Bank Asks Ga. Teen to Return $31,000 Mistakenly Deposited Into His Account

[aGameOfThrones]

A Georgia bank is asking a teenager to return $31,000 that was mistakenly deposited into his account. The problem is he may have already spent most of the cash.

The Madison County Sheriff Office police were dispatched to First Citizens Bank in Hull, Ga., on March 18 concerning financial fraud, a police report states. There, employee Kristy Bryant explained that on March 7 a customer named Steven Fields deposited $31,000, but a teller entered the amount into another customer's account who had the same name.

After receiving the mistaken deposit, Steven Fields, 18, withdrew $20,000 and made $5,000 in purchases with his ATM card, as first reported by the Athens Banner-Herald. The deposit error wasn't noticed until original Steven Fields complained to the bank of his missing money on March 17.

When the alleged deposit recipient tried to withdraw more money the next day, the bank "informed him of the mistake that was made and asked him to return the money," the police report stated, but "Mr. Fields claimed that the money was his from an inheritance."


He also claimed that the money entered his account through a direct deposit, which the bank said is not true, the police report stated. Nevertheless, Fields said he would return to the bank with proof of his inheritance, but he never returned, the police report stated.

After the police went to Fields' home, he stated that "he thought the money came from his grandmother's estate," the police report states.


"I informed Mr. Fields that the bank wanted the money back as soon as possible," according to the reporting officer's statement. "Mr. Fields stated that he would go to the bank and talk with Mrs. Bryant and try to settle this situation without going to jail."

The bank told police they would give Fields a deadline of March 19, 5 p.m. to return all the money or they want him prosecuted. On Thursday, the Madison County Sheriff Office said charges had not yet been filed related to this case.

http://gma.yahoo.com/bank-asks-ga-teen-return-31-000-mistakenly-204212755--abc-news-personal-finance.html

[asurfaholic]

Uhh the bank wants the teen prosecuted?

No.

The bank needs to cough up that $31000 and give it to the rightful owner. The bank lost the money not the teen.

[Spikender]

On the other hand though, the teen obviously knew that something was amiss when he checked his bank account and there was thirty one thousand dollars in there.

Complicated issue in my opinion. I don't think the teen should be prosecuted in this case, but it's clear that the teen knew the money was gained illegitimately. He lied and said it was from inheritance.

[tod evans]

Where are the parents?..

The boy's 18 and legally an adult but I'd hope he's got family that'll offer sane advice before he gets his tit in a wringer he can't get out of...

Banks and their attorneys wield almost as much power in the courts as a DA.........

[phill4paul]

I could understand where the teen may have thought it an inheritance. I've deposited monies into my nephews and nieces checking for special occasions. The bank needs to own up to some fault in this matter since it was teller error. They won't of course. And if someone doesn't bail the kid out he is well and truly f*cked.

[Spikender]

True.

Prosecute the teller instead.

The bank demands blood!

[Keith and stuff]

The dude is an adult. He know the money wasn't his. At most, he should get a small finders reward or something.

[Philhelm]

With our current monetary system, what difference does it make? Someone from the bank should go into the initial account, type "$31,000," and everyone is happy. The numbers are just fictional anyway.

[phill4paul]

With our current monetary system, what difference does it make? Someone from the bank should go into the initial account, type "$31,000," and everyone is happy. The numbers are just fictional anyway.

Sure, then take it for a loss and get a tax write-off. Win-win for everyone.

[squarepusher]

that would be terrible if he used the 31,000 to buy gold coins, then had a freak boating accident and lost them all...

[aGameOfThrones]

Look what this casino did...


After the photographs and jubilation were over, the casino learned it had made a mistake. The rightful winner, Kevin Lewis, 50 and also a Cincinnati native, was at home.

“This was our blunder,” Horseshoe Cincinnati Senior Vice President and General Manager Kevin Kline told the television station.

In this case, the million-dollar error worked in the favor of both men. Each will be awarded a million-dollar prize, and the casino vowed to step up verification of winners before the next event.

“There were a lot of similarities between the two gentlemen that led to confusion on our end,” casino spokeswoman Jennifer Kulczycki told Cincinnati.com, adding, “It was human error.”

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/two-men-with-same-name-win--1-million-prize-over-casino-error-185541365.html;_ylt=AwrBTzpRzjVTxWIAoFhXNyoA;_ylu= X3oDMTEyb245a25sBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTAEY29sbwNiZjEEdn RpZANVSUMxXzE-


BTW, the wrong guy already wasted the money on drugs and was arrested.

[Zippyjuan]

Casinos want to spread the illusion that everybody can win. They don't want any negative publicity.

Now if the kid had $31,000 taken OUT of his account, would he still be saying "finders keepers"? If he thought it was legit- why withdraw all of it at once?

[tod evans]

Casinos want to spread the illusion that everybody can win.

Banksters on the other-hand want everyone to know that only they win.....

[dannno]

Now if the kid had $31,000 taken OUT of his account, would he still be saying "finders keepers"?

Was it a bank error?


If he thought it was legit- why withdraw all of it at once?

I don't think he did, he did withdraw most and spend a lot... but a lot of people do that when they get inheritance.

I think they should recover as much as they can and the bank should either voluntarily cover the rest or give him some type of payment plan rather than criminal charges.

[Acala]

If they can't prove he knew it was an error, he should go free. But if he knew it was an error, it is theft. Of course theft from a bank, given what we know, might be a moral good,

[Tod]

As soon as he withdrew the money, it would have been proper for the kid to send the bank a thank-you note for the generous gift for their valued customers.


It IS the bank's responsibility to ensure that they put money where it belongs, and considering their quickness to take money when customers overdraft, etc, I see no need to grant them any slack.

[Zippyjuan]

Was it a bank error?



I don't think he did, he did withdraw most and spend a lot... but a lot of people do that when they get inheritance.

I think they should recover as much as they can and the bank should either voluntarily cover the rest or give him some type of payment plan rather than criminal charges.

Kid knew what he was doing. He quickly emptied the money from his account.


After receiving the mistaken deposit, Steven Fields, 18, withdrew $20,000 and made $5,000 in purchases with his ATM card, as first reported by the Athens Banner-Herald. The deposit error wasn't noticed until original Steven Fields complained to the bank of his missing money on March 17.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://www.mainstreet.com/article/smart-spending/teen-gets-31000-deposit-account-mistake-steals-it?page=1


A kid in Georgia has stolen a lot of money and won't give it back.

On March 7 the First Citizens Bank in Hull, Georgia made a mistake, depositing $31,000 from a customer named Steven Fields into the account of another customer with the same name. The second Fields is a local 18 year old who, after finding the bank's error, immediately did what any budding sociopath would with a lot of money that wasn't his.

He spent it.

Ten days later the original Steven Fields discovered First Citizens’ mistake, by which time the teenager had spent $5,000 on his debit card and withdrew another $20,000 in cash. When the bank asked him to return the money the younger Fields claimed that they were wrong. No mistake had been made. The money, he said, was a direct deposit from his grandmother’s estate.

Both claims were lies. In a seemingly gutsy move the teenager even promised to return with proof of his inheritance, which he never did (because he didn’t get one). At time of publication Fields has still not returned a dime of the $31,000 he stole, the only appropriate word for walking away with a duffle bag stuffed full of someone else’s cash. For his efforts, Gawker has dubbed him a candidate for Hero of the Year.

Which part of this story, exactly, is heroic? The stealing? The lying? Fields’s adolescent shopping spree? Perhaps he would earn my sympathy if Fields had run off to the nearest orphanage with his windfall, but a teenager who goes off blowing someone else’s money on himself? No.

Unfortunately for Fields, the law takes this position as well. Heroic or not, keeping this money is also illegal.

Knowingly taking or keeping property that doesn't belong to you is a crime. The complicated story surrounding how Fields got the $31,000 ultimately doesn't matter, according to Chicago criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor Purav Bhatt. The only question the law asks is whether the money belonged to Fields and whether the teenager knew that.

"If we're talking about $100,000, let's just say for example, in most states you're looking at a felony," Bhatt said. "At least for theft. What the other charges may be I'm not exactly sure, that would be up to the prosecutors. But at the very least that would be a theft charge."

Under Georgia law taking $31,000 is more than enough to elevate this to a felony. It also doesn't matter that the money was in Fields's account, as some people have argued in his defense.

Read more: http://www.mainstreet.com/article/smart-spending/teen-gets-31000-deposit-account-mistake-steals-it?page=1

[phill4paul]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?447937-Bank-Asks-Ga-Teen-to-Return-31-000-Mistakenly-Deposited-Into-His-Account

[Cabal]

I don't get to throw my wallet at you and then claim theft. The bank made the mistake, so it's the bank's responsibility to reimburse the money to the original account.

[asurfaholic]

I don't get to throw my wallet at you and then claim theft. The bank made the mistake, so it's the bank's responsibility to reimburse the money to the original account.

Exactly.

[dannno]

He didn't steal it, he thought it was from an inheritance.

[angelatc]

He didn't steal it, he thought it was from an inheritance.

He also promised to return with documentation. And when he didn't, the bank sent the police out to talk to him. He told the deputy the same thing, again promising to contact the bank and straighten the whole mess out.

And then he didn't do it again.


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1738536.1396055361!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/bank29n-1-web.jpg

[RonPaulFanInGA]

He didn't steal it, he thought it was from an inheritance.

Which is why he never showed back up with the promised proof.

[PaulConventionWV]

Casinos want to spread the illusion that everybody can win. They don't want any negative publicity.

Now if the kid had $31,000 taken OUT of his account, would he still be saying "finders keepers"? If he thought it was legit- why withdraw all of it at once?

Yes, the golden rule is a good moral standard to go by in situations like this. However, it is not the law. The bank should pay for this mistake, because it truly was their mistake. The kid has $31,000 in his account without knowledge of where it came from, and spent it. Can he really be expected to do the "fair thing" and find out WHY he had so much money in his account and, after discovering its true origin, returned it? No, all he knows is that the money came from somewhere and was in his possession. The bank should own up to their mistake or at least offer him a smaller amount if he gives back some of it. Any legitimate business that lost $31,000 of someone else's money would surely lose credibility, and the bank deserves to pay for its mistake lest people stop trusting it. Oh, but I forgot, the current system means banks are all but immune to market forces.

[KingNothing]

Why on earth should the kid be allowed to keep the money? This seems like an obvious case where the bank can show an error occurred, and that it can be easily corrected.

This isn't Monopoly. The kid didn't land on Chance and pull a "bank error in your favor" card. This is real life.

[KingNothing]

Can he really be expected to do the "fair thing" and find out WHY he had so much money in his account and, after discovering its true origin, returned it?

Holy christ on a cracker, I'm wondering -- WWJD? Would He keep the money?

[KingNothing]

I don't get to throw my wallet at you and then claim theft. The bank made the mistake, so it's the bank's responsibility to reimburse the money to the original account.


What if you drop your wallet into someone else's lap accidentally, and he opens it up and clearly sees your driver's license and not his so that there is no question as to the rightful owner of the wallet?

[KingNothing]

He also promised to return with documentation. And when he didn't, the bank sent the police out to talk to him. He told the deputy the same thing, again promising to contact the bank and straighten the whole mess out.

And then he didn't do it again.


http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1738536.1396055361!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_1200/bank29n-1-web.jpg

Is that him? He looks like a real Good Samaritan.

Of course the lunatic fringe here is defending him.

[angelatc]

Is that him? He looks like a real Good Samaritan.

Of course the lunatic fringe here is defending him.

Yes, that's him.

The people here seem to have a problem with property rights sometimes.

[angelatc]

I don't get to throw my wallet at you and then claim theft. The bank made the mistake, so it's the bank's responsibility to reimburse the money to the original account.

Sure. But that doesn't mean the kid didn't steal the money from the bank.

[Cabal]

What if you drop your wallet into someone else's lap accidentally, and he opens it up and clearly sees your driver's license and not his so that there is no question as to the rightful owner of the wallet?

That's not analogous to this. The bank deliberately transferred funds, it didn't accidentally drop a wallet with an ID in it. They transferred funds to the wrong account. No one made them do this, the bank did this voluntarily. This wasn't fraud, or hacking, or theft. This was all the result of the bank's action, thus the bank is responsible.


Is that him? He looks like a real Good Samaritan.

Of course the lunatic fringe here is defending him.

Surprise, surprise. Judging people based on appearance rather than judging the facts of the situation.

[Cabal]

Sure. But that doesn't mean the kid didn't steal the money from the bank.

He didn't steal the money. The bank gave it to him.

[angelatc]

He didn't steal the money. The bank gave it to him.

It was not their money to give.

[Anti Federalist]

Theft or stealing implies that there was direct action taken by the accused to acquire access to property that did not belong to them.

I think the term that applies here is "misappropriation".

[Cabal]

It was not their money to give.

Hence the bank is responsible for reimbursing the other account.

[angelatc]

Hence the bank is responsible for reimbursing the other account.

Nobody said they weren't.

[angelatc]

Theft or stealing implies that there was direct action taken by the accused to acquire access to property that did not belong to them.

I think the term that applies here is "misappropriation".

We went thought this about 5 times already by these forums. The legal phrase is Theft by Misappropriation, IIRC.

[Cabal]

Nobody said they weren't.

You just tried to argue the kid was responsible, as opposed to the bank. If you agree with what I'm saying, wtf are you arguing about?

[KingNothing]

Hence the bank is responsible for reimbursing the other account.

And they've proven the money is not his. On what planet should he be allowed to keep it because of an error? He didn't earn it. They can clearly and obviously prove it was a mistake. This should go to court and he should be ordered to return it.

[Cabal]

And they've proven the money is not his.

The bank may have proven that the bank made a mistake, thus they've only reiterated their responsibility for the problem.


On what planet should he be allowed to keep it because of an error?

I'm not suggesting he should or shouldn't keep it. I'm suggesting he's free to do with it as he pleases.


He didn't earn it.

Lots of things aren't 'earned,' such as gifts. So what?


They can clearly and obviously prove it was a mistake.

I'm not disputing they didn't make a mistake.


This should go to court and he should be ordered to return it.

This doesn't need to go to court. It's the bank's responsibility.

If I send you a bunch of cash in the mail, but I wrote the wrong address on the envelope, I don't get to sue you for my mistake. And if that money was going to someone I owed money to, to pay them back, they didn't get it, so I still owe them money. You don't owe them money, and you don't owe me money because you never agreed to such an obligation, nor was such an obligation implied when you received the money in the mail.

[angelatc]

You just tried to argue the kid was responsible, as opposed to the bank. If you agree with what I'm saying, wtf are you arguing about?

You said the bank had the obligation to make the depositor whole. I agree entirely. However, the man has no right, legal or moral, to keep the money. He is obligated to make the bank whole.

[angelatc]

T
If I send you a bunch of cash in the mail, but I wrote the wrong address on the envelope, I don't get to sue you for my mistake. And if that money was going to someone I owed money to, to pay them back, they didn't get it, so I still owe them money. You don't owe them money, and you don't owe me money because you never agreed to such an obligation, nor was such an obligation implied when you received the money in the mail.

Thus proving you know nothing about the law, nor have you read the agreements you sign when you open a bank account. If you sent a letter to Joe Smith at 123 Em Street, when Joe actually lives at 321 Elm Street, the man living at that address is indeed obligated to put the envelope back in the mailbox, marked "Wrong address." He has no right to open the envelope just because it is in his mailbox.

There is no legal right to profit from a mistake. Nor is there a moral right to profit from a mistake.

If the man genuinely believed that the money was an inheritance, and it turned out that he indeed had some money in the pipeline...he still wouldn't be obligated to pay it back?

[Cabal]

You said the bank had the obligation to make the depositor whole. I agree entirely. However, the man has no right, legal or moral, to keep the money. He is obligated to make the bank whole.

What obligates him? Where/how did he consent to this obligation? He accepted money that was given to him, whether it was given to him by mistake or not does not necessarily obligate him to anything.


Thus proving you know nothing about the law, nor have you read the agreements you sign when you open a bank account. If you sent a letter to Joe Smith at 123 Em Street, when Joe actually lives at 321 Elm Street, the man living at that address is indeed obligated to put the envelope back in the mailbox, marked "Wrong address." He has no right to open the envelope just because it is in his mailbox.

Straw man harder. You're inventing exceptions that were never introduced and then arguing against them. Lol.

If I send money to Joe Smith at 123 Elm St., even if I meant to send it to the Joe Smith at 321 Elm St., the first Joe Smith has no obligation to not open the envelope, let alone to not take what's inside as his own. It's my mistake because I sent it to the wrong address, not his.

Keep reaching daftly.

[aGameOfThrones]

Thus proving you know nothing about the law, nor have you read the agreements you sign when you open a bank account. If you sent a letter to Joe Smith at 123 Em Street, when Joe actually lives at 321 Elm Street, the man living at that address is indeed obligated to put the envelope back in the mailbox, marked "Wrong address." He has no right to open the envelope just because it is in his mailbox.

There is no legal right to profit from a mistake. Nor is there a moral right to profit from a mistake.

If the man genuinely believed that the money was an inheritance, and it turned out that he indeed had some money in the pipeline...he still wouldn't be obligated to pay it back?

http://31.media.tumblr.com/1e0a182281da13a93be646ddc2cc5a5b/tumblr_mxm31zVNph1rudjnno1_500.gif

[pcosmar]

You said the bank had the obligation to make the depositor whole. I agree entirely. However, the man has no right, legal or moral, to keep the money. He is obligated to make the bank whole.

No,, He is not obligated at all.
It is not theft,, in any way, shape, or form.
It is no different from the Bank just throwing it out a window. and it is the Bank's fault.

He has no obligation to the bank or anyone else.
He can return it.if he so chooses,. but there is no obligation to do so.

And aside from all that,, it is not even real money to start with. It was made up out of thin air based on debt,theft and dishonesty.

[Wooden Indian]

Is it in any written documentation when you sign for your bank account that you will return any monies "accidentally" deposited into your account?
If so, he is obligated, but I see it as a civil matter not a criminal matter as "theft" didn't actually occur.

I take the middle road! LOL

[angelatc]

Is it in any written documentation when you sign for your bank account that you will return any monies "accidentally" deposited into your account?

Yes.



If so, he is obligated, but I see it as a civil matter not a legal matter as "theft" didn't actually occur.

I take the middle road! LOL

Civil matters are legal matters. What he did is actually a criminal matter though.

[angelatc]

What obligates him? Where/how did he consent to this obligation? He accepted money that was given to him, whether it was given to him by mistake or not does not necessarily obligate him to anything.



Straw man harder. You're inventing exceptions that were never introduced and then arguing against them. Lol

Oh FFS. You made up the scenario about a guy getting an envelope that was addressed wrong. I just proved that assertion was wrong, too.





If I send money to Joe Smith at 123 Elm St., even if I meant to send it to the Joe Smith at 321 Elm St., the first Joe Smith has no obligation to not open the envelope, let alone to not take what's inside as his own. It's my mistake because I sent it to the wrong address, not his.

Keep reaching daftly.

You're simply wrong. Call the post office and ask them. Or call the bank, and ask them.

If you sue the second Joe, you will win. He also has no reasonable expectation of being allowed to keep the money which was not intended to go to him.

[angelatc]

No,, He is not obligated at all.
It is not theft,, in any way, shape, or form.
It is no different from the Bank just throwing it out a window. and it is the Bank's fault.

He has no obligation to the bank or anyone else.
He can return it.if he so chooses,. but there is no obligation to do so.



This is why we have property law - to settle disputes like this. I can assure you that when armored trucks accidentally drop bags of cash, the person that finds them is not allowed to keep the contents.


And the law is clear on this - he has no right to keep it.

[Wooden Indian]

Yes.



Civil matters are legal matters. What he did is actually a criminal matter though.

Yeah, meant to type criminal there. Thanks for the heads up.

[angelatc]

What obligates him? Where/how did he consent to this obligation? He accepted money that was given to him, whether it was given to him by mistake or not does not necessarily obligate him to anything..

The money was not even given to him. It was deposited into his account in error. Possession alone does not transfer title. There also has to be intent.

Like it or not, he is absolutely and indisputably obligated to return it.

[Wooden Indian]

What he did is actually a criminal matter though.

That's where I disagree. If he breached his contract with his bank, then sue him for the breach of contract including the monies lost.
It was a douchey thing to do, not a high character move... just not criminal in my eyes.

[angelatc]

That's where I disagree. If he breached his contract with his bank, then sue him for the breach of contract including the monies lost.
It was a douchey thing to do, not a high character move... just not criminal in my eyes.

Again, it is called "theft by misappropriation." He probably didn't do himself any favors by lying about the promise to return with the documents - that could be the difference between the civil and criminal charges.


Misappropriation of Funds


When prosecutors bring a charge of misappropriation, they must convince a judge or jury that the following happened or is true:


Control but not ownership. The prosecutor must show that the owner of the property, whether it's a person, organization, or group, entrusted or gave the money to the defendant, or otherwise allowed the defendant control over it. In short, the defendant rightfully had possession, but not ownership.
Intent. First, a person must knowingly misappropriate the money, and cannot commit the crime by making a mistake or error. A person who misappropriates funds doesn't have to intend to actually physically take the money. It can be enough for a prosecutor to show that the accused intended to take any action that results (or would likely result) in the misappropriation of funds. In some states, the accused must know the action is illegal; while in others, the accused only has to act intentionally and does not need to know that the conduct is criminal.
Conversion. In order to commit misappropriation of funds, a person must not only take the money but must use it for his own purposes. However, this doesn't require that the accused actually take the money and use it to buy something or otherwise spend it. Courts have held it's enough to transfer the money to a bank account or even to refuse or fail to hand over the owner's money when the owner demands it.
Return. A person who misappropriates funds with the intent to later return the money to the rightful owner is still guilty of misappropriation. It also doesn't matter if the misappropriation only lasted for a short amount of time.



The money landing in his account did not transfer ownership because there was no intent to transfer ownership. He had control of the money, but not ownership.

[Cabal]

Oh FFS. You made up the scenario about a guy getting an envelope that was addressed wrong. I just proved that assertion was wrong, too.

LOL. You haven't proven shit. All you did was invent some typo exceptions and inject them into my analogy, and then argued against a scenario that you created. Your absurdity knows no bounds.


You're simply wrong.

Keep telling yourself that, and maybe some day it'll come true!


And the law is clear on this

Shill much?

[Cabal]

Is it in any written documentation when you sign for your bank account that you will return any monies "accidentally" deposited into your account?

Yes, if he agreed to a terms of service or some such that explicitly details this scenario, then he is obligated to those terms he agreed to. Without it though, he's not obligated to return anything.

[qh4dotcom]

Bump

[satchelmcqueen]

sorry but its the banks fault, not the teen. this has been a trend in the the last decade. if U make a mistake u must pay. if the bank makes one, YOU must pay, not them. something isnt right. i agree the moral thing would be to give up what wasnt yours, but the bank did it not the teen.

[jclay2]

The bank is ultimately responsible, though, I am not sure what should happen to this little pos teen. Perhaps a year or two of community service if the money isn't returned.

[Ender]

sorry but its the banks fault, not the teen. this has been a trend in the the last decade. if U make a mistake u must pay. if the bank makes one, YOU must pay, not them. something isnt right. i agree the moral thing would be to give up what wasnt yours, but the bank did it not the teen.

I agree, as well.

[angelatc]

Keep telling yourself that, and maybe some day it'll come true!





Google is your friend - Comes true all the time. The law is on my side here. There is no way he is legally entitled to keep the money. You can argue why he should be allowed to keep it, but most of realize that "Finders Keepers!" isn't valid after the 3rd grade.

[angelatc]

Yes, if he agreed to a terms of service or some such that explicitly details this scenario, then he is obligated to those terms he agreed to. Without it though, he's not obligated to return anything.

Yes, he absolutely is.

He wasn't gifted the money. There was no intent to give him the money, so it was not his money. Possession alone does not transfer title.

[dannno]

Google is your friend - Comes true all the time. The law is on my side here. There is no way he is legally entitled to keep the money. You can argue why he should be allowed to keep it, but most of realize that "Finders Keepers!" isn't valid after the 3rd grade.

So if you woke up one morning and there were gold bars in your living room what would you do call the police? What if you waited and nothing happened and you traded one in and used it to buy something and then somebody came to your house and was like, "hey!! I left a bunch of gold bars in your living room, what did you do with them?" Should you be criminally negligent or should, at worst, some type of restitution be setup?

[The Free Hornet]

Yes, that's him.

The people here seem to have a problem with property rights sometimes.

Maybe. I think in this case it is a civil disagreement owing to whatever account/ACH agreement the kid signed to get an account. Unless the bank went to court first and the police were following up...


But that doesn't mean the kid didn't steal the money from the bank.

The definition of "steal" means the kid didn't steal. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/steal)


This should go to court and he should be ordered to return it.

Yes, but they went to the police. I don't see where in an ACH or account agreement that that is allowed.


If a bank of mine goes to the cops before going to court... THERE WILL BE LAWYERS!


BTW!!! Does anybody know what happeded to this guy:


Bryan Man Arrested After $99K Payroll Error

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/cesar+saldivar.jpg

http://www.kbtx.com/news/local/headlines/Bryan-Man-Arrested-After-99K-Payroll-Error-220600781.html

I'd like to see a pattern: don't go to the cops with your civil problems, go to the court.

[Kilrain]

So if you woke up one morning and there were gold bars in your living room what would you do call the police? What if you waited and nothing happened and you traded one in and used it to buy something and then somebody came to your house and was like, "hey!! I left a bunch of gold bars in your living room, what did you do with them?" Should you be criminally negligent or should, at worst, some type of restitution be setup?

Strange analogy, anyone can deposit money in your account, but people aren't typically allowed to enter your home without your consent. A more relevant analogy would be you having a party and someone leaving a bag behind by mistake. I guess you think it becomes your bag the moment the person leaves?

[KingNothing]

And aside from all that,, it is not even real money to start with.

Ugh. Do people use it to pay for things? Then it's real money. These existential arguments on money are just masturbatory nonsense.

[KingNothing]

Is it in any written documentation when you sign for your bank account that you will return any monies "accidentally" deposited into your account?
If so, he is obligated, but I see it as a civil matter not a criminal matter as "theft" didn't actually occur.

I take the middle road! LOL


Agreed, I think this should definitely just be an issue for the civil courts. Of course, it is such a slam dunk case in the bank's favor that it shouldn't really even make it that far.

[Ender]

Ugh. Do people use it to pay for things? Then it's real money. These existential arguments on money are just masturbatory nonsense.

It is NOT "real" money. Because you chose to agree to "spend" it does not mean it is real.

If it were "real' money it could not be fractionalized and banks could not "lend" on keystrokes. If we were operating on "real money',
the world would not be in the inflationary financial mess it is currently experiencing.

[The Free Hornet]

Agreed, I think this should definitely just be an issue for the civil courts. Of course, it is such a slam dunk case in the bank's favor that it shouldn't really even make it that far.

Slam dunk for who? Bank gets sued for $250,000 for calling the cops:


The lawsuit, filed against Wells Fargo and the employee, seeks $250,000 in damages for unlawful trade practices, unlawful debt collection practices, intentional infliction of emotional distress, privacy invasion, false light, and the cost of her medical bills.

http://consumerist.com/2012/02/07/woman-claims-wells-fargo-told-police-she-was-contemplating-suicide/

My guess is that the resolution to that case is hiding in some non-disclosure agreement.

[qh4dotcom]

The money was not even given to him. It was deposited into his account in error. Possession alone does not transfer title. There also has to be intent.

Like it or not, he is absolutely and indisputably obligated to return it.

Not necessarily.

Suppose this bank is one of the many banks that got bailed out....the 2008 bailouts were of course an immoral and unconstitutional redistribution of wealth from taxpayers to the banks.

So if $31,000 lands on my bank account and the bank is one that got bailed out....what's wrong with keeping the money the govt stole from me in taxes and gave it to this bailed out bank?

That's what Ron Paul did for so many years via earmarks....give people in his district back money the govt stole from them....and plenty of RPF members defended his practice and thought it was Ok for the recipients of that money to keep it.

[Rothbardian Girl]

It is NOT "real" money. Because you chose to agree to "spend" it does not mean it is real.

If it were "real' money it could not be fractionalized and banks could not "lend" on keystrokes. If we were operating on "real money',
the world would not be in the inflationary financial mess it is currently experiencing.

KingNothing's point is that this is not especially relevant except to prove a political point. Money is simply a medium of exchange. Enough people in this cruel world still value FRN's; thus, they fit the definition of money.