Money found in the loft

kunekune

G-M, I am a lawyer, albeit an academic one. And criminal law is my specialty. I didn't mention intent to permanently deprive because that's kind of beyond doubt - I teach my students to focus on the bits of the offence that might be an issue. And here, it is property belonging to another and dishonesty.

Although dishonesty is mostly an unwritten concept, there is a limited statutory definition. That's what is significant here. I think that if you look up the Theft Act you'll find the wording I'm referring to. The problem is that dishonesty is the mental element of the offence, so that if someone isn't at fault in a subjective way, then they are not guilty. It is not a question of thinking you have a right being the same as having a right. Rather that someone who thinks they have a right (legal, not moral) is not at fault because that belief negates the fault element of dishonesty. It isn't enough that YOU think they were dishonest. They have to actually be dishonest.

Having said that, it was meant to be clear that simply by asking whether there was an entitlement to the money suggests that the homeowner has sufficient doubt for us to be able to say they don't believe they have a right. They think they might, but that's not the same thing.

g_attrill

G_M wrote: »

"Whether it is criminal comes down to whether the occupant has dishonestly appropriated property belonging to another. "

Just because you THINK you have a right in law does not mean you DO!

The question of whether they think they have a right only makes a different to whether it was theft or not, it doesn't affect the actual ownership, which remains a matter of fact (not intent). For example if I took an old wheelbarrow out of a skip it is not theft if I believe that the person would not have minded, although it is still their property and they could ask for it back.

g_attrill

hothothot wrote: »

havent read the whole thread, but I have heard that any single transaction over £3000 deposited automatically gets flagged for review.

Any CASH transactions get sent to Scotland Yard for money laundering reporting, however it is all examined in bulk (they would have a vast amount of data) for suspicous patterns. I think it was introduced after the Brinks Mat robbery when it turned out they were selling the gold and depositing cash in lots of small amounts.

g_attrill

clutton wrote: »

what does "flagged for a review" actually mean ?

i was once asked what i wanted £6k in cash for - i told the cashier to mind her own business.....

I think this is possibly for crime prevention reasons - for example if you are being made to withdraw it without your consent, possibly some people have code words that causes the cashier to alert the manager/police. That or if you say "I'm sending it to a bloke in Nigeria by Western Union" they could offer advice....

G_M

Thanks Kunekune - a bit of legal meat! Love it! (after the 100 odd moral arguements!).

Francesanne

Would have thought she would have left a will if she had loved ones or maybe she didn't want her relatives to get their hands on her money. Would be a great shame if it all went to the goverment. Does anyone watch 'Heir Hunters'?

property.advert

Keep it and don't bat an eyelid. Some moralists here will say give it back to someone who doesn't even know it exists !

It is just one of life's little breaks in your favour. Enjoy it.

If you really are having problems deciding, give it to me. I promise not to have sleepless nights worrying about it.

rumncoke

Just a thought. Would this thread have been started if the money was in notes still legal tender. Thus not requiring it to be paid in in 1 go. £8000 could easily be spent or paid into an account over a period of time without arrousing any suspicion.

Not saying thats what I'd do, merely raising the question.

pitkin2020

rumncoke you have said exactly what i was thinking reading through this thread, had this been in todays tender it would have just been absorbed into the household spending but anyone paying in 8k of old stlye money is going to look very odd.
If it were me id speak with the police and report it as "Found" after 30 days the finder becomes the keeper if it isnt claimed, and if in doubt depending on how moral your feeling just find 4k for the police!!!

Fire_Fox

rumncoke wrote: »

Just a thought. Would this thread have been started if the money was in notes still legal tender. Thus not requiring it to be paid in in 1 go. £8000 could easily be spent or paid into an account over a period of time without arrousing any suspicion.

Not saying thats what I'd do, merely raising the question.

£8K is a lot of money to absorb into the household tho I suppose it could fairly easily be spent on renovating the property. I still think handing it into the police is the best bet, it's highly unlikely to be claimed and then it's legitimately yours after a few months. I don't adocate lying to the police about where it was found or deliberately going to a different police station! :rolleyes: