Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of you saying it's the banks fault because had they not put the money in his account he wouldn't have committed the crime are delusional. This was a crime of opportunity. I'm guessing this wasn't the first thing he's done that wasn't exactly legal.
Would you also want to blame a knife manufacturer if a person murders someone with one of their knives they found on the street?
That mentality is running rampant through this thread and I just don't understand it either.
How can one person who knowingly spent money they knew was not theirs to spend and not be held responsible for their actions.
I have been shaking my head at a lot of the comments through this entire thread.
Seriously agree with the above.
Here is a good reminder for everyone else. :
"Oh, and for the record… The same general rules apply to erroneous tax refunds — if it’s not actually your money, you can’t reasonably expect to keep it. In general terms, if you receive a deposit that you’re not expecting, don’t go spending it until you’ve investigated and confirmed that you’re actually entitled to the money." (Bank Error in Your Favor? - Forbes)
Oh and this:
"--Finders aren't keepers. This should go without saying, but if a bank error is in your favor, you don't get to keep the money and could be prosecuted for doing so. Speak up." Bank Error in Your Favor? - Forbes
And just for kicks, a few more:
"Moral of these stories: Getting an erroneous bank deposit is not the same as winning the lottery. It's not mystery money. It's theft. And that holds true whether you're pocketing an erroneous bank deposit of $2 million or $2. Just because it was the bank's error doesn't mean you have an excuse." Bank deposit error in your favor? Give it back - DailyFinance
And yet, most people would do the same, especially the rich. Do you think that corporations are going over their books all the time, to see if anything has been deposited in their accounts by mistake? Hell no, they only care that the stuff that should be there is there.
I doubt that guy missed that he was 30k over and didn't know it. When such happens in a corporation that is why they audit. In this case its apparent by simply looking; if you don't have a crooked eye.
I completely agree. I don't think it was theft at all. The bank made a mistake. The kid had the right to spend the money. So instead of the bank saying, "We screwed up," and fixing their own error, they prosecuted the kid for spending money the bank deposited into his account. They are a bank. It is their responsibility to avoid making $30,000 mistakes. I wonder how many people judging this kid would pick up a $20 bill someone dropped on the ground and spend it. Whether it's $20 or $20K makes no difference whatsoever morally.
I completely agree. I don't think it was theft at all. The bank made a mistake. The kid had the right to spend the money. So instead of the bank saying, "We screwed up," and fixing their own error, they prosecuted the kid for spending money the bank deposited into his account. They are a bank. It is their responsibility to avoid making $30,000 mistakes. I wonder how many people judging this kid would pick up a $20 bill someone dropped on the ground and spend it. Whether it's $20 or $20K makes no difference whatsoever morally.
The legal elements of larceny are:
1. The taking and the carrying away;
2. Of the personal property;
3. Of another;
4. With the intention of permanently depriving the owner of his property.
When the young man took the money out of the account he satisfied the first element. Money is personal property and that satisfies the second element. The money belonged to another person and that satisfies element three. The young man may not have known whom, but he certainly knew that it was someone else's money because he had done nothing to earn $30,000. When he spent the money and made no attempt to reimburse the account for what he had spent that showed that satisfied element four because it becomes clear he intended to permanently deprive the owner of their money.
He was also eighteen years old and is adult from the standpoint of the law.
Clearly, this was an appropriate case for prosecution.
Unless someone unreservedly gives you money or property it is not yours. The outcome would be the same if a bale of money accidentally fell out of a truck and landed at his feet and he took the money.
Mistakes sometimes happen in life and that this does not give dishonest persons the right to take something that is not theirs.
I agree with the conviction and the judge's sentence of restitution plus probation. This young man should not be allowed to profit from another's mistake and misfortune. Also, a conviction like this sends a message to others so inclined. Finally, though, the sentence of probation (as opposed to jail time) is appropriate because of the unusual circumstances present. Also, the young man can do more good out in the community working to the pay his victim back than he can in jail.
The legal system worked well in that community in that case.
Most states allow expungement of criminal convictions if an offender stays out of trouble for several years. This would certainly be a case for expungement if he abides by the rules. Tough lesson to learn, but he didn't spend that $30,000 all at once. Its something he thought about and did over time.
I completely agree. I don't think it was theft at all. The bank made a mistake. The kid had the right to spend the money. So instead of the bank saying, "We screwed up," and fixing their own error, they prosecuted the kid for spending money the bank deposited into his account. They are a bank. It is their responsibility to avoid making $30,000 mistakes. I wonder how many people judging this kid would pick up a $20 bill someone dropped on the ground and spend it. Whether it's $20 or $20K makes no difference whatsoever morally.
I wonder how many people judging the bank (teller) for making a mistake can honestly say they have never made an error of any sort at their jobs? Doesn't make a difference if it was a small error no one noticed, or a huge mistake, any error at all counts against you. Anyone, anyone at all?
Bank robbers only get ten years. Spending money in your account is a crime? He didn't force anyone to put the money into the account. It was unsolicited and would account to a gift.
It is only considered a gift IF the person that the money belonged to specifically states to deposit that money into the account of someone else and says "This is a gift".
What part of "the money was not this kids to spend" are you and so many others not understanding?
The bank made the initial mistake that is true however, the kid knew that money was not his to spend.
He chose to spend it, that is theft.
What I would like to see is the attitude of everyone who says this kid should not have been charged with a crime when it is not someone else's money that was spent.
IF YOUR $30,000.00 deposit had been put into his account by the bank by mistake and he spent YOUR MONEY............was that a "unsolicited gift" to this kid?
Would you have no problem walking away without this kid being charged with a crime and him not paying you back because "It's only money, it was a gift"?
I seriously doubt you would be supporting his actions if it were your money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
