Money sent in error to wrong sort code

powerful_Rogue

(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.

The important part being the 'also'.

George_Michael

powerful_Rogue said:

(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.

The important part being the 'also'.

No, the important part being the wording of S15A

15A. Obtaining a money transfer by deception.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if by any deception he dishonestly obtains a money transfer for himself or another.

No deception was made by the person who received the payment, hence no offence under that part of the act.

Ditzy_Mitzy

George_Michael said:

powerful_Rogue said:

(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.

The important part being the 'also'.

No, the important part being the wording of S15A

15A. Obtaining a money transfer by deception.

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if by any deception he dishonestly obtains a money transfer for himself or another.

No deception was made by the person who received the payment, hence no offence under that part of the act.

That is (was, it doesn't exist any more) a different offence, and doesn't relate to this scenario. Sorry to quote Wikipedia, but it explains succinctly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obtaining_a_money_transfer_by_deception

powerful_Rogue

Exactly what @Ditzy_Mitzy said.

Deception is not required for s24a.

Have a look at this article, are many more out there - https://www.wilson-nesbitt.com/news-updates/Criminal/7463/Public-unclear-on-law-on-retaining-wrongful-credit

George_Michael

powerful_Rogue said:

Exactly what @Ditzy_Mitzy said.

Deception is not required for s24a.

Have a look at this article, are many more out there - https://www.wilson-nesbitt.com/news-updates/Criminal/7463/Public-unclear-on-law-on-retaining-wrongful-credit

But I wasn't commenting on S24a. My comment was in reply to your statement that:

powerful_Rogue said:

(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.

The important part being the 'also'.

powerful_Rogue

George_Michael said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Exactly what @Ditzy_Mitzy said.

Deception is not required for s24a.

Have a look at this article, are many more out there - https://www.wilson-nesbitt.com/news-updates/Criminal/7463/Public-unclear-on-law-on-retaining-wrongful-credit

But I wasn't commenting on S24a. My comment was in reply to your statement that:

powerful_Rogue said:

(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.

The important part being the 'also'.

George_Michael said:

powerful_Rogue said:

Exactly what @Ditzy_Mitzy said.

Deception is not required for s24a.

Have a look at this article, are many more out there - https://www.wilson-nesbitt.com/news-updates/Criminal/7463/Public-unclear-on-law-on-retaining-wrongful-credit

But I wasn't commenting on S24a. My comment was in reply to your statement that:

powerful_Rogue said:

(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.

The important part being the 'also'.

That is s24a (4) That I quoted. Obviously part b hasn't been updated as the reference to 15a has been removed and now comes under the Fraud Act 2006.

I was answering your post where you said 24a only applies if theft, blackmail, fraud or stolen goods apply. It doesn't as highlighted above.

shaun_from_Africa

To be honest, if it comes down to action being taken in the small claims court, I doubt very much if the Theft act, Fraud act or any other legislation will play much of a part in the judge making a final decision.
They will see that the recipient knew that the money wasn't theirs (either from the outset or later on) as they started to repay it so hopefully common sense would prevail and they would order the money to be repaid, although we all know that this doesn't guarantee that there is anything available.

Manxman_in_exile

452 said:

davidmcn said:

DoaM said:

You receive a £1,700 windfall and don't question where it came from or why you got it? You just go ahead and spend it?

You and I are denizens of this forum so by definition of course we keep a careful watch on our bank account and will spot unexpected transactions. Not everyone does (as we can see from some of the queries here).

And even if you strongly suspect they ought to have realised, try proving it beyond reasonable doubt. £1700 isn't necessarily all that noteworthy an amount - bit different from suddenly getting a million quid and then booking a one way ticket to Brazil with your loot.

You say it's not necessarily all that noteworthy an amount then they shouldn't have a problem paying it back. Yet the claimed they couldn't, what would most think if the test for dishonesty was applied in this case?

Can you explain how "... they shouldn't have a problem paying it back.  Yet they claimed they couldn't..." logically follows from "You say it's not necessarily all that noteworthy an amount..."?

I don't know what most people would think, but if they followed the reasoning demonstrated by you, then they could well be wrong.

Reminds me of what I've heard called "policeman's logic".

Manxman_in_exile

452 said:

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?

Is that not begging the question?

lammy82

Here's what I would try:

1. Set up a website that has some sort of legitimate reason to ask for someone's email address, choose a username, or give some details about themselves. Maybe an ' opt out of marketing' form. Don't publish the website address anywhere.
2. Periodically send small amounts of money (pennies) to the bank account quoting your website address in the reference so it appears on their bank statement.
3. If they get curious and visit your website, log their IP address. This is an identifying feature that could in theory be used to track them down through their ISP should the banks be uncooperative, or confirm their identity.
If you have crafted the site convincingly enough to get then to supply their details, you can log those too. Some Google detective work later and you might have enough to start a claim or pay them a visit. Or pass details to the police.