Sigh... why don't people learn?

pmduk

Alpine_Star wrote: »

Spending the money is theft because it is proof that she meant to permanently deprive. But simply not paying it back - which is what we are talking about - is not evidence enough as proof of meaning to permanently deprive in law.

From the BBC article I referred to above:

The 1968 Theft Act says "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

It goes on to say "A person is guilty of an offence if - (a) a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest; (b) he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and (c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled."

noh

pmduk wrote: »

From the BBC article I referred to above:
The 1968 Theft Act says "A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it".

It goes on to say "A person is guilty of an offence if - (a) a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest; (b) he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and (c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled."

A mistaken credit to an account is not a "wrongful credit"
Therefore retaining it is not an offence in itself.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A

A wrongful credit is one obtained by:-

(3)A credit to an account is wrongful if it is the credit side of a money transfer obtained contrary to section 15A of this Act.

(4)A credit to an account is also wrongful to the extent that it derives from—
(a)theft;
(b)an offence under section 15A of this Act;
(c)blackmail; or
(d)stolen goods.

Alpine_Star

pmduk wrote: »

From the BBC article I referred to above:

I'm afraid that a selected snippet of the the Theft Act in a BBC news article is not going to provide you with a full, rounded & clear understanding of how the law works in relation to a mistaken credit.

DavidHayton

Presumably there are parallels to finding money in the street: If I find £1000 in used twenties then I am bound to hand it in at the police station. If the rightful owner doesn't then collect it within a certain period, it is mine to keep.

So if strange money turns up in my account, I would declare it to the bank. But I wouldn't necessarily expect the bank to take it back unless the rightful owner put in a claim for it. It's not the bank's money either ... just like the twenties in the street don't belong to the police.

David

System

ryan86uk wrote: »

I agree!!

Just a question though, from a legal point of view do you need to pay that £1000 back?

Yes, and including interest as far as I know

Not sure if that's at the bank of England rate though (if it's true)

Alpine_Star

LooieENG wrote: »

Yes, and including interest as far as I know

Not sure if that's at the bank of England rate though (if it's true)

Under which law does anyone have the right to demand interest on money they lost due solely to their own mistake?

missile

and under which law do you have to check your bank accounts and inform bank of any error in your favour?

Olipro

DavidHayton wrote: »

Presumably there are parallels to finding money in the street: If I find £1000 in used twenties then I am bound to hand it in at the police station. If the rightful owner doesn't then collect it within a certain period, it is mine to keep.

So if strange money turns up in my account, I would declare it to the bank. But I wouldn't necessarily expect the bank to take it back unless the rightful owner put in a claim for it. It's not the bank's money either ... just like the twenties in the street don't belong to the police.

David

of course, that's disregarding the law of reality; namely, if you happened to find £1000 which nobody else has noticed and for which you know nobody is likely to have seen you take it, you're unlikely to hand it into the police.

Although with that in mind, I'd propose that if you did find such a sum, you're more likely to get kneecapped by an angry gangster than accosted by the police.

kelloggs36

I had money transferred to me (only a small amount) and was never contacted by the bank to send it back - I thought that this was how it worked? Either the bank didn't bother or they tell the customer to try to get it back - but they didn't either - I don't understand how it works? This was about 3 years ago and the money is still there!

DavidHayton

Olipro wrote: »

of course, that's disregarding the law of reality; namely, if you happened to find £1000 which nobody else has noticed and for which you know nobody is likely to have seen you take it, you're unlikely to hand it into the police.

I did once find a substantial sum of money and handed it in. I dutifully went back to the police station 30 days later. Nobody had claimed it, and it was mine. Apparantly according to an Alliance and Leicester survey, a couple of years ago, 40% of folks would do the same.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/blog/2009/feb/27/found-money-dilemma

David