Money sent in error to wrong sort code

shaun_from_Africa

davidmcn said:

Not clear from the information we have that it meets the definition of theft.

The recipient is fully aware that the money was transferred in error and by keeping hold of it, it is a clear cut case of theft.
The definition of theft doesn't only cover stealing something. It also covers keeping something that you know you have no legal right to.

Carrot007

shaun_from_Africa said:

The recipient is fully aware that the money was transferred in error and by keeping hold of it, it is a clear cut case of theft.
The definition of theft doesn't only cover stealing something. It also covers keeping something that you know you have no legal right to.

I think it is more likely in this case that the recipient is bad with monmey and just spent it and has none to pay back.

They are probably fairly honest, trying to set up something shows that. However with people bad with money something alwasy comes along and it goes.

Not that any of this is an excuse, just that maybe getting anything back will be a pain. Why go through all the cost if all you end up with is a pound a month for a long time. Principle? If they are that bad with money I'm sure their credit i already bad.

Personally I think banks should only allow a pound to a new recipient and then nothing for 7 days, That would be a lot better than this name checking nonsence which as far as I know is not implimented yet for most (if not all) banks.

shaun_from_Africa

Carrot007 said:

I think it is more likely in this case that the recipient is bad with monmey and just spent it and has none to pay back.

The reason doesn't matter, only the fact that the recipient knows they have no entitlement to the money but have not returned it, therefore it is theft.

Carrot007 said:

Personally I think banks should only allow a pound to a new recipient and then nothing for 7 days, That would be a lot better than this name checking nonsence which as far as I know is not implimented yet for most (if not all) banks.

7 days? Many bank transfers are almost instant and of those that aren't, 1 working day should be more than enough for someone to verify that the details used were correct.
I make many bank transfers and I know a lot of people who would be very upset if they had to way for 7 days for their money.

davidmcn

shaun_from_Africa said:

Carrot007 said:

I think it is more likely in this case that the recipient is bad with monmey and just spent it and has none to pay back.

The reason doesn't matter, only the fact that the recipient knows they have no entitlement to the money but have not returned it, therefore it is theft

But they need to actually have it at the point it's dishonestly appropriated. They might have already spent it before realising it had been credited in error.

powerful_Rogue

davidmcn said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Carrot007 said:

I think it is more likely in this case that the recipient is bad with monmey and just spent it and has none to pay back.

The reason doesn't matter, only the fact that the recipient knows they have no entitlement to the money but have not returned it, therefore it is theft

But they need to actually have it at the point it's dishonestly appropriated. They might have already spent it before realising it had been credited in error.

s24A Theft Act - Dishonestly Retaining a Wrongful Credit.

Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit.

(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 ofwhich 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 circumstancesto secure that the credit is cancelled.

Socajam

SteveJW said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

It's why it's a good idea to send £1 to a new recipient, check that it's arrived, then send the balance. 

Best bit of advice I was ever given, send £1 first and wait for confirmation received

SteveJW said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

It's why it's a good idea to send £1 to a new recipient, check that it's arrived, then send the balance. 

Best bit of advice I was ever given, send £1 first and wait for confirmation received

I always send £10 to a new payee and once it have been confirmed I send the balance.

macman

Not initially theft or fraud. What you effectively did was the equivalent of stuffing £1,700 in used tenners through someone's letterbox. Unfortunately, it was the wrong letterbox....
You seem to have the bank onside, so your best hope is to keep the pressure up via them. Small claims court, even if you had the address, is futile if there are no assets to recover, as is likely. The recipient would not have repaid £200 if they were entirely unconcerned. 

davidmcn

powerful_Rogue said:

davidmcn said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Carrot007 said:

I think it is more likely in this case that the recipient is bad with monmey and just spent it and has none to pay back.

The reason doesn't matter, only the fact that the recipient knows they have no entitlement to the money but have not returned it, therefore it is theft

But they need to actually have it at the point it's dishonestly appropriated. They might have already spent it before realising it had been credited in error.

s24A Theft Act - Dishonestly Retaining a Wrongful Credit.

Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit.

(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 ofwhich 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.

Quite - it's the last part in particular which is tricky i.e. proving "dishonesty", and how on earth you "cancel" a credit if the money is already gone.

Manxman_in_exile

powerful_Rogue said:

davidmcn said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Carrot007 said:

I think it is more likely in this case that the recipient is bad with monmey and just spent it and has none to pay back.

The reason doesn't matter, only the fact that the recipient knows they have no entitlement to the money but have not returned it, therefore it is theft

But they need to actually have it at the point it's dishonestly appropriated. They might have already spent it before realising it had been credited in error.

s24A Theft Act - Dishonestly Retaining a Wrongful Credit.

Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit.

(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 ofwhich 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 circumstancesto secure that the credit is cancelled.

According to that it depends on what it is "reasonable in the circumstances" for the recipient to do.  If they can't afford to pay it back...?

I think it's a bit much for criminal liability to originate from somebody wrongly transferring an unsolicited sum of money into your account.

452

Manxman_in_exile said:

powerful_Rogue said:

davidmcn said:

shaun_from_Africa said:

Carrot007 said:

I think it is more likely in this case that the recipient is bad with monmey and just spent it and has none to pay back.

The reason doesn't matter, only the fact that the recipient knows they have no entitlement to the money but have not returned it, therefore it is theft

But they need to actually have it at the point it's dishonestly appropriated. They might have already spent it before realising it had been credited in error.

s24A Theft Act - Dishonestly Retaining a Wrongful Credit.

Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit.

(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 ofwhich 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 circumstancesto secure that the credit is cancelled.

According to that it depends on what it is "reasonable in the circumstances" for the recipient to do.  If they can't afford to pay it back...?

I think it's a bit much for criminal liability to originate from somebody wrongly transferring an unsolicited sum of money into your account.

Why, if the recipient acts dishonestly by keeping it what else would you call it?