner comes forward and
says I have his cash, as long as he some element of proof, I would indeed
give it back. I agree with Benedict. There is a clear distinction between
having theft and just holding money where there is no intention of depriving
the owner of this money.
Why should I make efforts to find out whose money it is? Would I be able to
charge the bank/individual for these efforts. I very much doubt it. How
many phone calls and how many letters would you have me write before you
would no longer classified as theft?
Bystander
"Benedict White"
> > Don't be silly. If you just want to take the piss out of a magistrate,
then
> > feel free - I am big enough and ugly enough to take it, but let's do a
Greg
> > Dyke and cut the crap. As has been paraphrased above:- If it is not
yours
> > and you know it is not yours (nb) then you should give it back to its
owner.
> Yes, if and when you find out it is not yours.
Indeed, my point as above.
> The OP seems to say that getting a prison sentence is what you get for
> not paying money back when you have been unjustly enriched. This case is
> so far removed from the norm of these cases it throughs no light on UE
> cases at all.
I was the OP. The case reminds us all, for the umpteenth time, that you have
no right to keep assets that have come to you by mistake. It becomes
criminal when you keep them or use them as your own knowing that they are
not yours.
This NG was set up to establish a forum where non lawyers could ask advice
about the law. One of the most frequent questions in ukl was exactly the
point in the geader. An exemplary case appeared in the Times and I quoted
it. The fact that these particular people were plonkers does not change the
principle.. What is depressing is the number od people who assert that there
are degrees of theft.
I said:
> > All the sophistry and verbiage in the world will not disguise the fact
that
> > some people on this thread are, or rather say that they would be,
dishonest.
> > That's it.
You replied:-
> Yes, to some extent.
To some extent! Some extent? What effing extent? What I said was right -
dishonest is the word. I hope that you are not robbed 'to some extent' or at
all.
You also said:-
> There is nothing wrong however with trying to get as much interest on it
> as you can
Yes there is.
provided that you do not risk the money, nor is there any
> harm or dishonesty in requiring proof when you are asked to return it
> that it is being returned to the correct person.
Obviously.
You then say:-
> Spending money known to be not yours is of course theft.
Gor blimey, the penny has dropped!
Halelujah!
Paul Cummins
(Benedict White) wrote:
> So if there is an overpayment under what circumstances can they ask
> for
> it back?
Broadly, if the employee knew, or should have known, that it was an
overpayment, and has not used it as if it were his normal salary.
Gary
>
>
> Gor blimey, the penny has dropped!
>
> Halelujah!
>
>
I'm going to chip in as an interested reader here but this whole branch
of thread goes back to:
Benedict:
>Over payment of wages over a period of time is a different matter
>altogether, <snip by bystander>
Bystander:
>How?
Bigbrian:
>Because its more credible that it could happen without the recipient
>realising that they weren't entitled to the money.
>Which means there's no theft.
So my question is this: Is there a requirement for a PAYE employee to
manually calculate his/her own nett wage so as to be able to pick up if
there is an overpayment of a few pounds here or there? Or should one not
spend all of ones wages, in case one is accused of theft?
.
john boyle
<postm...@127.0.0.1> writes
>
>So my question is this: Is there a requirement for a PAYE employee to
>manually calculate his/her own nett wage so as to be able to pick up if
>there is an overpayment of a few pounds here or there? Or should one not
>spend all of ones wages, in case one is accused of theft?
>
in Skyring V Greenwood has changed despite its age. BUT your contract of
employment may say otherwise.
--
John Boyle
john boyle
Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>In article <IG4Lw1Bx...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk>,
>j...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk (john boyle) wrote:
>
>> Yes, Skyring V Greenwood (1825) established that the employer couldnt
>> claim its dosh back.
>
>And this is now enshrined in the Wages Act 1986.
>
--
John Boyle
bryan
> "Benedict White"
>> Spending money known to be not yours is of course theft.
>
> Gor blimey, the penny has dropped!
>
> Halelujah!
are you saying, as a magistrate, you'd find someone guilty for spending
money that didn't belong to them even if they had no knowledge the money
wasn't theirs?
john boyle
Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>(Bystander) wrote:
>
>> WHEN a woman discovered that more than £24,000 had accidentally been
>> paid
>> into her bank account, the temptation was too great to resist.
>
>Surely the correct thing to do is draw it out and put it in a secure
>location, notify the bank of the unsolicited goods you have had
>delivered, and that if they do not make arrangements collect it at their
>own expense within 30 days it will be treated as an unconditional gift,
>together with any further unsolicited deposits.
>
>Seems perfectly legal to me.
>
What has the bank got to do with it? It wasn't their mistake. The
remitter put the wrong details on the credit. The Bank did exactly as it
was told. Why put the onus on the bank? If you got a letter addressed to
you, which contained something that obviously wasn't for you, what would
you do?
--
John Boyle
Mike Bristow
I think the "know to be not yours" applies to the person spending
the money.
In other words, if you spend money and you know it's not yours,
it's theft.
--
You dont have to be illiterate to use the Internet, but it help's.
dormouse
news:slrncfoe6...@guylian.urgle.com...
> In article <pan.2004.07.19....@lister.red-dwarf.lan>,
> bryan <br...@lister.red-dwarf.lan> wrote:
> > are you saying, as a magistrate, you'd find someone guilty for spending
> > money that didn't belong to them even if they had no knowledge the money
> > wasn't theirs?
>
> I think the "know to be not yours" applies to the person spending
> the money.
>
> In other words, if you spend money and you know it's not yours,
> it's theft.
Not quite, certainly it's a crime but it's not theft.
For theft to have occurred a person *must* (amongst a few other things) have
appropriated the property of another *dishonestly*. In the case of a person
being the passive recipient of a erroneous credit transfer etc that person
has done nothing dishonest at the time of appropriation. If that person goes
on to spend the money it is still not theft as the person has already got
possession of the money prior to the spending.
--
regards or otherwise,
dormouse
Frank X
"GB" <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:40fba132$1...@news1.homechoice.co.uk...
>
> "Frank X" <frank...@yahoo.ie> wrote in message
> news:2lsvdiF...@uni-berlin.de...
>>
>> Morally I don't see it as any different from a company that accepts new
>> payments when it knows it is going belly up, like one of the life
> assurance
>> companies did recently.
>
> I think that's totally unfair to the life assurance company directors.
> They
> lost a court case, which is what caused them problems. Like most
> litigants,
> they had expected to win, and to be fair they had won in the lower courts.
> They closed the company pretty soon afterwards, once it became clear they
> could not sell it.
I haven't really followed but AIUI Equitable made promises which they tried
to renege on, it was the Lords that forced them to keep the promises. They
may argue the Lords decision was whimsical but I can't help but suspect that
if they had been clearer in the first place...
>
> The management were a bit full of themselves, they made lots of mistakes
> and
> took undue risks, and they should have given a clearer warning of the
> risks
> to policyholders, but they were hardly trading knowing the company was
> 'going belly up'.
>
Again I'm not certain of my ground so I apologise if I was wrong but I
understood that they misrepresented their financial position when continuing
to sell policies.
I certainly do not accept that the complexity of the business, ignorance or
stupidity is an acceptable defence for directors of financial organisations,
just because most people cannot understand the risks that were being taken.
They have a much higher burden of responsibility than a couple of chancers
who find an extra 25k in their Bank Account.
bigbrian
wrote:
>"Mike Bristow" <mi...@urgle.com> wrote in message
>news:slrncfoe6...@guylian.urgle.com...
>> In article <pan.2004.07.19....@lister.red-dwarf.lan>,
>> bryan <br...@lister.red-dwarf.lan> wrote:
>...
>> > are you saying, as a magistrate, you'd find someone guilty for spending
>> > money that didn't belong to them even if they had no knowledge the money
>> > wasn't theirs?
>>
>> I think the "know to be not yours" applies to the person spending
>> the money.
>>
>> In other words, if you spend money and you know it's not yours,
>> it's theft.
>
>Not quite, certainly it's a crime but it's not theft.
>
>For theft to have occurred a person *must* (amongst a few other things) have
>appropriated the property of another *dishonestly*. In the case of a person
>being the passive recipient of a erroneous credit transfer etc that person
>has done nothing dishonest at the time of appropriation.
Of course they have, The appropriation takes place at the time they
decide to start spending it, not when they initially receive it.
If I give you something of mine for safe keeping, on the understanding
that you'll look after it for me, and then you decide to keep it or
sell it, you can't evade a theft charge by saying that I gave you
possession of the item in the first place.
Brian
bryan
> On Mon, 19 Jul 2004 23:30:11 +0100, "dormouse" <bou...@britwar.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Bristow" <mi...@urgle.com> wrote in message
>>news:slrncfoe6...@guylian.urgle.com...
>>> In article <pan.2004.07.19....@lister.red-dwarf.lan>,
>>> bryan <br...@lister.red-dwarf.lan> wrote:
>>...
>>> > are you saying, as a magistrate, you'd find someone guilty for spending
>>> > money that didn't belong to them even if they had no knowledge the money
>>> > wasn't theirs?
>>>
>>> I think the "know to be not yours" applies to the person spending
>>> the money.
>>>
>>> In other words, if you spend money and you know it's not yours,
>>> it's theft.
>>
>>Not quite, certainly it's a crime but it's not theft.
>>
>>For theft to have occurred a person *must* (amongst a few other things) have
>>appropriated the property of another *dishonestly*. In the case of a person
>>being the passive recipient of a erroneous credit transfer etc that person
>>has done nothing dishonest at the time of appropriation.
>
> Of course they have, The appropriation takes place at the time they
> decide to start spending it, not when they initially receive it.
this is where i am getting confused... if the amount is relatively small
enough that it goes unnoticed, there is no mens rea, hence no theft (i
think this is what benedict was trying to convey).
for instance, i would certainly notice that £24,000 had been erroneously
deposited in my account and if i started spending it, that could certainly
be interpreted as theft.
if i was a premier league football player (or a barrister! :-), i may not
notice the transaction and spend the money. the intention to deprive
the rightful owner permanently would not be present... no mens rea.
the first example is theft... the latter isn't.
Paul Cummins
j...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk (john boyle) wrote:
> If you got a letter addressed to you, which contained something that
> obviously wasn't for you, what would you do?
By definition, if it was addressed to me, it IS for me...
john boyle
Cummins <agree2...@spam.vlaad.co.uk> writes
>In article <yhd1pUCh7C$AF...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk>,
>j...@johnboyle1.demon.co.uk (john boyle) wrote:
>
>> If you got a letter addressed to you, which contained something that
>> obviously wasn't for you, what would you do?
>
>By definition,
I dont understand why it is 'by definition'
>if it was addressed to me, it IS for me...
OK, so if you sometimes buy stuff from Dabs Direct and a package comes
out of the blue addressed to you containing a high value item but you
have not ordered anything would you believe it is yours? What would you
do?
--
John Boyle
bigbrian
wrote:
Correct. Relatively small being small relative to what he recipient
might normally expect to see flowing through his account. In some
cases this could be somewhat larger sums than other people may not
notice.
>for instance, i would certainly notice that £24,000 had been erroneously
>deposited in my account and if i started spending it, that could certainly
>be interpreted as theft.
Yes
>if i was a premier league football player (or a barrister! :-), i may not
>notice the transaction and spend the money. the intention to deprive
>the rightful owner permanently would not be present... no mens rea.
>
>the first example is theft... the latter isn't.
Surely you mean this the other way around? Or perhaps you really ARE
confused!
Brian
Benedict White
> In article <2m1sk8F...@uni-berlin.de>, benedic...@uk2.net
> (Benedict White) wrote:
> > So if there is an overpayment under what circumstances can they ask
> > for
> > it back?
> Broadly, if the employee knew, or should have known, that it was an
> overpayment, and has not used it as if it were his normal salary.
So the rules are the same as Unjust enrichment in it's other forms.
Benedict White
> for instance, i would certainly notice that ?24,000 had been erroneously
> deposited in my account and if i started spending it, that could certainly
> be interpreted as theft.
> if i was a premier league football player (or a barrister! :-), i may not
> notice the transaction and spend the money. the intention to deprive
> the rightful owner permanently would not be present... no mens rea.
> the first example is theft... the latter isn't.
Correct.
And, when asked to give the money back, if you have spent it you can
raise the defence of change of position.
The important thing is what you did with the money and when did you come
to think it might not be yours.
As I have tried to point out to Bystander, this is not the run of the
mill case of Unjust enrichment.
In principle however the ammount is irrelevant. The principle is if you
believe the money to be yours you can do what you like with it untill
you find out that it is not.
If you do not believe it is yours you can't. The sums involved here have
just made it easy to show that they could not have ever believed it to
be theirs.
If you take 2 people, one who every night checks his bank account on the
internet against all his receipts and payslips, and one who only ever
looks at the balance. If they both get ?5 into their accounts, and both
spend it, the former probably has commited theft and the latter probably
has not.
Benedict White
> > The OP seems to say that getting a prison sentence is what you get for
> > not paying money back when you have been unjustly enriched. This case is
> > so far removed from the norm of these cases it throughs no light on UE
> > cases at all.
> I was the OP. The case reminds us all, for the umpteenth time, that you have
> no right to keep assets that have come to you by mistake. It becomes
> criminal when you keep them or use them as your own knowing that they are
> not yours.
The point is that you have to know that it is not yours for it to be
theft, and before you do anything with it.
> This NG was set up to establish a forum where non lawyers could ask advice
> about the law. One of the most frequent questions in ukl was exactly the
> point in the geader. An exemplary case appeared in the Times and I quoted
> it. The fact that these particular people were plonkers does not change the
> principle.. What is depressing is the number od people who assert that there
> are degrees of theft.
The way it normally comes here is that someone has been overpaid, and
did not notice untill some later time when they may have spent some.
That is far removed from these facts. If they have spent it believeing
it to be theirs, then there is no theft and also a good chance of a
defence of change of position succeeding, which is the advice I give
when asked.
There is no degree of theft. It has either taken place (As in the
article) or it has not, as in the vast majority of cases that come here.
The case is far from exemplary, it is highly peculiar.
> I said:
> > > All the sophistry and verbiage in the world will not disguise the fact
> that
> > > some people on this thread are, or rather say that they would be,
> dishonest.
> > > That's it.
> You replied:-
> > Yes, to some extent.
> To some extent! Some extent? What effing extent? What I said was right -
> dishonest is the word. I hope that you are not robbed 'to some extent' or at
> all.
No, to some extent applies. If the person keeps the money waiting for
it's rightfull owner that is not theft. If he spends it then it is.
(Assuming he knows it is not his.)
> You also said:-
> > There is nothing wrong however with trying to get as much interest on it
> > as you can
> Yes there is.
What?
What do you think would happen if it was in am account which charged
interest for deposits (SOme accounts in Japan almost did this to
encourage spending)?
> provided that you do not risk the money, nor is there any
> > harm or dishonesty in requiring proof when you are asked to return it
> > that it is being returned to the correct person.
> Obviously.
> You then say:-
> > Spending money known to be not yours is of course theft.
> Gor blimey, the penny has dropped!
> Halelujah!
I have never said anything different.
The point is that you equate Unjust Enrichment with theft when it is
nothing of the sort in most cases.
The case you cite at the begging of this thread has about as much to do
with normal UE as fish have with Lunar exploration.
Troy Steadman
news:q6kof0dgpodmr8rr3...@4ax.com
>
> If I give you something of mine for safe keeping, on the understanding
> that you'll look after it for me, and then you decide to keep it or
> sell it, you can't evade a theft charge by saying that I gave you
> possession of the item in the first place.
>
> Brian
That is understood Brian but the grey area occurs when somebody *uses*
what you have given for safekeeping.
1) If you give me a shovel to look after and I use it to shovel the snow
and the shovel is intact, is that theft?
2) Fat Freddy's point is that he would move the money into another
account and earn interest on it while he waits for the owner to claim
it. Is that theft?
3) If the owner never comes forward he would spend the money but if the
owner *did* then come forward he would repay the owner from other
funds, is that theft?
Is (3) any different to (2)?
Bystander's innability to comprehend that this can be a subjective grey
area baffles me.
a) If I find tuppence on the pavement I can keep it (Francis)
b) If I find £1,000 I must hand it in (Francis)
Suppose I find 10p, 50p, £5, £20, £50 - keep it or hand it in?
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
dave @ stejonda
<harr...@hotmail.com> writes
>>appropriated the property of another *dishonestly*. In the case of a person
>>being the passive recipient of a erroneous credit transfer etc that person
>>has done nothing dishonest at the time of appropriation.
>
>Of course they have, The appropriation takes place at the time they
>decide to start spending it, not when they initially receive it.
>
>If I give you something of mine for safe keeping, on the understanding
>that you'll look after it for me, and then you decide to keep it or
>sell it, you can't evade a theft charge by saying that I gave you
>possession of the item in the first place.
Not the same thing - in your scenario the recipient is neither passive
nor unknowing.
--
dave @ stejonda
Pet Lover
"Fat Freddy's Cat" <por...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2lsa4rF...@uni-berlin.de...
> Bystander wrote:
> I would never be upfront with the bank, but i would shuffle the money
> off to another account, earning interest until *they* realise *their*
> mistake. After a couple of years, I think it would then be safe enough
> to spend it.
>
> Spending it right away on holidays etc was stupid beyond belief.
As I understand it the bank would be entitled to take the interest earned as
well, so what's the point??
Neil Ellwood
> What has the bank got to do with it? It wasn't their mistake. The
> remitter put the wrong details on the credit. The Bank did exactly as it
> was told. Why put the onus on the bank? If you got a letter addressed to
> you, which contained something that obviously wasn't for you, what would
> you do?
Treat it as an unsolicited gift?
--
neil
delete delete to reply
john boyle
<ceee...@peewee.cool> writes
I said if it was obviously NOT for you.
--
John Boyle
bigbrian
A distinction without a difference. The point is that when you realise
that its not yours and decide to treat it as your own and/or sell it,
how you actually came by it ceases to be relevant. At that point your
appropriation is neither "passive" or "unknowing"
Brian
bigbrian
<troyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>"bigbrian" <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:q6kof0dgpodmr8rr3...@4ax.com
>>
>> If I give you something of mine for safe keeping, on the understanding
>> that you'll look after it for me, and then you decide to keep it or
>> sell it, you can't evade a theft charge by saying that I gave you
>> possession of the item in the first place.
>>
>> Brian
>
>That is understood Brian but the grey area occurs when somebody *uses*
>what you have given for safekeeping.
>
>1) If you give me a shovel to look after and I use it to shovel the snow
>and the shovel is intact, is that theft?
Possibly
>2) Fat Freddy's point is that he would move the money into another
>account and earn interest on it while he waits for the owner to claim
>it. Is that theft?
As I've already said in that specific context, arguably yes.
>3) If the owner never comes forward he would spend the money but if the
>owner *did* then come forward he would repay the owner from other
>funds, is that theft?
Absolutely. Although if he has other funds, why not spend those first
anyway?
>Is (3) any different to (2)?
You can work that one out from the above :-)
You can't walk into your local Sainsbury's, steal a bottle of scotch
and then offer to pay for it when you get caught
>Bystander's innability to comprehend that this can be a subjective grey
>area baffles me.
>
>a) If I find tuppence on the pavement I can keep it (Francis)
>b) If I find £1,000 I must hand it in (Francis)
>
>Suppose I find 10p, 50p, £5, £20, £50 - keep it or hand it in?
Your call :-) I once handed in a wage packet that I found in the
street with about £40 in it, but that was maybe 20 years ago, so it
would be worth more today.
Brian
Bystander
> A distinction without a difference. The point is that when you realise
> that its not yours and decide to treat it as your own and/or sell it,
> how you actually came by it ceases to be relevant. At that point your
> appropriation is neither "passive" or "unknowing"
I once dealt with a young man who was present at a rowdy scene outside a
club. He saw a police officer's jacket in the van, snatched it and ran off
with it. He threw it away within a hundred yards or so, but was charged with
theft because he had treated it as his own for that short time. He pleaded
guilty on legal advice. Similarly another man stole a fibreglass fishpond
(yes, I know!) from outside a shop and discarded it a few yards down the
road, but was charged with theft.
He made us all laugh, so we only fined him fifty quid.
Benedict White
I can see how the former might be theft as there may well have been an
intent to permanently deprive, but in the latter case I would have some
trouble believeing any crime had been commited.
> He made us all laugh, so we only fined him fifty quid.
Well that's alright then.
How?
(Did he make you laugh).
Troy Steadman
> >1) If you give me a shovel to look after and I use it to shovel the snow
> >and the shovel is intact, is that theft?
>
> Possibly
Possibly? With so few facts to consider surely you can come up with a
definitive answer?
> >2) Fat Freddy's point is that he would move the money into another
> >account and earn interest on it while he waits for the owner to claim
> >it. Is that theft?
>
> As I've already said in that specific context, arguably yes.
IE arguably "No"?
> >3) If the owner never comes forward he would spend the money but if the
> >owner *did* then come forward he would repay the owner from other
> >funds, is that theft?
>
> Absolutely. Although if he has other funds, why not spend those first
> anyway?
Exactly. He did. Funds are funds. Dip in your left pocket for a 50p
that's no different to dipping in your right pocket for a 50p.
> You can't walk into your local Sainsbury's, steal a bottle of scotch
> and then offer to pay for it when you get caught
Wrong analogy, Sainbury's whisky has been incorrectly delivered to you
and you are storing it safely.
> ... I once handed in a wage packet that I found in the
> street with about £40 in it, but that was maybe 20 years ago, so it
> would be worth more today.
>
> Brian
Me too, I always try to return purses and wallets becasue I feel sorry
for the person who has lost them. A £10/£20 note I don't think is worth
trying to return, I've never found anything bigger.
But a large sum of money put in my account by somebody stupid anough to
do it and wealthy enough not to realise they'd done it? If I thought it
was illegal to "wait and see" I'd probably return it, otherwise I don't
think I would.
Neil Ellwood
If it addressed to you how can it Obviously not be for you?
bryan
i think i've confused you now! :-)
Bystander
"smicker" <ross...@hotmail.com> wrote > >
> >He made us all laugh, so we only fined him fifty quid.
>
> by amusing you. Since when has the law depended upon your ego?
> smicker
Oh don't be so bloody pompous! Of course benches take into account the
attitude of the defendant when sentencing. This bloke, if you must know,
said sorry and said that he felt like a prat (no relation, btw). He said he
had worn the pond on his head, at which point two thirds of the Bench lost
their composure and collapsed into giggles, along with the usher and the
Clerk. We recovered our composure, until he said: "The other stupid thing is
that I live in a flat, and I ain't got a garden" when we all collapsed into
giggles again.
To us that expressed true remorse and a genuine apology for stupid behaviour
while pissed. So we went easy on him, which is what we are there for.
Smicker, my dear chap, I am sorry to tell you that the law at all levels is
administered by ordinary fallible humans. My particular weakness is a sense
of the ridiculous. Form whatever bigoted preconception of magistrates that
suits you - some of us know the reality.
bigbrian
wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 12:40:23 +0100, bigbrian wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2004 00:20:08 +0100, bryan <br...@lister.red-dwarf.lan>
>> wrote:
>
>>>for instance, i would certainly notice that £24,000 had been erroneously
>>>deposited in my account and if i started spending it, that could certainly
>>>be interpreted as theft.
>>
>> Yes
>>
>>>if i was a premier league football player (or a barrister! :-), i may not
>>>notice the transaction and spend the money. the intention to deprive
>>>the rightful owner permanently would not be present... no mens rea.
>>>
>>>the first example is theft... the latter isn't.
>>
>> Surely you mean this the other way around? Or perhaps you really ARE
>> confused!
>
>i think i've confused you now! :-)
So it seems :-)
Brian
bigbrian
<troyst...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>"bigbrian" <harr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7i3qf01htji8e8e7c...@4ax.com
>
>> >1) If you give me a shovel to look after and I use it to shovel the snow
>> >and the shovel is intact, is that theft?
>>
>> Possibly
>
>Possibly? With so few facts to consider surely you can come up with a
>definitive answer?
With so few facts to consider its impossible to give a definitive
answer.
>> >2) Fat Freddy's point is that he would move the money into another
>> >account and earn interest on it while he waits for the owner to claim
>> >it. Is that theft?
>>
>> As I've already said in that specific context, arguably yes.
>
>IE arguably "No"?
Naturally. Unless you know of an already decided case on point, it
will come down to whether the court infers that the placing of the
money in an interest bearing account amounts to treating the money as
your own to a greater degree than any possible intent to permanently
deprive.
If I borrow your daily paper intending to give it back to you the next
day and do so, is that theft, even though I never intended to
permanently deprive you of it?
>> >3) If the owner never comes forward he would spend the money but if the
>> >owner *did* then come forward he would repay the owner from other
>> >funds, is that theft?
>>
>> Absolutely. Although if he has other funds, why not spend those first
>> anyway?
>
>Exactly. He did. Funds are funds. Dip in your left pocket for a 50p
>that's no different to dipping in your right pocket for a 50p.
>
>> You can't walk into your local Sainsbury's, steal a bottle of scotch
>> and then offer to pay for it when you get caught
>
>Wrong analogy, Sainbury's whisky has been incorrectly delivered to you
>and you are storing it safely.
Wrong analogy. See how easy it is? All analogies are by definition
different in some way, otherwise they'd be identical examples of the
same situation and shed no further light on resolving the issue.
The material point is that its not a defence to a charge of theft that
you instantly reimburse the victim when the crime has been discovered.
>> ... I once handed in a wage packet that I found in the
>> street with about £40 in it, but that was maybe 20 years ago, so it
>> would be worth more today.
>>
>> Brian
>
>Me too, I always try to return purses and wallets becasue I feel sorry
>for the person who has lost them. A £10/£20 note I don't think is worth
>trying to return, I've never found anything bigger.
>
>But a large sum of money put in my account by somebody stupid anough to
>do it and wealthy enough not to realise they'd done it? If I thought it
>was illegal to "wait and see" I'd probably return it, otherwise I don't
>think I would.
IMO, it clearly isn't illegal. I believe you *may* be committing an
offence if you move it to a different account.
Brian
Tim
> If you take 2 people, one who every night checks his
> bank account on the internet against all his receipts and
> and both spend it, the former probably has commited theft ...
What if the account was initially in credit before the fiver was added? -
When does the theft occur :-
(a) when account goes below 5 pounds in credit;
(b) when account first goes overdrawn;
(c) when account gets to within 5 pounds of the overdraft limit;
???