Legal question - given too much money

bris

My post 5 is correct, your friend has received wrongfull credit, if asked to pay it back and he refuses then it is a criminal and not civil case.

He does know he has received it, there is no doubt the charge would be retaining wrongful credit.

People have been convicted and imprisoned for similar offences.

System

bris wrote: »

My post 5 is correct, your friend has received wrongfull credit, if asked to pay it back and he refuses then it is a criminal and not civil case.

He does know he has received it, there is no doubt the charge would be retaining wrongful credit.

People have been convicted and imprisoned for similar offences.

Cheers. That seems a convincing argument and I will use this to attempt to win my bet!

Anselm

Section 24(A) of the Theft Act 1968:
(1) 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.

(2A) A credit to an account is wrongful to the extent that it derives from–
(a) theft;
(b) blackmail;
(c) fraud (contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006); or
(d) stolen goods.

I've quoted what I think are the two relevant sections.

I don't think you could argue that this was retaining wrongful credit, because there is no account between the customer and casino. An account is defined as:

Section 24A (9)
(a) a bank;
(b) a person carrying on a business which falls within subsection (10) below; or
(c) a person falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (j) of the definition of “electronic money issuer” in regulation 2(1) of the Electronic Money Regulations 2011.

Instead, the argument I would pursue is that pursuant to the Fraud Act 2006, it amounts to "fraud by failing to disclose information" (Section 3)

A person is in breach of this section if he–
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information–
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss

I think that walking away with £200, rather than £75 satisfies (b)(I) - he has made a gain, (b)(ii) - He has caused a loss. I think the contentious point in (S3 (a)) would be whether he has a "legal duty to disclose".

The concept of ‘legal duty’ is explained in the Law Commission’s Report on Fraud, which said at paragraphs 7.28 and 7.29:


‘7.28 … Such a duty may derive from statute (such as the provisions governing company prospectuses), from the fact that the transaction in question is one of the utmost good faith (such as a contract of insurance), from the express or implied terms of a contract, from the custom of a particular trade or market, or from the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the parties (such as that of agent and principal).

7.29 For this purpose there is a legal duty to disclose information not only if the defendant’s failure to disclose it gives the victim a cause of action for damages, but also if the law gives the victim a right to set aside any change in his or her legal position to which he or she may consent as a result of the non-disclosure. For example, a person in a fiduciary position has a duty to disclose material information when entering into a contract with his or her beneficiary, in the sense that a failure to make such disclosure will entitle the beneficiary to rescind the contract and to reclaim any property transferred under it.’

> this is opinion, not legal advice<

halibut2209

Nothing wrong with changing one's position. I do not presume to be infallible. I am only going by similar queries that have come up in the past on this board

1) You are entitled to a £50 refund but they accidentally get given £100
2) You order a mobile phone, but 2 are sent in error

Both of those would lead to the advice "They have 6 years to chase you for it" meaning it is a civil case.

System

halibut2209 wrote: »

Nothing wrong with changing one's position. I do not presume to be infallible. I am only going by similar queries that have come up in the past on this board

1) You are entitled to a £50 refund but they accidentally get given £100
2) You order a mobile phone, but 2 are sent in error

Both of those would lead to the advice "They have 6 years to chase you for it" meaning it is a civil case.

Similar queries?

On this board?

But this is a consumer rights board not a legal one........

halibut2209

As I said, I now think this is a civil case, not a criminal one.

TonyMMM

It is a straightforward offence of Theft.

The key being your statement that he was aware of the mistake at the time.

He knew it was money he was not entitled to, yet took it (which is the dishonest appropriation required).

jacques_chirac

halibut2209 wrote: »

As I said, I now think this is a civil case, not a criminal one.

It is a criminal offence, although the casino could also take civil action (though it is unlikely to be worth their time).

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/dishonestly_retaining_a_wrongful_credit/

If this is a genuine scenario (I have my doubts), it is very likely the employee will be dismissed - I have seen casino employees be summarily dismissed for far less.

jacques_chirac

goater78 wrote: »

If you didn't realise you had received the extra money and had spent it accidentally.

You are partially correct on this point - if someone had good reason to believe they had been given the correct amount and then spent the money the other party would be estopped from reclaiming it. However, with such a blatant mistake, it is unlikely your scenario would be covered by this defence.

System

jacques_chirac wrote: »

You are partially correct on this point - if someone had good reason to believe they had been given the correct amount and then spent the money the other party would be estopped from reclaiming it. However, with such a blatant mistake, it is unlikely your scenario would be covered by this defence.

Yes I agree my friend is not covered by this defence.

My response was in answer to a poster who asked me under what circumstances you can receive money from the bank and not have to pay it back. This was unrelated to my friends case. It was just an example of why you don't always have to pay it back.