NationStates Jolt Archive

So, the bank tells him he has $5 million in the account and it is his money. The man says not it isn't. The bank says, "Oh, yes it is."

Now, the guy know it isn't his money but th bank obviously insisted it was, so the the guy took some. So, who should be in jail?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-20-bankerror_N.htm?csp=34

Let me get this straight: He told them of their mistake, they insisted it was his money, and now they're raising a big fuss when he took it?

That is just insane.

I say that the bank should be forced to pay for the missing money (If they haven't already) and the man should be put in prison.

Reminds me of that Monopoly card...

Oh, and aren't banks insured for that kind of mistake?

So, the bank tells him he has $5 million in the account and it is his money. The man says not it isn't. The bank says, "Oh, yes it is."

Now, the guy know it isn't his money but th bank obviously insisted it was, so the the guy took some. So, who should be in jail?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-20-bankerror_N.htm?csp=34

Sure.

The fact he went on a spending spree kind of suggests he knew it wasn't his.

Never mind the fact, he says he tried to warn them. For example, there is a difference between. "Is this amount right?" and "You guys made a huge mistake"

He should have withdrawn it all and fled the country. That's what I would do.

That's just gross incompetence on the part of the bank though. The error is bad enough, but someone tells you that you made a mistake, especially concerning that amount of money and you just insist they are wrong? Come on.

For once we agree.


IMO he told them it was a mistake. They said it wasnt. They basically gave him the money.

I say that the bank should be forced to pay for the missing money (If they haven't already) and the man should be put in prison.

Why?They told him it was his. They INSISTED on it.
Isn't this what FDIC insurance is for?

Me, I would not have spent it -- but would have placed some in a money market account and let it accrue interest -- then returned the money but kept the interest as payment for hanging onto their money. ;)

Isn't that pretty much giving him a suitcase full of greenbacks to play with?

He should have withdrawn it all and fled the country. That's what I would do.

That's just gross incompetence on the part of the bank though. The error is bad enough, but someone tells you that you made a mistake, especially concerning that amount of money and you just insist they are wrong? Come on.

Let me get this straight: He told them of their mistake, they insisted it was his money, and now they're raising a big fuss when he took it?

That is just insane.

Hey,many years ago (1973 in fact I had a deposit that showed up on my bank account that I did not make. I called the bank three times and all three times they insisted I made the deposit. Well, hell. After three calls and two months I spent the money. (less than $100.00 :( should have been $5 million)

Isn't that pretty much giving him a suitcase full of greenbacks to play with?

Yep! And that's exactly what he did. :p

and the man should be put in prison.

Why?

It's wrong to steal, which is what he would've been doing had he not said anything and celebrated his good fortune.

He said something, to which the bank responded, confirming his ownership, thereby making him the owner of every penny that was in that account at the time.

And I don't think FDIC covers bank stupidity, I think the bank should be responsible for the error, and give the guy his $5 mil. back.

I think Kat had the best idea


You can get some awesome interest from that kinda dough.


Although fleeing the country with it would be pretty damn tempting.

For once we agree.


IMO he told them it was a mistake. They said it wasnt. They basically gave him the money.

For once we agree.

:p

If the bank is insisting that the money is his, then the are obligated to provide him with that money.

I'd say the man has some legal responsibility. He took what he obviously knew was somebody elses money, however, it was the banks mistake.
Give him a short prison sentence or probation, then forget about it.
The bank should have to pay for all the money, since it was their stupidity that put it in this guys possession in the first place.

Don't banks force you to have you, the bank manager, and a witness sign an official release for the withdrawal of the money if the withdrawal is over a certain amount?

I mean, withdrawing $2 million is a fairly big deal, and if the bank did not request a signature for the withdrawal, it's really their fault. It's not like the guy just went to an ATM and withdrew $2 million in one fell swoop - you have to be present. If the bank failed to go through the motions, it's their own fault.

Just give the guy a slap on the wrist and let him go. And let him keep the money to teach the bank a lesson.

Talk about interest!

So, the bank tells him he has $5 million in the account and it is his money. The man says not it isn't. The bank says, "Oh, yes it is."

Now, the guy know it isn't his money but th bank obviously insisted it was, so the the guy took some. So, who should be in jail?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-20-bankerror_N.htm?csp=34


I don't think anyone should be in prison, or in court for that matter. I used to work in banking and our bank merged with another bank. In the merge it seemed that no one had noted that several account numbers were duplicated. Proofing machines don't read names they read numbers, so deposits were made into the account numbers. It took several months for some people to realize their deposits were not actually making it to their accounts. Turns out they were being deposited into accounts with the same numbers. You would be surprised at how many people never open a bank statement or check to see if their transactions are accurately reported on statements. :p

In our case there were a few that the funds had been spent, the customer had deemed they made an error and didn't bother to actually reconcile, they rounded up and spent it. I think the most was a $2000 error. The bank made up the difference for those that monies had been spent by other customers. Their main concern was to keep the error as quiet as possible.

Jail times seems pretty absurd considering he did try to engage the bank in correcting the error. They are the screw-ups here.

Taking something that you know does not belong to you is called theft. The fact that the bank thought he was someone else does not change that.

He took what he knew was not his. The bank erred in who they thought he is, this is true, however, that does not excuse his actions. He could have refused to take the money. He could have spoken to a bank manager and sat down until they figured out the confusion (identity mistake). he could have simply left the bank and not taken it.

Instead he took $2 million that he knew was not his. That's criminal.

Let the man keep the money and make him do community service, then the bank can replace the money.

Next time they'll be more careful when someone says the money isn't theirs.

Bank gets punished, guy keeps money, has good life.

Why?They told him it was his. They INSISTED on it.
Isn't this what FDIC insurance is for?

Me, I would not have spent it -- but would have placed some in a money market account and let it accrue interest -- then returned the money but kept the interest as payment for hanging onto their money. ;)

I would have withdrawn it all and hired a three million dollar lawyer.

I think the bank is to blame. If he really tried to tell them it wasn't his, and they insisted it was, the man who owns the 5 million dollar account should be compensated by the bank, the person that withdrew the money should get to keep it, and he should send me some of it for backing him up.

I would have withdrawn it all and hired a three million dollar lawyer.

I think the bank is to blame. If he really tried to tell them it wasn't his, and they insisted it was, the man who owns the 5 million dollar account should be compensated by the bank, the person that withdrew the money should get to keep it, and he should send me some of it for backing him up.

You can not take what is not yours. Even if the bank thought it was his, he knew it was not. Taking what you know is not yours is called theft.

That's all that needs to be said about it.

as a general principle, you should always take advantage of errors made by fucking bankers. everybody except the bank wins.

If he knew that money wasn't his, he shouldn't have taken it. It wasn't like he was withdrawing his normal amounts from the bank; rather than take the matter to the appropriate authorities, he stole $2 million from the account and spent it. No matter what way you look at it, it was unacceptable to use money he knew was not his; now, if he were going to jail for a $50 withdrawal, things would be different, but $2 million is nothing less than flagrant theft.

You can not take what is not yours. Even if the bank thought it was his, he knew it was not. Taking what you know is not yours is called theft.

That's all that needs to be said about it.

i've been accused of theft for taking something i was convinced was mine.

i've been accused of theft for taking something i was convinced was mine.

And ya know, if he wants to argue that he honestly and truly believed that he just plain forgot that he had deposited 5 million into a bank account, let him try.

I say that the bank should be forced to pay for the missing money (If they haven't already) and the man should be put in prison.

So you are in favor of entrapment?

So you are in favor of entrapment?

entrapment by definition is to create a situation in which an otherwise honest person would be induced to do what he would not normally do.

Do you support theft?

entrapment by definition is to create a situation in which an otherwise honest person would be induced to do what he would not normally do.

Do you support theft?

bold mine.

I'd consider walking up to a teller and being told you had $5mil in your account despite insisting it wasn't yours "a situation in which an honest person would be induced to act dishonestly"

So, the bank tells him he has $5 million in the account and it is his money. The man says not it isn't. The bank says, "Oh, yes it is."

Now, the guy know it isn't his money but th bank obviously insisted it was, so the the guy took some. So, who should be in jail?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-20-bankerror_N.htm?csp=34
Banks and other institutions withhold the right to do whatever they want with money. If they accidentally deposit money in your account, they can take it back out whenever they want - and you better hope you have it. This guy is screwed taking $2mil out of an account he knew wasn't his is larceny.

Rolling squid;13469436']bold mine.

I'd consider walking up to a teller and being told you had $5mil in your account despite insisting it wasn't yours "a situation in which an honest person would be induced to act dishonestly"
And told that you can withdraw it. But regardless, Neo Art doesn't hold the same definition of entrapment as you and me, he holds a supposedly legal one that nothing fits.

Rolling squid;13469436']bold mine.

I'd consider walking up to a teller and being told you had $5mil in your account despite insisting it wasn't yours "a situation in which an honest person would be induced to act dishonestly"

You would consider someone who would willingly and knowingly take two MILLION dollars that he knows is not his, without any coersion, manipulation, threat or compulsion, an "honest" person?

I am unsure why you would be tempted to defend someone who stole 2 million dollars, or try to classify him as "honest"

entrapment by definition is to create a situation in which an otherwise honest person would be induced to do what he would not normally do.

Do you support theft?

Normally, this person would not take money that isn't his. Which is why he tried to correct the bank's error. But the bank insisted the money is his. Which he then used.

How is this not entrapment?

You would consider someone who would willingly and knowingly take two MILLION dollars that he knows is not his, without any coersion, manipulation, threat or compulsion, an "honest" person?

You are ignoring the bolded part. They insisted the money was his.

Next you'll be telling me that police stings where officers pose as children insisting that it's alright to have sex with adults is not entrapment.

Normally, this person would not take money that isn't his. Which is why he tried to correct the bank's error. But the bank insisted the money is his. Which he then used.

How is this not entrapment?

He knew the money wasn't his, If he had any sense he would have realized that the bank was going to realize its error eventually and just left the money alone. He didn't, he withdrew the money and spent it with full knowledge of the fact that it wasn't his.

He knew the money wasn't his, If he had any sense he would have realized that the bank was going to realize its error eventually and just left the money alone. He didn't, he withdrew the money and spent it with full knowledge of the fact that it wasn't his.

You do realize what entrapment is don't you?

Normally, this person would not take money that isn't his. Which is why he tried to correct the bank's error. But the bank insisted the money is his. Which he then used.

How is this not entrapment?



You are ignoring the bolded part. They insisted the money was his.


and "insisted" is not manipulated. They didn't FORCE the money in his hands. They didn't tell him that if if he didn't take it they'll kill him. They didn't trick him into thinking it was his after all. They didn't manipulate him in the slightest.

Yeah, they told him it was his. And he damned well knew they were wrong. They made a mistake, he knew it was a mistake. They didn't trick him, or coerce him, or manipulate him, or threaten him or do anything to him that removed from him the ability to make an informed, concious, intelligent choice to take what he knew was not his.

I don't buy this "they told him it was his" argument as any defense of ANYTHING. Yeah, they told him it was his. But he knew it wasn't. It's no different than if he took it out of the teller's machine and ran. It doesn't matter that they told him it was really his. He knew otherwise. He took what he knew was not his.

It's also not entrapment for two very fucking obvious reasons:

1) entrapment requires intent. They made a mistake, they had not intent to trap him, therefore no entrapment

2) entrapment is something police do, not private parties. From a legal standpoint it's impossible for someone to be "entrapped" by a private party who isnt working for the police.

Next you'll be telling me that police stings where officers pose as children insisting that it's alright to have sex with adults is not entrapment.

I say this not only as an attorney, but as a man who has a brother sitting in jail right now because he got caught in one of those stings. Most of those stings? Not entrapment in the slightest.

You do realize what entrapment is don't you?

Yes I do, you on the other hand have no clue.

You do realize what entrapment is don't you?

I do. I don't think you do however. In fact...I'm pretty sure you don't. For starters you can explain to me how a bank, a private institution, not working for or on behalf of the police in any way, can entrap...anybody. Second, after you explain that, you can explain to me how said bank, acting without intent to induce anyone to commit a crime, can entrap anyone, consider entrapment requires a showing that the entrapping party actively and with intend attempted to induce that person.

Then, after you're done with all that, you can explain to me how he was induced to commit a crime. While you do so, keep in mind, the courts have consistantly held that merely presenting an opportunity to commit a crime is not sufficient to be considered "inducement" but rather requires an element of manipulation, coersion, threat, or intentionally preying on a known weakness of the aforementioned entrapped fellow.

After you do all that, then maybe you can claim to understand what "entrapment" means. And when you do, you'll understand that a private bank, making an error, and telling a man he has $5 million that he knows is not his aint entrapment.

They didn't trick him into thinking it was his after all.
Really? They didn't tell him it was his money and he could withdraw it if he wanted after he informed them about the error?

Really? They didn't tell him it was his money and he could withdraw it if he wanted after he informed them about the error?

Yes they did tell him that, but he still knew that it wasn't (If he didn't know, then he wouldn't have argued with them about it)

There is, for those who seem to misunderstand, a fundamental difference between "making a mistake" and "actively trying to trick someone into doing something".

They didn't trick him in the slightest. They made a mistake. He wasn't therefore "tricked" into taking money that wasn't his because he believed it was. he knew they made a mistake. He knew they were in error. He knew it was not his.

And he took it anyway.

Take the money, seperate account to build up interest, then when needs be, return the money, keeping the profit you made via interest.

But in this situation, the bank made the final decision that it was his, so it is by no means the fault nor the responsibility of the man.

and "insisted" is not manipulated. They didn't FORCE the money in his hands. They didn't tell him that if if he didn't take it they'll kill him. They didn't trick him into thinking it was his after all. They didn't manipulate him in the slightest.

Yeah, they told him it was his. And he damned well knew they were wrong. They made a mistake, he knew it was a mistake. They didn't trick him, or coerce him, or manipulate him, or threaten him or do anything to him that removed from him the ability to make an informed, concious, intelligent choice to take what he knew was not his.

I don't buy this "they told him it was his" argument as any defense of ANYTHING. Yeah, they told him it was his. But he knew it wasn't. It's no different than if he took it out of the teller's machine and ran. It doesn't matter that they told him it was really his. He knew otherwise. He took what he knew was not his.

It's also not entrapment for two very fucking obvious reasons:

1) entrapment requires intent. They made a mistake, they had not intent to trap him, therefore no entrapment

2) entrapment is something police do, not private parties. From a legal standpoint it's impossible for someone to be "entrapped" by a private party who isnt working for the police.


Well then, since the bank isn't law enforcement, what would you call it when one party insists that no mistake is made, and actions occur by the other party as if there were none?

Let us use a lesser example instead, since the sum of 2 million dollars can seem excessive.

If someone were to pick up, say, a packet of chips in a store. That someone walks to the counter to pay, but is told by the cashier that the chips belongs to said person, so no payment is needed. The person goes "alright" and walks out with said packet of chips without having paid for it.

Management raises a fuss.

Is that person shoplifting?


I say this not only as an attorney, but as a man who has a brother sitting in jail right now because he got caught in one of those stings.

And who between the two initiated the idea of sexual relations if I may ask?

Take the money, seperate account to build up interest, then when needs be, return the money, keeping the profit you made via interest.
Not a bad idea, a little unethical maybe...
But in this situation, the bank made the final decision that it was his, so it is by no means the fault nor the responsibility of the man.

Yes it is, because he knew it wasn't his and took it anyways.

If someone were to pick up, say, a packet of chips in a store. That someone walks to the counter to pay, but is told by the cashier that the chips belongs to said person, so no payment is needed. The person goes "alright" and walks out with said packet of chips without having paid for it.

Management raises a fuss.

Is that person shoplifting?

Yes

Take the money, seperate account to build up interest, then when needs be, return the money, keeping the profit you made via interest.

Too bad for that whole "can not profit from your criminal activities" bit. Taking the money was theft. Therefore he can not claim any profits realized from that theft

But in this situation, the bank made the final decision that it was his, so it is by no means the fault nor the responsibility of the man.

"the bank" is not a legal arbiter of title. They are for most intent and purposes a storage facility. They never owned the money, it was never theirs, so they had no right to give it to him. The only question of relevance is whether he knew, or should have known, that it was not his before he took it.

A question that is easily answered.

The guy should plead temporary insanity, saying that having all that money in his hands just sent him loopy. Fact he went on a spending spree would aid his defence.

Yes

And at no time, it is possible that the person may have been convinced (falsely of course) by the statement of the cashier that it was his?

And at no time, it is possible that the person may have been convinced (falsely of course) by the statement of the cashier that it was his?

Only if the person was an absolute moron.


You go into a store a get a bag of chips, you leave without paying for it.
That's shoplifting.

And at no time, it is possible that the person may have been convinced (falsely of course) by the statement of the cashier that it was his?
He'd need to prove that he truly thought the packet of chips was his. The fact that he took it off the shelf is the most important bit. He knew it wasn't his. Doesn't matter what anyone else tells him.
Only unless the cashier said it was free might he have a defence.

You can not take what is not yours. Even if the bank thought it was his, he knew it was not. Taking what you know is not yours is called theft.

That's all that needs to be said about it.

When the bank insisted that the money was his, and that there was indeed, no error, then he, in fact became the rightful owner of the money in the account. The other guy is the owner to his money, and the bank learns a valuable lesson, as it is out the money to compensate the person whose money was wrongly taken.

If I give you a ten dollar bill, and you refuse on the basis that it is not yours, but relent under my insistance that it is indeed yours to take, then you are wrong because I gave you money?

So everyone who has ever given anyone else money at any point is able to take the person to court because it was a mistake? Thats stupid, he tried to correct what he assumed was an error, which is honest, the bank clarified for him that it was indeed not an error (even though it apparently was), this guy was under the impression (and rightfully so) that this money was for some reason his

To argue against this is to argue against the human understanding of ownership.

Entrapment? That would imply that the bank did this on purpose, wouldn't it?

Yes, the idea that this is in some way entrapment is right out.

However, this situation does contain similarities to cases of entrapment.

You do realize what entrapment is don't you?

Entrapment? That would imply that the bank did this on purpose, wouldn't it?

If someone were to pick up, say, a packet of chips in a store. That someone walks to the counter to pay, but is told by the cashier that the chips belongs to said person, so no payment is needed. The person goes "alright" and walks out with said packet of chips without having paid for it.

Management raises a fuss.

Is that person shoplifting?

If that person knew he did not, in fact, pay for it? Yes. If he were told "it's ok, you don't have to pay for those" that's another story. But he knew that the cashier was in error. He knew they weren't his. He had no reason to believe that if the cashier was aware that they were not, in fact, his, they would have let him take it without paying for it.

So yes, he's shoplifting.

And who between the two initiated the idea of sexual relations if I may ask?

The details on that particular event are not something I really want to discuss in an open forum. Let it suffice to say that depends on how you define "initiated"

he knew they made a mistake. He knew they were in error. He knew it was not his..

First off, we capitalize the beginnings to our sentences. Second off, you're right, he knew the money wasn't his, and that the bank must have made soem grievious error, so he sets out to correct it. Upon insistance that there is no error, and the money is indeed his, he decides (rightfully) that the money is... wait for it... his.

And he took it anyway.

Because it was his, which was confirmed by the bank. The bank gave him undeniable right to that money, and he took it. Walmart (for whom I work) gives me the undeniable right to my wages, and I accept them, I guess that I, like this man, am no more than a common theif.

Well, that or you're way off base.

Only if the person was an absolute moron.


You go into a store a get a bag of chips, you leave without paying for it.
That's shoplifting.

I'd have said something, but DH did it for me. So here we go.

He'd need to prove that he truly thought the packet of chips was his. The fact that he took it off the shelf is the most important bit. He knew it wasn't his. Doesn't matter what anyone else tells him.
Only unless the cashier said it was free might he have a defence.

Would this change anything? I made an error by not specifying the details, but this is one of the possible variables. Either that or "You don't have to pay for those."

If that person knew he did not, in fact, pay for it? Yes. If he were told "it's ok, you don't have to pay for those" that's another story. But he knew that the cashier was in error. He knew they weren't his. He had no reason to believe that if the cashier was aware that they were not, in fact, his, they would have let him take it without paying for it.

So yes, he's shoplifting.

He's shoplifting? Even though the store may be running a promotion? So every person who uses a "Buy on get one free" coupon is a thief because they didn't pay for the second item?

In this case, the cashier would be the clearly responsible party, if stealing happened, he did it, not the person who thought that it was indeed ok to take said chips.

When the bank insisted that the money was his, and that there was indeed, no error, then he, in fact became the rightful owner of the money in the account. The other guy is the owner to his money, and the bank learns a valuable lesson, as it is out the money to compensate the person whose money was wrongly taken.

If I give you a ten dollar bill, and you refuse on the basis that it is not yours, but relent under my insistance that it is indeed yours to take, then you are wrong because I gave you money?

So everyone who has ever given anyone else money at any point is able to take the person to court because it was a mistake? Thats stupid, he tried to correct what he assumed was an error, which is honest, the bank clarified for him that it was indeed not an error (even though it apparently was), this guy was under the impression (and rightfully so) that this money was for some reason his

To argue against this is to argue against the human understanding of ownership.

For one thing, technically the money isn't the banks to give away. They just hold it for others. In your example it would be like me taking $10 out of your wallet and offering it to Neo, insisting it was his. If he took it, knowing full well that it wasn't mine to give away then he is indeed stealing.

Next, you need to think about what is reasonable here.
Neo labouring under the impression that the $10 I'm offering him is actually his is one thing, but Neo, being used to fuck-all in his bank account, suddenly being told he is now a multi-millionaire is a different beast entirely. No reasonable, rational person would be able to say they truly did not know those millions were not theirs.
A person checking their account, expecting to see $1600 there but finding $1610 (the $10 due to bank error) is one thing which one could easily argue that they truly thought that extra $10 was theirs. But to check their a/c and see $5,001,600 and then assume it's all theirs just because someone told them it was is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

I remember living in Carson City in the 90s, when a teller handed a lady $2,000 more than her withdrawal amount in error. The lady walked to the door of the bank in a daze, her conscience got the better of her, and she turned back around and gave the money back. The next day (and you could look this up), a bank official said that she was lucky she turned around before they figured it out. "Even thinking about keeping the money is a crime", he said, adding that "She shouldn't have taken even one step towards the door."

This as you might expect drew outraged comments for weeks from the usual "letter to the editor" folks.

The Stainless Steel Rat himself claimed that it was that citizen's duty to take the money. If he had taken all $5 mil, and gone to a desert island, the bank's insurance would have made it up to them and the millions of bank customers would have had to pay a penny a year extra in insurance premiums (through fees). Lots of people - detectives, policemen, bank security officials, and accountants for example - would have their jobs justified and gotten to keep them. Everybody wins, and for what - a penny per person? That's a pittance. Not a bad tradeoff, particularly if you are the guy with the $5 mil.

When the bank insisted that the money was his, and that there was indeed, no error, then he, in fact became the rightful owner of the money in the account.

No he most certainly did not. For one very simple reason. It was not the bank's money to give. It was the owner of the account. That's the fundamental problem here. It was not their money. They do not have legal title to it. They do not legaly have the right to give it to him.

They made a mistake, and gave him money they never should have given him. Money they had no legal right to give him. Money he had no legal right to take.

The other guy is the owner to his money

No, the account holder is the owner of this money. It was never the bank's to give, and as such, title never transfered. It belonged, as it always belonged, to the owner of the account.


If I give you a ten dollar bill, and you refuse on the basis that it is not yours, but relent under my insistance that it is indeed yours to take, then you are wrong because I gave you money?

Whose money is it? Yours? Then you can give it to whomever you want. However, even if we extend that argument, let's say I am Bob A. I, as Bob A know you think I'm Bob B, and that you really intended to give that money to Bob B. If I take that money from you, knowing that you didn't intend to give it to me but instead to someone you thought was me, there's still an argument to be made there that I stole it from you.

Either way that's inapplicable here as it wasn't the banks to give. He knew it was not his, he took it anyway.

So everyone who has ever given anyone else money at any point is able to take the person to court because it was a mistake? Thats stupid, he tried to correct what he assumed was an error, which is honest, the bank clarified for him that it was indeed not an error (even though it apparently was), this guy was under the impression (and rightfully so) that this money was for some reason his

IF and this is a HUGE "if", he was under the honest, and true impression that this money was actually his, then so be it. If he really, truly, honestly believed that $5 million magically showed up in his bank account then fine, mistake.

Now, are you really going to sit here and try to convince me that this man honestly, really believed that $5 million just...appeared in his bank account from thin air, or are we going to go with the far more reasonable, and extremely more likely possibility, that he knew it was a mistake and saw the chance to pilfer 2 million dollars, and took it?

To argue against this is to argue against the human understanding of ownership.[/QUOTE]

Here's a very plausible senario...

Guy goes up to the bank: "Hi, I want to make a withdrawal from my account"

Bank: "Okay, how much of your 5 million do you want?"

Guy: "I, uh, what? I don't have 5 million in my account. There must be some mistake"

Bank: "No mistake. You have 5 million in your account"

Guy: (thinking) Hmm, well the bank seems pretty sure. With 5 million, I'd assume that they check fairly well. I suppose its possible that I did something nice for some rich old guy, and he transferred some money to my account. 'You don't look a gift horse in the mouth'

Guy: Alright, can I have 2 million?

Next, you need to think about what is reasonable here.
Neo labouring under the impression that the $10 I'm offering him is actually his is one thing, but Neo, being used to fuck-all in his bank account, suddenly being told he is now a multi-millionaire is a different beast entirely. No reasonable, rational person would be able to say they truly did not know those millions were not theirs.
A person checking their account, expecting to see $1600 there but finding $1610 (the $10 due to bank error) is one thing which one could easily argue that they truly thought that extra $10 was theirs. But to check their a/c and see $5,001,600 and then assume it's all theirs just because someone told them it was is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

Exactly.

I am not nearly so well off that I can find 5 million dollars in my bank account that I didn't think should be there and chalk it up to an error in balancing my checkbook. If $5 million suddenly shows up, something is wrong, something is very, very wrong. And no amount of a bank teller telling me that it's OK is going to convince me otherwise.

This guy, by all accounting was a man of normal means was told he has FIVE MILLION DOLLARS more than he should have had. There is no way in hell that he somehow thought it really was his.

Now, are you really going to sit here and try to convince me that this man honestly, really believed that $5 million just...appeared in his bank account from thin air, or are we going to go with the far more reasonable, and extremely more likely possibility, that he knew it was a mistake and saw the chance to pilfer 2 million dollars, and took it?

Since intent is normally a valid factor in determining the degree of criminality, why only 2 million then? Not the whole kaboodle if he really thought it wasn't his and was going to steal it? The bank after all, did insist all of it belonged to him. Not just that 2 million.

Here's a very plausible senario...

Guy goes up to the bank: "Hi, I want to make a withdrawal from my account"

Bank: "Okay, how much of your 5 million do you want?"

Guy: "I, uh, what? I don't have 5 million in my account. There must be some mistake"

Bank: "No mistake. You have 5 million in your account"

Guy: (thinking) Hmm, well the bank seems pretty sure. With 5 million, I'd assume that they check fairly well. I suppose its possible that I did something nice for some rich old guy, and he transferred some money to my account. 'You don't look a gift horse in the mouth'

Guy: Alright, can I have 2 million?

You think that it's reasonable and plausable to just assume that some nice old gentlemen left you five million dollars and you never heard about it? You think it's reasonable to not even ask the damned teller to see a list of your most recent transactions to see who exactly put this money in your account and when? You don't think it's reasonable and plausable to ask to verify the address and social security number on file on that account to make absolutly sure its yours?

We have another expression for "you don't look a gift horse in the mouth" when 5 million dollars mysteriously appears in your bank account.

Reckless indifference.

Since intent is normally a valid factor in determining the degree of criminality, why only 2 million then? Not the whole kaboodle if he really thought it wasn't his and was going to steal it? The bank after all, did insist all of it belonged to him. Not just that 2 million.

Hold on a minute, let me make sure I understand your argument right. Are you trying to argue that the fact that he took "only" 2 million dollars out of the 5 million dollars demonstrates that he didn't really intend to steal any?

It seems pretty damned clear to me that he intended to steal 2 million dollars.

Even if the man had noticed the money and not told the bank about it, I think it should be his money. Even if he never noticed the money, but the bank put it in his account for even a moment, it should be his money.

Once you put the money in my account, it's my money. I don't care why you did it; maybe it's a gift. I don't care. But once you have, it's my property and you CANNOT take it from me without my consent.

Taking the money from this man is theft.

Exactly.

I am not nearly so well off that I can find 5 million dollars in my bank account that I didn't think should be there and chalk it up to an error in balancing my checkbook. If $5 million suddenly shows up, something is wrong, something is very, very wrong. And no amount of a bank teller telling me that it's OK is going to convince me otherwise.

This guy, by all accounting was a man of normal means was told he has FIVE MILLION DOLLARS more than he should have had. There is no way in hell that he somehow thought it really was his.
I guess if he was Bill Gates, he could argue that he thought the money was his!

Getting past the whole, 'whose money is it' argument, would this guy be able to argue that getting all that money sent him temporary insane - hence the spending spree?
I vaguely recall that something similar happened several years back. A guy saw a security truck driving down the freeway with it's back door open. Several bags of money fell out. He grabbed a couple and went on a spending spree. When taken to court, he successfully argued (afaik, this could be just an urban legend after all) that seeing all that money sent him temporary insane.

Even if the man had noticed the money and not told the bank about it, I think it should be his money. Even if he never noticed the money, but the bank put it in his account for even a moment, it should be his money.

Once you put the money in my account, it's my money. I don't care why you did it; maybe it's a gift. I don't care. But once you have, it's my property and you CANNOT take it from me without my consent.

Taking the money from this man is theft.

Ignoring this...nonsense, how about you read the article? The money was never "put in his account". The bank thought this man was another man with the same name. The money wasn't his account, it was always in another man's account. Another man with the same name, which is what caused the confusion.

And since it was never in his account, but always in the other man's account. It remained the property of the other man. Therefore title never transfered.

Once you put the money in my account, it's my money. I don't care why you did it; maybe it's a gift. I don't care. But once you have, it's my property and you CANNOT take it from me without my consent.

What if they made a mistake and instead emptied his account by accident? Not to mention the fact that the money put in to his account could have just as easily been taken from someone else by mistake.

Even if the man had noticed the money and not told the bank about it, I think it should be his money. Even if he never noticed the money, but the bank put it in his account for even a moment, it should be his money.

Once you put the money in my account, it's my money. I don't care why you did it; maybe it's a gift. I don't care. But once you have, it's my property and you CANNOT take it from me without my consent.

Taking the money from this man is theft.
That's just being silly. If you buy a PS3 off someone only to be told by the cops later they had stolen it, you can't argue that you should be allowed to keep it. It's still the property of whoever did own it legally.

Think about it. Say you're buying groceries and the cashier accidentally gives you two $10 back instead of one $10. She immediately notices the mistake and asks you for the extra $10 back. Do you honestly think that you have full legal right to that extra $10 because they made an error?
Good luck arguing that to the police.

I guess if he was Bill Gates, he could argue that he thought the money was his!

Getting past the whole, 'whose money is it' argument, would this guy be able to argue that getting all that money sent him temporary insane - hence the spending spree?
I vaguely recall that something similar happened several years back. A guy saw a security truck driving down the freeway with it's back door open. Several bags of money fell out. He grabbed a couple and went on a spending spree. When taken to court, he successfully argued (afaik, this could be just an urban legend after all) that seeing all that money sent him temporary insane.

I'm not finding anything on this, I think we can chalk it up to urban legend. However the argument for "not guilty by mental disease or defect" is just that, you were rendered, by virtue of a disease or defect. Not greed.

How is it his fault? He was told several times it was his money.

That's just being silly. If you buy a PS3 off someone only to be told by the cops later they had stolen it, you can't argue that you should be allowed to keep it. It's still the property of whoever did own it legally.
But I still warrant compensation from the seller. If I'm deprived of the PS3, I should get fair market value ofthe PS3 in return.
Think about it. Say you're buying groceries and the cashier accidentally gives you two $10 back instead of one $10. She immediately notices the mistake and asks you for the extra $10 back. Do you honestly think that you have full legal right to that extra $10 because they made an error?
I should, yes.

What if they made a mistake and instead emptied his account by accident?
Then they've stolen from me.

Just as, if they put money in my account that should have been in someone else's account, they've stolen from them.

Ignoring this...nonsense, how about you read the article? The money was never "put in his account". The bank thought this man was another man with the same name. The money wasn't his account, it was always in another man's account. Another man with the same name, which is what caused the confusion.
As soon as they gave it to him, it was NOT in the other man's account. At that moment, the bank had stolen from the other guy, and are solely responsible for repaying him.

Serves them right for not using unique identifiers.

Hold on a minute, let me make sure I understand your argument right. Are you trying to argue that the fact that he took "only" 2 million dollars out of the 5 million dollars demonstrates that he didn't really intend to steal any?


No, that was an example to illustrate just one point. We don't really know his intent. Not unless we're mind readers, or have had the chance to question him extensively.

You may be an attorney, prosecutor or defense lawyer, doesn't really matter which. But when intent becomes a factor, do you assign one to a person using facts of the case, but no questioning of the person?

How is it his fault? He was told several times it was his money.

I don't see anything that says he was told "several times". And even assuming that true, even if he was told "several times" he knew it wasn't.

Unless you want to argue that he truly believed the money showed up there...how? The bank faerie?

I'm not finding anything on this, I think we can chalk it up to urban legend. However the argument for "not guilty by mental disease or defect" is just that, you were rendered, by virtue of a disease or defect. Not greed.

Disease? Wait, wait, wait. Wasn't insanity a psychological issue? Not a disease?

No, that was an example to illustrate just one point. We don't really know his intent. Not unless we're mind readers, or have had the chance to question him extensively.

You may be an attorney, prosecutor or defense lawyer, doesn't really matter which. But when intent becomes a factor, do you assign one to a person using facts of the case, but no questioning of the person?

We can question all we want, however I, like a jury, am allowed to make all reasonable inferences from the evidence presented. Now maybe he can offer a fair and reasonable explanation as to why he thought the money was his. Maybe he had a rich aunt on death's door and knew he was in the will and when the money showed up assumed the old bat had kicked it and he got his inheritance. I will admit that there are..possible options.

However, judging by his actions, and my own personal understanding, the reasonable inference I draw, is that by all reasonable likelihood, he knew the money wasn't his and took it anyway.

Yeah, they told him it was his. And he damned well knew they were wrong. They made a mistake, he knew it was a mistake. They didn't trick him, or coerce him, or manipulate him, or threaten him or do anything to him that removed from him the ability to make an informed, concious, intelligent choice to take what he knew was not his.

You're acting stupid.

He knew they made a mistake... so he corrected them, I'll say that again, so you read it maybe, the man corrected the teller about the mistake.

The bank continued to insist that the money was his, the bank is liable for not checking account numbers and whatnot, not the guy, they didn't force him to take it, no, but he had no option other than to assume it was his after the bank told him that there was no mistake.

Disease? Wait, wait, wait. Wasn't insanity a psychological issue? Not a disease?

the "insanity plea" has changed over time. it is typically refered to as "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect". There are many diseases that can affect actions or impaire judgement. Alzheimers for example, or a brain tumor.

However, judging by his actions, and my own personal understanding, the reasonable inference I draw, is that by all reasonable likelihood, he knew the money wasn't his and took it anyway.

You are consistanly ignoring the fact, and a crucial fact it is, that the bank told him the money was his, and that there was no mistake... after he told the bank that some mistake must have happened.

Now, because I know you still did not understand what I just said, please re-read this post until my point sinks in.

but he had no option other than to assume it was his after the bank told him that there was no mistake.

Bullshit. I'm supposed to believe that he had NO OTHER OPTION than to trust the word of a bank teller that FIVE MILLION DOLLARS just magically appeared in his bank account with NO explanation? That he had NO other reasonable alternative but to believe a bank teller?

That the thought never occured to him to ask for a manager, or get a account statement and list of transactions, or, I don't know, double check the social security number to make sure it was actually his account they were looking at?

That because a bank teller told him it was his that all reason, rationality and basic common sense just flew out the door and he had no choice but to refuse to utlize even the most basic level of independant thinking and assume that five million dollars magically appeared in his bank account because a bank teller told him so?

Are you shitting me?

You are consistanly ignoring the fact, and a crucial fact it is, that the bank told him the money was his, and that there was no mistake... after he told the bank that some mistake must have happened.

Now, because I know you still did not understand what I just said, please re-read this post until my point sinks in.

I got you the first time, I ask you to read mine. Are you honestly trying to tell me that we can expect to believe that this man honestly believed the money that appeared magically with no explanation was his because a bank teller told him so, even after he did not ask for a bank statement, or a list of recent transactions or even make sure to double check the bank teller was even looking at his account?.

no, I'm not "ignoring" the fact that he was told it was his. I am rejecting your ludicrus and, quite frankly, inane argument that we should expect him to suddenly just accept that this money was his and not realize that in all likelihood there was an error, even if a bank teller told him otherwise.

It's bullshit.

Bullshit. I'm supposed to believe that he had NO OTHER OPTION than to trust the word of a bank teller that FIVE MILLION DOLLARS just magically appeared in his bank account with NO explanation? That he had NO other reasonable alternative but to believe a bank teller?

That the thought never occured to him to ask for a manager, or get a account statement and list of transactions, or, I don't know, double check the social security number to make sure it was actually his account they were looking at?

That because a bank teller told him it was his that all reason, rationality and basic common sense just flew out the door and he had no choice but to refuse to utlize even the most basic level of independant thinking and assume that five million dollars magically appeared in his bank account because a bank teller told him so?


His job isn't to make sure that the bank isn't wrongly handoung out million dollar bills. Thats the tellers job, ergo the bank is responsible.

They assured him that there was no mistake!

I will repeat this in every post until you decide to catch up, and understand it.

What if they made a mistake and instead emptied his account by accident? Not to mention the fact that the money put in to his account could have just as easily been taken from someone else by mistake.

then the bank would owe him money. bank fucks up, bank pays for their fuckup.

I got you the first time, I ask you to read mine. Are you honestly trying to tell me that we can expect to believe that this man honestly believed the money that appeared magically with no explanation was his because a bank teller told him so, even after he did not ask for a bank statement, or a list of recent transactions or even make sure to double check the bank teller was even looking at his account?.

no, I'm not "ignoring" the fact that he was told it was his. I am rejecting your ludicrus and, quite frankly, inane argument that we should expect him to suddenly just accept that this money was his and not realize that in all likelihood there was an error, even if a bank teller told him otherwise.

It's bullshit.

He did double-check

You know, when he said there must be some mistake... that is him saying "Hey this isn't my money, there is no reason (that I know of) for this money to be here."

"Nope, it is indeed your money." Said the teller cheerfully.

He did realize there was an error, because he told the teller there must be soem form of error. When I go to the bank, I swipe my card, to verify my account is mine, if some money comes to me, from the bank, and I suggest it is an error, to whichc they respond it is indeed, not an error, I will assume it is... wait for it not an error.

They assured him that there was no mistake!

then the bank would owe him money. bank fucks up, bank pays for their fuckup.

Does no one else grasp the complete simplicity of this?

It's not like he didn't say anything, and spent all the money, he tried to rectify the mistake, but it turns out that there was no mistake (well, there was, but he wouldn't've known it, the bank assured him there was no mistake).

That the thought never occured to him to ask for a manager, or get a account statement and list of transactions, or, I don't know, double check the social security number to make sure it was actually his account they were looking at?

why should that be his responsibility? he did more than he is obligated to by even asking if they were sure it was his.

His job isn't to make sure that the bank isn't wrongly handoung out million dollar bills.

Oh yes it is. If you take money that you reasonably believe is not yours, that's theft.

They assured him that there was no mistake!

I will repeat this in every post until you decide to catch up, and understand it.[/QUOTE]

You can keep repeating that until you're blue in the face, it doesn't change a damn thing. I don't care if the bank teller told him it was no mistake. He should have, as any reasonable person would have that the teller was wrong.

There should have been giant fucking alarms going off in this guys head screaming "ERROR! ERROR! ERROR!" when he, as a man of ordinary means, was told he was 5 million dollars richer with no explanation what so ever.

The law requires us to behave like rational, reasonable people. And when a bank teller tells you that 5 million dollars just magically appears in your bank account, the only reasonable, rational position to take is that this bank teller is WRONG.

It was not reasonable, in any way shape or form, to assume that a bank teller telling him that he is 5 million dollars richer was right in saying that. He had a dozen ways to verify this. he chose to take the money. To argue that it was reasonable for him to assume that 5 million dollars just...showed up because a bank teller told him to is an indefensible position.

No reasonable person in that position should have assumed that this was accurate. And I highly doubt he did either.

Bullshit. I'm supposed to believe that he had NO OTHER OPTION than to trust the word of a bank teller that FIVE MILLION DOLLARS just magically appeared in his bank account with NO explanation? That he had NO other reasonable alternative but to believe a bank teller?

That the thought never occured to him to ask for a manager, or get a account statement and list of transactions, or, I don't know, double check the social security number to make sure it was actually his account they were looking at?

That because a bank teller told him it was his that all reason, rationality and basic common sense just flew out the door and he had no choice but to refuse to utlize even the most basic level of independant thinking and assume that five million dollars magically appeared in his bank account because a bank teller told him so?

Are you shitting me?

...unless the thought process was:

w00t, President Mobutu's financial secretary came through! And people said it was just a scam, ha!

...unless the thought process was:

w00t, President Mobutu's financial secretary came through! And people said it was just a scam, ha!

I'm waiting for my several million dollars as we speak, hold on, maybe it jsut came in, let me check my online account.

Huh, thats weird, the bank says my account is empty... hmmm, their site must be down for repairs. *nods*

:D

Oh yes it is. If you take money that you reasonably believe is not yours, that's theft.

i find a quarter on the ground and pick it up. theft?

why should that be his responsibility?

Because the law requires us to behave like reasonable people and when 5 million dollars shows up reasonable people should be expected to take steps to make sure that this is accurate.

he did more than he is obligated to by even asking if they were sure it was his.

On the contrary, when 5 million dollars magically shows up with no explanation, a reasonable person standard obligates us to do a whole fuck load more than ask "are ya sure?"

i find a quarter on the ground and pick it up. theft?

Of course, because you knew that money didn't belong to you.

You are the worst person ever to exist ever.

Oh wait, that's Neo Arts stance, not mine.

*phew*

i find a quarter on the ground and pick it up. theft?

Depends. What you are describing is a situation of "finding lost or abandoned property" In some states finding lost property is permissible, and it's not theft, since it was lost property. However that's not what happened here. Not even close.

On the other hand, multiple states have enacted statutes that require a finder to report and/or relinquish the found property to local authorities, publish the find in a local publication, and wait a statutorily proscribed time period prior to asserting ownership. And if you find yourself in one of those states, then technically...yup, it's theft.

He should have, as any reasonable person would have that the teller was wrong.

He did. I will now ignore everything you have to say from this point on, as it is apparent you are just going to continue to froth the same crap over and over again without critically examining the issue.

Also, I find it improbable that I will become blue in the face from hitting *Ctrl "v"*

Of course, because you knew that money didn't belong to you.

Oh wait, that's Neo Arts stance, not mine.

It should be your stance. In many states, that's exactly correct.

He did.

You're right, he probably did assume the teller was wrong, and took the money anyway, that's the problem.


I will now ignore everything you have to say from this point on, as it is apparent you are just going to continue to froth the same crap over and over again without critically examining the issue.

Also, I find it improbable that I will become blue in the face from hitting *Ctrl "v"*

I find it extraordinarily amusing that you accuse me of "saying the same crap over and over again" and yet admit that your entire debate consists of copy/pasting the same wrong thing you said the first time.

Any reasonable person would have assumed that this was an error, even after the teller told him otherwise. Any reasonable person would have assumed the teller was wrong. Any reasonable person would have taken steps beyond simply asking a second time to ensure it was his BEFORE taking it out of the account.

he did not. He failed to act in a way that we expect reasonable people behave. He took what he knew, or should have known, was most likely not his. That's illegal.

Because the law requires

what the law says is always irrelevant

behave like reasonable people and when 5 million dollars shows up reasonable people should be expected to take steps to make sure that this is accurate.

reason dictates that i take the money and run. really.

On the contrary, when 5 million dollars magically shows up with no explanation, a reasonable person standard obligates us to do a whole fuck load more than ask "are ya sure?"

how? why? how is it in my interest to give away free money that comes to me due to some big financial institution fucking up? the fuckup is theirs, the responsibility is theirs. what would be reasonable about making me responsible for cleaning up their messes for them?

why should that be his responsibility? he did more than he is obligated to by even asking if they were sure it was his.

I only disagree in that I think it was right of him to verify, people make mistakes, and occasional ones are understandable, perhaps she misspoke (unlikely though that seems about such a large number).

He fulfilled his obligation by attempting to correct the teller as far as he was informed.

I don't know about you but I would trust a bank teller who is looking at a screen with my account on it, when she says I have money... why do I suddenly have $5 mil.? I don't know, and over the course of me paying off debts, and buying real estate, no doubt I would look into it. Aside form makin sure they have the right person though, I wouldn't immediately do more. They should know enough to run thorough checks when someone says that $5 mil. isn't theirs.

Depends. What you are describing is a situation of "finding lost or abandoned property" In some states finding lost property is permissible, and it's not theft, since it was lost property. However that's not what happened here. Not even close.

On the other hand, multiple states have enacted statutes that require a finder to report and/or relinquish the found property to local authorities, publish the find in a local publication, and wait a statutorily proscribed time period prior to asserting ownership. And if you find yourself in one of those states, then technically...yup, it's theft.

the state doesn't define theft.

reason dictates that i take the money and run. really.

:D

Where absolutely no ownership can be ascertained - where it's reasonable to assume it's discarded, there's provision in the law to keep it.

I think if you find a packet of $1, 000 on the ground, you have a duty to take it to the police and, after a reasonable time, if it's not claimed, you get that money - I'm hazy as to the specifics and this is from British Law but I'm 99% certain that's the case.

Since he told them it wasn't his money and since they more or less pushed it off onto him, the bank needs to foot the bill and the guy should be left alone. After all, the bank was the one that screwed up and the guy was even honest enough to tell them they did.

Since he told them it wasn't his money and since they more or less pushed it off onto him, the bank needs to foot the bill and the guy should be left alone. After all, the bank was the one that screwed up and the guy was even honest enough to tell them they did.

Yep.

what the law says is always irrelevant

I'm sure he will be oh so successful arguing that in court.

reason dictates that i take the money and run. really.

I would argue that conducting crimes is rarely a "reasonable" choice.


how? why? how is it in my interest to give away free money that comes to me due to some big financial institution fucking up? the fuckup is theirs, the responsibility is theirs. what would be reasonable about making me responsible for cleaning up their messes for them?

Because we are required to behave like ordinary people, and when all reason tells you the money isn't yours, you are not allowed to take it.

Frankly, if you want to go off on some tangental moralistic perspective, go right ahead. But I personally prefer to restrict my conversation to practical situations. Go ahead and argue that "the state does not define theft".

I'll be over here, in the real world.

Since he told them it wasn't his money and since they more or less pushed it off onto him, the bank needs to foot the bill and the guy should be left alone.

"Pushed it on him"? bullshit, they didn't put a check in his hands. The didn't tell him "take this two million dollars and get the hell out". He chose to withdraw 2 million dollars he knew was not his

After all, the bank was the one that screwed up and the guy was even honest enough to tell them they did.

If he were honest he wouldn't have taken money that was not his in the first place.

Frankly, if you want to go off on some tangental moralistic perspective, go right ahead. But I personally prefer to restrict my conversation to practical situations. Go ahead and argue that "the state does not define theft".

I'll be over here, in the real world.

"Is it right to kill someone?"

"People kill others."

"Yes, I know. But the fact that people do it does not mean that it is right."

"Frankly, if you want to go off on some tangential moralistic perspective, go right ahead. But I personally prefer to restrict my conversation to practical situations."

;)

And ya know, if he wants to argue that he honestly and truly believed that he just plain forgot that he had deposited 5 million into a bank account, let him try.

What if he had done as Kat suggested? Namely let the interest soar then hand the cash back, keeping the interest?

"Is it right to kill someone?"

"People kill others."

"Yes, I know. But the fact that people do it does not mean that it is right."

"Frankly, if you want to go off on some tangential moralistic perspective, go right ahead. But I personally prefer to restrict my conversation to practical situations."

;)

and if that in any way related to the conversation at hand, you'd have a point. It doesn't, so you don't. Instead we get trotted out nonsense like "the state doesn't define theft" when "theft" is a legal construct, entirely defined by those who construct the constructs.

What if he had done as Kat suggested? Namely let the interest soar then hand the cash back, keeping the interest?

Wouldn't work, as the institution that gave him the interest would most likely sue him to get it back. it's a long held legal maxim that you can not profit from your criminal activities. If taking the money was theft, and therefore criminal, he would not be allowed, legally, to profit from that money.

Therefore, since he had no right to profit on his criminal activities, anyone who did give him profit would be fully within their legal rights to get it back.

and if that in any way related to the conversation at hand, you'd have a point.

Thank you for conceding that I have a point.

The question here is not "What is the law?" If the question is a legal one at all, it is "What should the law be?" And the former question has no bearing on the latter.

Instead we get trotted out nonsense like "the state doesn't define theft" when "theft" is a legal construct, entirely defined by those who construct the constructs.

Equivocation.

Yes, theft has a specific legal meaning, according to the law. But it also has a moral meaning: unjustly depriving someone of rightfully-owned property. It's the moral meaning that's relevant to the question of "should." And talking about what the law says is irrelevant to that.

Why?They told him it was his. They INSISTED on it.
Isn't this what FDIC insurance is for?

Me, I would not have spent it -- but would have placed some in a money market account and let it accrue interest -- then returned the money but kept the interest as payment for hanging onto their money. ;)

So youd be like a bank for a bank. Hmm sounds like you might get assasinated soon.

It's simple, the man commited no illegal activity.

The bank should pay for it's error, he shouldn't pay because the teller can't read an acocunt number.

Yes, theft has a specific legal meaning, according to the law. But it also has a moral meaning: unjustly depriving someone of rightfully-owned property. It's the moral meaning that's relevant to the question of "should." And talking about what the law says is irrelevant to that.

What the law says in regards to the question of "who should go to jail" is entirely relevant.

In fact, I'll say it's the only relevant question.

It's simple, the man commited no illegal activity.

yes, he did.

What the law says in regards to the question of "who should go to jail" is entirely relevant.

In fact, I'll say it's the only relevant question.

of course it isn't. even assuming the justice of prison, the law has nothing relevant to say about who should go there. at best it provides a (partial) explanation of why someone did get put there.

What the law says in regards to the question of "who should go to jail" is entirely relevant.

Well, that's a disputable position that makes a whole series of assumptions about the nature of the rule of law, and what it means for society to judge someone. (Quite aside from the whole moral question of political obedience, don't we have a choice as to whether or not to enforce a law in a particular instance?)

Furthermore, you're assuming a certain interpretation of that question that may not at all hold. In a broader sense of "should", one that abstracts from the specific legal circumstances of the act, we can ask "Should he go to jail?" in the sense of "As a society, should we have laws that send him to jail?"

Indeed, generally that's exactly the sense people mean.

Click Stand;13469988']It is a reasonable choice whenever convenience or benefit exceeds risk of punishment. This happens much more than "rarely", such as J-walking or stealing peoples garbage (at least that's what I think my neighbors are doing).

perhaps, but then again, even with that in mind, one questions whether he expected he could get away with stealing 2 million dollars from a bank.

I would argue that conducting crimes is rarely a "reasonable" choice.


It is a reasonable choice whenever convenience or benefit exceeds risk of punishment. This happens much more than "rarely", such as J-walking or stealing peoples garbage (at least that's what I think my neighbors are doing).

perhaps, but then again, even with that in mind, one questions whether he expected he could get away with stealing 2 million dollars from a bank.

Panama is very nice this time of year...

I don't have the energy to browse through all seven pages (Atma's been out of it a lot lately), but I've heard multiple reports of people going on a spending spree when they thought they won the lottery (but didn't). Snopes doesn't seem to have an entry on thenm, but it does have http://www.snopes.com/love/betrayal/lottery.asp

But I still warrant compensation from the seller. If I'm deprived of the PS3, I should get fair market value ofthe PS3 in return.
then that becomes a civil matter, not a criminal one. I was asking you about the criminality of your actions.
I should, yes.
Then you'd be wrong.


It's simple, the man commited no illegal activity.
The bank should pay for it's error, he shouldn't pay because the teller can't read an acocunt number.
Yes he did commit an illegal activity. Regardless of whether he truly thought the money was his or not, the simple fact he took money that wasn't his is a criminal act.
you ppl shd look up the M'Naghten Rules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%27Naghten_Rules), mens rea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea), reasonable person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person), Willful blindness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willful_blindness) and Criminal negligence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence).
especially these parts:
(A) reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded.
...criminal negligence is a 'misfeasance' or 'nonfeasance', where the fault lies in the failure to foresee and so allow otherwise avoidable dangers to manifest. In some cases this failure can rise to the level of willful blindness where the individual intentionally avoids adverting to the reality of a situation
note: intentionally avoids. It would be very easy to argue here that simply asking a couple of times, "Is this mine?" then 'accepting' the answer before withdrawing $2 mill and spending it is criminal negligence. What he did was not enough to ascertain it was his. It was at the level of, "If I ask twice then I can assume and then I'll be safe".
It would be akin to me asking you to deliver a package for me. You ask me what's in it and I say, "Nothing much. Don't worry". Cops find that it's class A drugs. whoops. But hey, you can't be done, right? You didn't know what was in there, after all.
wrong. Simply asking me isn't enough. A reasonable person is expected to have fully made sure what they were doing wasn't criminal. This guy didn't. Asking the bank teller a couple of times isn't enough. He knew the money wasn't his, regardless of what the teller told him. The onus was on him to fully ascertain that whose money it was, by checking SSN, asking to speak to the bank manager, refusing to withdraw the money until it can be verified, etc etc.

Asking the bank teller a couple of times isn't enough. He knew the money wasn't his, regardless of what the teller told him. The onus was on him to fully ascertain that whose money it was, by checking SSN, asking to speak to the bank manager, refusing to withdraw the money until it can be verified, etc etc.

No, no, NO. Don't you understand? If a bank teller tells you that the five million dollars that mysteriously appeared in your bank account was yours without any explanation, you have no choice but to take his word for it.

After all, do we really want to live in a society that says that when someone who has five million dollars just...show up without explanation in his bank account that he's actually expected to make absolutly sure it's his? That we expect him to take five minutes out of his very important life (he's a millionare now, after all) to actually confirm that he's not stealing someone's money before we let him withdraw millions of dollars and go on a spending spree?

That we want to define it as "reasonable" that someone take more effort than asking a minimum wage employee with a highschool education whether or not the five million dollars he suddenly found in his bank account are actually his?

Fuck that shit. After all, if he didn't take the teller's word for it, and actually made sure it was his before spending it, that would mean he thought the bank teller was a liar, and that might hurt his feelings. And not hurting the bank teller's feelings is, as we all know, far more important than not stealing five million dollars from someone.

No, no, NO. Don't you understand? If a bank teller tells you that the five million dollars that mysteriously appeared in your bank account was yours without any explanation, you have no choice but to take his word for it.

no. you most certainly could refuse to take it. but that would be mindbogglingly silly of you. you have no obligation to make sure the bank does its job, no duty to clean up their messes for them. there is no wrong committed by you if you take advantage of the banks' retardation.

Furthermore, you're assuming a certain interpretation of that question that may not at all hold. In a broader sense of "should", one that abstracts from the specific legal circumstances of the act, we can ask "Should he go to jail?" in the sense of "As a society, should we have laws that send him to jail?"

Indeed, generally that's exactly the sense people mean.

yeah, it would be rather strange if people went around asking narrowly factual questions about what the law actually says in cases like this. especially in forums like this.

no. you most certainly could refuse to take it. but that would be mindbogglingly silly of you. you have no obligation to make sure the bank does its job, no duty to clean up their messes for them. there is no wrong committed by you if you take advantage of the banks' retardation.

Agreed.

It's the bank's fault for allowing person A access to person B's money.

The bank assured this man that the money was his, ergo, responsibility falls on the bank.

The teller was responsible for acting a manner fitting with the circumstances: "Gee, this guy claims to not have $5.8 mil. in his account, I better run his account number again, since that seems like a fairly large amount of money to not know about, let's see here, oh, they have the same name, well that is a comic mix-up, but no harm done, my apologies sir."

Rather than: "Gee, this guy claims to not have $5.8 mil. in his account, he must be a moron... I can't be wrong at all. Yes sir, there is no mistake, of course it's your money."

EDIT: How did this happen in the first place? Every bank I know of runs off of account numbers, not names.

there is no wrong committed by you if you take advantage of the banks' retardation.

Other than, you know, taking two million dollars that doesn't belong to you.

But hey, what's a few million dollars between friends. I mean...why are we making a federal case out of this?

Oh...right...the massive theft...

Agreed.

It's the bank's fault for allowing person A access to person B's money.

Certainly it was.

And it was Person A's fault for taking money he knew wasn't his. Which is the only point that matters. I don't really care that the bank fucked up, that doesn't mitigate things in any way.

he took two million dollars that did not belong to him. Worse, he took two million dollars that he knew did not belong to him. You can defend that all you want, but at the end of that day that's all that was. He took money he knew did not belong to him.

So if you want to defend the actions of a criminal, go ahead, I won't stop you. It does however speak a hell of a lot to your character though.

yeah, it would be rather strange if people went around asking narrowly factual questions about what the law actually says in cases like this. especially in forums like this.

yes, heaven forbid people actually take an honest inquiry into situations they don't know about and make effort to educate themselves on various topics.

Hell, what am I thinking, this is NSG after all...

Wouldn't work, as the institution that gave him the interest would most likely sue him to get it back. it's a long held legal maxim that you can not profit from your criminal activities. If taking the money was theft, and therefore criminal, he would not be allowed, legally, to profit from that money.

Therefore, since he had no right to profit on his criminal activities, anyone who did give him profit would be fully within their legal rights to get it back.

I'd say he could argue that he wasn't stealing the money, he was putting it into safe keeping (and deserved that interest as payment for looking after the money like that) because the original bank -- by wrongfully insisting that it was his -- had clearly proven themselves incapable of looking after it properly...

entrapment by definition is to create a situation in which an otherwise honest person would be induced to do what he would not normally do.

Do you support theft?

If the bank is insisting that the money belongs to the person who is withdrawing it - over the persons objections mind - I don't consider it to be theft.

Normally, this person would not take money that isn't his. Which is why he tried to correct the bank's error. But the bank insisted the money is his. Which he then used.


As a matter of fact I would liken it to the multiple times that I've received to much change from a store, went back to correct them, and was told to keep the money.

Think about it. Say you're buying groceries and the cashier accidentally gives you two $10 back instead of one $10. She immediately notices the mistake and asks you for the extra $10 back. Do you honestly think that you have full legal right to that extra $10 because they made an error?
Good luck arguing that to the police.

If she immediately notices and asks for it back she gets it back. If I notice later when i get out to the car, yay me I have $10 extra. I base this on the multiple times I've gone back in this situation and been told to just keep it.

Other than, you know, taking two million dollars that doesn't belong to you.

what is the wrong committed by the receiver of the cash? you keep asserting that it is wrong to take money you know isn't yours, but this is clearly false in the case of finding a quarter on the ground. it is probably morally better to put up "did you lose your quarter?" signs around the neighborhood or whatever, but it isn't wrong to not do so. does this wrongness you propose accrue with quantity or something? are we supposed to have a special duty to look out for the poor naive bank as we would a child? what?

The law requires us to behave like rational, reasonable people. And when a bank teller tells you that 5 million dollars just magically appears in your bank account, the only reasonable, rational position to take is that this bank teller is WRONG.

It was not reasonable, in any way shape or form, to assume that a bank teller telling him that he is 5 million dollars richer was right in saying that. He had a dozen ways to verify this. he chose to take the money. To argue that it was reasonable for him to assume that 5 million dollars just...showed up because a bank teller told him to is an indefensible position.

No reasonable person in that position should have assumed that this was accurate. And I highly doubt he did either.

Who decides what is "rational and reasonable"? If it's decided by what the majority of the populous would do I think your argument is fucked. If it isn't then I'd like to know who the arbitrator of rational and reasonable is.

How did this happen in the first place? Every bank I know of runs off of account numbers, not names.

yeah, seriously. i wish to do my banking there, as i am clearly likely to come out ahead on the deal.

Because we are required to behave like ordinary people, and when all reason tells you the money isn't yours, you are not allowed to take it.

An ordinary person on finding five million dollars in their account does exactly what this man did.

An ordinary person on finding five million dollars in their account does exactly what this man did.

or at least it is well within the range of normal responses. i assume there are enough weirdos out there who would refuse to touch it that they also get included in the category of 'ordinary persons'.

note: intentionally avoids. It would be very easy to argue here that simply asking a couple of times, "Is this mine?" then 'accepting' the answer before withdrawing $2 mill and spending it is criminal negligence. What he did was not enough to ascertain it was his.
It wasn't possible for him to ascertain whether the money was his. The bank's internal processes are secret; how the mony came to be "his" according to the teller isn't knowable to him.
A reasonable person is expected to have fully made sure what they were doing wasn't criminal.
By that standard I can never take money out of the bank unless I'm maintaining my own records and double-checking the bank's math every single day.
He knew the money wasn't his, regardless of what the teller told him.
He did not know that. He could not have known that.
The onus was on him to fully ascertain that whose money it was, by checking SSN, asking to speak to the bank manager, refusing to withdraw the money until it can be verified, etc etc.
Again, by this reasoning, electronic banking is always illegal.

yes, he did.
Yes he did, but what he did shouldn't be illegal.

Yes he did, but what he did shouldn't be illegal.

So it should be legal to take other peoples' money without their permission?

So it should be legal to take other peoples' money without their permission?

I thought the whole issue was that the bank told him he did have permission

So it should be legal to take other peoples' money without their permission?

The bank repeatedly told him it was his money.

It wasn't possible for him to ascertain whether the money was his. The bank's internal processes are secret; how the mony came to be "his" according to the teller isn't knowable to him.

By that standard I can never take money out of the bank unless I'm maintaining my own records and double-checking the bank's math every single day.

He did not know that. He could not have known that.

Again, by this reasoning, electronic banking is always illegal.
It's called common sense, folks. I know that's an archaic term, but it means that one is able to make sound judgements not based on specialized knowledge. In other words, if one doesn't have a reasonable expectation of finding a gob of money in one's account, it probably doesn't belong to the finder.

yes, heaven forbid people actually take an honest inquiry into situations they don't know about and make effort to educate themselves on various topics.

There are lots of things I don't know about. That doesn't mean it's ordinary (or even reasonable) behavior for me to investigate all of them.

Since neither I nor any of us in this thread are tasked with deciding what to do in this case, "what the law says" is not relevant. We may be curious, but if we are we are generally more explicit about our intentions. In ordinary usage, "Should this person go to jail for x?" is not a question about what the law says--that's why we can and do ask questions like "Should people go to jail for having abortions?" even though we already know, more or less, what the law says on the subject.

That's not reveling in ignorance. It is recognizing and abiding by what is a basic duty in a democratic society: trying to come up with a good answer as to what kind of society we should live in.

(Furthermore, the question of "should" is the far more interesting one. Who cares what the law says?)

So it should be legal to take other peoples' money without their permission?

he took his money. the only one that took money that wasn't theirs was the bank, and they should pay for their error.

you keep asserting that it is wrong to take money you know isn't yours, but this is clearly false in the case of finding a quarter on the ground. it is probably morally better to put up "did you lose your quarter?" signs around the neighborhood or whatever, but it isn't wrong to not do so.

But this reasoning weakens as the value of the money gets non-trivial.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with keeping a quarter you find on the ground... but nobody really cares about a quarter anyway. What about $100? $500? $1000? At some point--and surely a point long before five million--we begin to note that somebody is going to miss the money, and as the values get larger so does our obligation to do something about it.

Is it a matter of the other person's responsibility? Sure, in a certain sense the owner is responsible for losing the money... but it is unreasonable to expect perfection from others, and in any case irresponsibility (leaving the car doors unlocked?) is no excuse for theft. The mere fact that someone made a mistake, even a mistake the person reasonably should have avoided, does not entitle us to exploit it.

I'm not sure, though, that this reasoning transfers nicely to the bank case. Among other things, we have different expectations of, and obligations toward, institutions than we do towards individuals. If a bank puts money in someone's account, it might be reasonable to maintain that she should have the right to regard it as hers... at least if, like the person in the article, she has made basic attempts to correct the error and been informed that it is not an error at all.

But this reasoning weakens as the value of the money gets non-trivial.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with keeping a quarter you find on the ground... but nobody really cares about a quarter anyway. What about $100? $500? $1000? At some point--and surely a point long before five million--we begin to note that somebody is going to miss the money, and as the values get larger so does our obligation to do something about it.

certainly. but i am not seeing the necessary wrongness that neo art is claiming, and the thing he has explicitly put forth doesn't seem to hold as a universal principle.

I'm not sure, though, that this reasoning transfers nicely to the bank case. Among other things, we have different expectations of, and obligations toward, institutions than we do towards individuals. If a bank puts money in someone's account, it might be reasonable to maintain that she should have the right to regard it as hers... at least if, like the person in the article, she has made basic attempts to correct the error and been informed that it is not an error at all.

yeah, it seems to me, as implied in that post, that the sort of requirement some are putting on the individual is to treat a giant financial institution as a child, rather than a bunch of fucks out to screw you is they can get away with it. which seems fundamentally weird to me.

But this reasoning weakens as the value of the money gets non-trivial.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with keeping a quarter you find on the ground... but nobody really cares about a quarter anyway. What about $100? $500? $1000? At some point--and surely a point long before five million--we begin to note that somebody is going to miss the money, and as the values get larger so does our obligation to do something about it.

If I find it the ground with ID I assume it belongs to the person who's ID is with it and make a good faith effort to return it to them. If I find it with no ID it's mine. There is no way to ascertain it's previous owner and I'm not about to post fliers asking "the person who lost $1000" to contact me, I'd be swamped by calls from everyone who saw the fliers trying to get a free $1000.

he took his money. the only one that took money that wasn't theirs was the bank, and they should pay for their error.

No he didn't take his money, he took the money of someone who happened to have the same given and family names.

There is no way to ascertain it's previous owner and I'm not about to post fliers asking "the person who lost $1000" to contact me, I'd be swamped by calls from everyone who saw the fliers trying to get a free $1000.

Well, obviously there are all kinds of practical problems with trying to return the money. The point is that when it comes to that kind of money we are obligated to go to considerable lengths to return it. If all the available means won't work, we are excused from that obligation.

It the banks fault for enabling him to take the money. No punishment for either.

No he didn't take his money, he took the money of someone who happened to have the same given and family names.
The money was given to him by the bank. That's a gift. That makes it his money.

That the bank stole the money from someone else first isn't this guy's concern.

It's called common sense, folks. I know that's an archaic term, but it means that one is able to make sound judgements not based on specialized knowledge. In other words, if one doesn't have a reasonable expectation of finding a gob of money in one's account, it probably doesn't belong to the finder.
I'll follow common sense iff someone can define it for me.

As I explained, one cannot have a reasonable expectation ever of having money in one's account without reproducing all of the bank's arithmetic.

The money was given to him by the bank. That's a gift. That makes it his money.

That the bank stole the money from someone else first isn't this guy's concern.

Fail

An ordinary person on finding five million dollars in their account does exactly what this man did.

Which is entirely and utterly irrelevant to the question. I didn't ask whether an ordinary person would have taken it, that's not relevant to the issue.

Theft is defined as intentionally or with reckless disregard for its true ownership, taking something that does not belong to you.

The question is not "would a reasonable person have taken it". The question is, did this man know, or should he have known, with reasonable certainty, that the 2 million dollars he took was not his?

Would a reasonable person have assumed that the money is his based soley on the word of a bank teller without any other evidence or support? Would a reasonable person believed a bank teller when he was told that 5 million dollars mysteriously and wonderously appeared with no explanation?

And the answer to that, unequivicably, undeniably, is no. No one here would have believed that.

And anyone who says otherwise here is a liar.

The question is not "would a reasonable person have taken it". The question is, did this man know, or should he have known, with reasonable certainty, that the 2 million dollars he took was not his?
Certainty is binary. There are no measures of partial certainty.
Would a reasonable person have assumed that the money is his based soley on the word of a bank teller without any other evidence or support?
Of course not. Nor would a reasonable person believe that the money he got from an ATM was his prior to his receiving it.

A reasonable person would not hold any belief regarding the ownership of any of the oney in the bank unless he'd been carefully tracking it himself (something I don't think you're asking all banking customers to do). A reasonable person would go to the bank and ask for money, and if it is freely given to him the reasonable person would identify exactly what has taken place as a voluntary exchange.
Would a reasonable person believed a bank teller when he was told that 5 million dollars mysteriously and wonderously appeared with no explanation?
Again, no. A reasonable person doesn't jump to conclusions like that.
And the answer to that, unequivicably, undeniably, is no. No one here would have believed that.
But nor would a reasonable person believe the opposite. Operating from a position of uncertainty, a reasonable person would have no evidence for ownership of the $5 million either way.

That's nonsense. If one is used to receiving $5 million sums, then there might be some confusion. Typically, one knows exactly what amount to expect and when it should be deposited in one's account. To find a large and unexpected amount suddenly in that account should instantly be recognized as an error. No amount of hand-waving can make the converse true.
At what point is the amount so large that I must have known?

If you can't answer that question with a firm figure (or a formula for calculating it), then you're not basing your identification of $5 million as sufficiently large on any sort of objective criteria. You're using a standard of "I know it when I see it", and that's never acceptable.

I'll follow common sense iff someone can define it for me.

As I explained, one cannot have a reasonable expectation ever of having money in one's account without reproducing all of the bank's arithmetic.
That's nonsense. If one is used to receiving $5 million sums, then there might be some confusion. Typically, one knows exactly what amount to expect and when it should be deposited in one's account. To find a large and unexpected amount suddenly in that account should instantly be recognized as an error. No amount of hand-waving can make the converse true.

what is the wrong committed by the receiver of the cash? you keep asserting that it is wrong to take money you know isn't yours, but this is clearly false in the case of finding a quarter on the ground. it is probably morally better to put up "did you lose your quarter?" signs around the neighborhood or whatever, but it isn't wrong to not do so. does this wrongness you propose accrue with quantity or something? are we supposed to have a special duty to look out for the poor naive bank as we would a child? what?
you can't compare the two. Finding money on the ground is different because it comes under a different set of laws, ergo:
Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost%2C_mislaid%2C_and_abandoned_property)
Property is generally deemed to have been lost if it is found in a place where the true owner likely did not intend to set it down, and where it is not likely to be found by the true owner. At common law, the finder of a lost item could claim the right to possess the item against any other person in the world except the true owner.
Which, as you can see, doesn't cover this particular case in any way whatsoever.

As for your statement, "does this wrongness you propose accrue with quantity or something?", you're correct. If I find $1 on the pavement then I'm fully entitled to keep it without bothering to ask anyone. If I find an envelope containing $5000 I am legally obliged to attempt to find the original owner (usually by contacting the police, handing it over to them and letting them search for the owner. If the owner fails to appear within a certain time limit, then it is legally mine).
If I fail to do so, I am stealing.
I failed at fulfilling my basic legal obligations of ascertaining true ownership of the money. Therefore I am at fault. Much like the guy in the OP. He did not do enough to ascertain that the money was not his. Why is that so hard for you people to understand?

you can't compare the two. Finding money on the ground is different because it comes under a different set of laws, ergo:
Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost%2C_mislaid%2C_and_abandoned_property)

Which, as you can see, doesn't cover this particular case in any way whatsoever.

As for your statement, "does this wrongness you propose accrue with quantity or something?", you're correct. If I find $1 on the pavement then I'm fully entitled to keep it without bothering to ask anyone. If I find an envelope containing $5000 I am legally obliged to attempt to find the original owner (usually by contacting the police, handing it over to them and letting them search for the owner. If the owner fails to appear within a certain time limit, then it is legally mine).
If I fail to do so, I am stealing.
I failed at fulfilling my basic legal obligations of ascertaining true ownership of the money. Therefore I am at fault. Much like the guy in the OP. He did not do enough to ascertain that the money was not his. Why is that so hard for you people to understand?

legality is irrelevant, unless we are specifically discussing narrow tactical questions.

why should i have an obligation to make sure that the giant financial institution isn't retardedly giving away free money to me?

It wasn't possible for him to ascertain whether the money was his. The bank's internal processes are secret; how the money came to be "his" according to the teller isn't knowable to him.
yes it is. Upon seeing the amount in his a/c, he could (and did) inform the bank teller. Upon being told the a/c was his, he could have said, "Are you certain? I don't have that much money please recheck"
Then, if she still insisted it was his, he could (read legally obliged to) said, "There is no way that I have that much money in my account, please check the SSN and bank a/c details again."
"I wish to speak the Bank manager to find out what is going on."
"Has there been a massive deposit made in my a/c recently? Because I did not have that much money when I last checked my a/c."
"There must be an error. I was not expecting this much money. I'll leave it for a week while I, and your bank, finds out what exactly has happened."

In other words, he should have done all the things that a reasonable person should have done in ascertaining that the money was indeed his. He did not. ergo, he is guilty of stealing. It is that simple.

By that standard I can never take money out of the bank unless I'm maintaining my own records and double-checking the bank's math every single day.

He did not know that. He could not have known that.

Again, by this reasoning, electronic banking is always illegal.
now you're just being pedantic and, frankly, pathetic.
There's a difference between finding you've got a couple of dollars more in your account than you expected and finding you've got $5,000,000 more than you should.
If you can't see the difference between the two numbers, I suggest you to do some remedial mathematic courses. Also, financial accounting is not a career I'd recommend for you.

legality is irrelevant, unless we are specifically discussing narrow tactical questions.

why should i have an obligation to make sure that the giant financial institution isn't retardedly giving away free money to me?
Because it is the LAW. Legality is very relevant here. And it is not a narrow tactical question. He did not do enough to ascertain the money was his. Therefore he is guilty of committing a crime. The onus was on him to fully ascertain that the money was his.

Much the same way that if a man in a pub sells you a PS3 for $100 which he tells you it's not stolen (but is in fact). His proclamation is not enough. The burden is on you to fully confirm it is indeed legit. Simply asking the seller, "Is it stolen?" is not enough. By buying the (stolen) PS3 you are committing a crime (receiving stolen goods).

I think that Monopoly very clearly answers this question. When there is a bank error in your favor you sit back, smoke a cigar and spend some cash! C'mon people, this isn't that difficult.

Because it is the LAW.

come on man, you don't actually believe the law is ever relevant outside of narrow tactical questions. nobody does. either the law is just, in which case we should do what it says because it is just, or the law is unjust and should be broken/changed/ignored.

Much the same way that if a man in a pub sells you a PS3 for $100 which he tells you it's not stolen (but is in fact). His proclamation is not enough. The burden is on you to fully confirm it is indeed legit. Simply asking the seller, "Is it stolen?" is not enough. By buying the (stolen) PS3 you are committing a crime (receiving stolen goods).

and if best buy is selling it?

I think that Monopoly very clearly answers this question. When there is a bank error in your favor you sit back, smoke a cigar and spend some cash! C'mon people, this isn't that difficult.

http://www.wausonline.com/images/misc/monopoly.jpg

In other words, he should have done all the things that a reasonable person should have done in ascertaining that the money was indeed his. He did not. ergo, he is guilty of stealing. It is that simple.


I'm sorry, but I think that a reasonable person would ask about the money once, maybe twice, and after that would accept the gift. Really, what reasonable person would try that hard to give the money back to the faceless organization?

http://www.wausonline.com/images/misc/monopoly.jpg

eeeeexxxxactly!

eeeeexxxxactly!

This is closer.

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/5023132b54.jpg

At what point is the amount so large that I must have known?

If you can't answer that question with a firm figure (or a formula for calculating it), then you're not basing your identification of $5 million as sufficiently large on any sort of objective criteria. You're using a standard of "I know it when I see it", and that's never acceptable.
yes it is. It's called the Reasonable Person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) standard. The courts would look at your behaviour and decide whether you acted in the way a 'reasonable person' would have acted.
The reasonable person is not necessarily the "average person"; it is not a "democratic" measure. To predict the appropriate sense of responsibility and other standards of the reasonable person, "what is reasonable" has to be the primary question. (What the "average person" thinks or might do is irrelevant to a case concerning specialized technical knowledge, such as advanced mathematics.)
The reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. Such a person might do something extraordinary in certain circumstances, but whatever that person does or thinks is always "reasonable."

So finding your account has $10 more than you expected (said $10 due to bank error), withdrawing the lot and spending it is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The court would decide that you had no burden to prove that the extra $10 was indeed yours. That amount of money is so small that a reasonable person could assume they had simply made a mistake with their cheque-book balancing.

However, finding $5,000,000 more in your a/c is such a large amount that the Court would say a reasonable person has to do a helluva lot to fully determine that said monies is indeed theirs. They would ask, "Would a reasonable person, upon finding $5,000,000 dollars extra in their account, take the word of a bank teller that said money is theirs?" The answer of course, is NO.

Similarly, being told by the bank teller that everything in your account is your money might well be considered enough if you're $100 over (said extra a result of bank error). But it's not enough for $5 million.

And, of course, in the $10 and $100 case you would still have to pay back the error but you would not be convicted of committing a criminal offense (unless of course you refuse to pay it back).

If I find it the ground with ID I assume it belongs to the person who's ID is with it and make a good faith effort to return it to them. If I find it with no ID it's mine. There is no way to ascertain it's previous owner and I'm not about to post fliers asking "the person who lost $1000" to contact me, I'd be swamped by calls from everyone who saw the fliers trying to get a free $1000.
Or you could put up fliers saying "Large amount of cash was found recently. If it's yours contact .....". That way, when people ring up, you can ask them how much, where they were when they lost it, what was it in, what denominations etc etc. That way you can definitely work out if the caller is indeed the rightful owner of the cash.
Or you could just drop it off at the police station, fill in the appropriate forms and wait a few weeks. If no-one's come in to claim it, then it becomes rightfully and legally yours.

For an amount as large as $1000, you are legally obliged to do one of those two things to, btw. If you don't you are legally speaking stealing. Again, it comes down to what would a reasonable person do?

come on man, you don't actually believe the law is ever relevant outside of narrow tactical questions. nobody does. either the law is just, in which case we should do what it says because it is just, or the law is unjust and should be broken/changed/ignored.
How is this narrow? It's simply asking what would a reasonable person do in such a situation? It's obvious that the guy in the OP didn't do enough to fulfill that tenet.
What is so unjust about a law that says that upon finding a whopping large amount of money in your a/c the onus is on you to fully determine that said money is indeed yours? Furthermore, that 'Fully determine' means not just taking the word of a bank teller.

and if best buy is selling it?
Then you can reasonably assume that it isn't stolen. Again, it comes down to what a reasonable person would expect. A man in the pub selling a PS3 cheap, it is reasonable to assume it could be stolen and therefore it is reasonable to assume that you need to make a lot more effort to ascertain the legality of the item. Best Buy selling a PS3 cheap, it is reasonable to assume that it is not stolen because they are a huge multinational company and thus a lot, lot, lot less likely to be trading in stolen goods.

Likewise, finding a few dollars more in your a/c it is reasonable to assume you've made a mistake with your cheque-book balancing. Finding $5 million it is reasonable to assume that the bank has made an error and you need to do a whole lot more to determine whose money it is.
Why is that so hard for you people to understand?

Why is that so hard for you people to understand?

Because people on the internet want to try to pretend they have the balls to walk out of a bank with 2 million dollars in stolen money

Then you'd be wrong. A reasonable person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) is "is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded".

note 'aware of the law' and 'fair-minded'. It's perfectly acceptable to assume that a 'reasonable person' (in the legal definition) would know that withdrawing the money he knew wasn't his is a criminal offense. Further, that a 'reasonable person' would know that simply asking a bank teller a couple of times is not enough to determine ownership of so large an amount (but it might be for, say, $100). A reasonable, fair-minded, person would know they need to do a whole lot more before accepting that this large amount of money is theirs.
whatever, obviously the bank will get the money back, I don't know why you're getting so upset over this.

whatever, obviously the bank will get the money back, I don't know why you're getting so upset over this.

I'm not sure in any way how he is "getting upset" over anything. You made an error, and he corrected it.

I'm sorry, but I think that a reasonable person would ask about the money once, maybe twice, and after that would accept the gift. Really, what reasonable person would try that hard to give the money back to the faceless organization?
Then you'd be wrong. A reasonable person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) is "is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded".

note 'aware of the law' and 'fair-minded'. It's perfectly acceptable to assume that a 'reasonable person' (in the legal definition) would know that withdrawing the money he knew wasn't his is a criminal offense. Further, that a 'reasonable person' would know that simply asking a bank teller a couple of times is not enough to determine ownership of so large an amount (but it might be for, say, $100). A reasonable, fair-minded, person would know they need to do a whole lot more before accepting that this large amount of money is theirs.

Finding $5 million it is reasonable to assume that the bank has made an error

yup

and you need to do a whole lot more to determine whose money it is.

fuck no. why is it incumbent on me to figure out how the giant financial institution fucked up? and why should i fix their mistake? and why should i be punished for not doing so?

I'm not sure in any way how he is "getting upset" over anything. You made an error, and he corrected it.

I was trying to have a little bit of fun with this topic and they weren't. They got a bit defensive and I made my actual position known to them. Really, the situation is a bit surreal, I thought that playing a bit loose with the facts couldn't hurt "my side" of the argument. Most people would realize that I am not the official spokesperson of the "man keeps money" camp.

fuck no. why is it incumbent on me to figure out how the giant financial institution fucked up? and why should i fix their mistake? and why should i be punished for not doing so?

Because you are aware of a considerable possibility that you are taking what doesn't belong to you.

And taking what doesn't belong to you is fundamentally in opposition to the basic principles of our society. You can try to lable the bank as some "giant financial institution" all you want. You can try to push the blame off the person who willingly chose to take someone else's property all you want. You can be as slimy and immoral as you want to be.

none of that changes that this man took what didn't belong to him, and he knew it. And if you need it explained to you why that is wrong, I don't think you belong in civil society.

Because you are aware of a considerable possibility that you are taking what doesn't belong to you.

except the bank gave it to me. it is mine. if they didn't believe it to be mine they wouldn't have done so. and, even better, they are going to wind up paying back the other person if that is where the money really came from - probably and then some. the only people who lose by me keeping the money are the people who fucked up. this seems like exactly the right thing to have happen.

I was trying to have a little bit of fun with this topic and they weren't. They got a bit defensive and I made my actual position known to them. Really, the situation is a bit surreal, I thought that playing a bit loose with the facts couldn't hurt "my side" of the argument. Most people would realize that I am not the official spokesperson of the "man keeps money" camp.
What it seems to me is that you (and many others here) are getting the terms 'reasonable person' and 'average person' mixed up.
True, the average person might well take the teller's word that that money is theirs. However the reasonable person would not.

Law is based on what the reasonable person would do, not the average person.

Most of the time they can be interchangeable, as usually what an average person would do in a particular situation is the same as what a reasonable person would do. But not always (as in this particular case and ongoing debate here shows). Hence the Courts use of the reasonable person standard.

Why do we use reasonable person then, if they're not always representative of the average person? Mainly because the definition of a reasonable person can be changed according to the case.
Before you cry, "Unfair, the Courts just change the definition to suit themselves!", consider the following scenario:

A doctor faxes in that a patient is to be given 10.0ccs of a particular drug. However, she doesn't mark the decimal point hard enough so the fax looks like it reads 100ccs. The other doctor on the receiving end reads the fax, gives the patient 100ccs and gets to watch them writher and die (100cc being a more-than-fatal dose for this particular drug).
Is he (the 2nd doctor) at fault?
Using the 'average person' tenet, probably not. An average person would not be expected to be aware that said dosage level is fatal.
However, in this case, because both were doctors, the Court would define a reasonable person as being "appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded AND possessing xx years of medical training and experience". In which case the Court would ask itself, "Would a medically trained reasonable person know that 100cc of this particular drug be fatal and if so, is it reasonable to expect them to query it before administing it?"
If the answer is yes to both, then the 2nd doctor is liable.

why should i have an obligation to make sure that the giant financial institution isn't retardedly giving away free money to me?

Thats easy... as Neo Art has repeatedly said without providing any further evidence: A reasonable person, who is rational should make every attempt to fix everyone elses problems all the time or they are criminals.

Because people on the internet want to try to pretend they have the balls to walk out of a bank with 2 million dollars in stolen money

Again use of the word stolen with a continuance of lack of support other than that the person is unreasonable, and therefore clearly a criminal.

The man walked out with money he was given, that was not stolen, mismanaged perhaps, but not stolen... unless we count the bank as the thief... in which case, I'm not sure how the man himself is a thief.

Before you give me the tired line of him not doing his part... he told the teller there must be some mistake... read that part again, because I'm sure that you've missed it, yet again. He informed the bank that there was a mistake... the bank responded that there was indeed no mistake. This guy had no obligation believe there was an error after the bank informed him that there was indeed no misake. Perhaps it's just my ability to reason, accompanied with logical evidence that I can arrive at such a different conclusion from your unbased 'reason'.

I seem to recall some lady spilling hot coffee in her lap and successfully suing McDonald's for millions of dollars.

I seem to recall states and large groups of individuals successfully suing large corporations for damages relating to repetitive daily choices (tobacco).

Where was this "reasonable person" legal fiction then?

In another matter:

How long did the poor bastard that succumbed to overwhelming temptation have access to this account?

How long did it take for the bank to realize that they had stolen someone's money and given it away to another person?


If someone steals a PS3 and sells it to me, then I am NOT guilty of stealing. At MOST it would be acceptance of stolen property. The person that stole it would be guilty of theft. Criminal charges and liability for the stolen money should fall upon the bank in a much more significant manner than on the poor bastard.



Is taking any part of $5 million that one knows to belong to someone else wrong? Yes.

Is being told that you have free access to $5 million tempting? YES!

I don't have much problem with the poor bastard being arrested.
He did wrong. Understandable, but wrong.

What I would like to see is the criminal negligence charges that have been leveled against the bank. I am certain that there aren't any, but banks have very proactive lawyers. It's what comes from having many millions of dollars at one's disposal.


___________________________

-If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?

Again use of the word stolen with a continuance of lack of support other than that the person is unreasonable, and therefore clearly a criminal.

The man walked out with money he was given, that was not stolen, mismanaged perhaps, but not stolen... unless we count the bank as the thief... in which case, I'm not sure how the man himself is a thief.

Before you give me the tired line of him not doing his part... he told the teller there must be some mistake... read that part again, because I'm sure that you've missed it, yet again. He informed the bank that there was a mistake... the bank responded that there was indeed no mistake. This guy had no obligation believe there was an error after the bank informed him that there was indeed no misake. Perhaps it's just my ability to reason, accompanied with logical evidence that I can arrive at such a different conclusion from your unbased 'reason'.
why did he have no further obligation? What legal standpoint do you take that from?
Before you spout of - yet again - about us not reading parts, you should remove the plank from thine own eye.
Specifically, the following posts where it was made extremely obvious just what a 'reasonable person' would be expected to do and, in addition, just what a 'reasonable person' is legally defined as:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13470181&postcount=127
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13472533&postcount=165
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13472560&postcount=167
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13472564&postcount=168
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13472617&postcount=175
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13472635&postcount=177
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13472659&postcount=181
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13472947&postcount=186

read those again and the links provided, slowly this time. For all our sakes. It stops you looking, well, uninformed to say the least. And it stops the intertubes from being blocked by your nonsensical ramblings.

*snip*

When the OP cites US law as the only basis for discussion, your point will be valid.

Until then, logic, and debatable notions of morality (and, indeed, the definition of theft) are valid points to mention.

This is a case where potential US law may actually contradict morality, or logic.

Though the law should be given some consideration, it is not the only consideration.

The long and short of the matter is, it is a grey area, the guy did no wrong because he did point out the mistake, now to what degree he pointed it out is debatable. It is a matter of him knowing the money wasn't his and spending it quite so rashly that puts him in the wrong. In a best case scenario if he stressed several times that there might be a mistake in his account and was still told the money was his, and he then proceeded to withdraw a sensible amount of cash as if it was his own hard earned money then the entire fault lies with the bank.

It is because he went and made a bunch of bad investments and spent a large amount of money on jewelry and cash gifts knowing full well the money was not his that i cannot side entirly with the man in question, however i don't feel he should be punished quite so severely so long as he and anyone he gave gifts to agree to return everything (obviously the money lost on the investments is a problem)

If i had been in the same position i would have been sure to insist more than once that my account had far to much money in it, and only then would i have taken some of it and probably invested it somewhere safe and kept the interest when i returned the cash, because i KNOW i would be caught out on it eventually and so it'd be best to agree to return it and say no harm done :P

When the OP cites US law as the only basis for discussion, your point will be valid.

Until then, logic, and debatable notions of morality (and, indeed, the definition of theft) are valid points to mention.

This is a case where potential US law may actually contradict morality, or logic.

Though the law should be given some consideration, it is not the only consideration.
So really you're arguing whether it's morally sound, rather than legally sound, for the man to keep the money. fair enough.
However, morality/logic/common sense would dictate that this guy knew the money in his account was not his.
morality/logic/common sense would dictate that because it was such a large amount of money that he should have done something a bit more than just asking the teller if it's his. At the very least asking the teller if there's been a sizeable deposit made into his a/c recently which would account for the extra millions.
On the face of it, because all he did was ask the teller, "you sure?" before drawing out $2 million, it twould appear to me that he knew the money wasn't his and thought that asking the teller would absolve him of the crime he was about to commit. Thus he wasn't acting in a moral way.
imo, when it comes to that much money it is extremely reasonable to do a bit more work in finding out the whys. Much like if I found $10 on the ground, I'd keep it and think nothing of doing so but if I found $1000 I would feel morally obliged to spend time and effort to find the true owner.

To use another example: Let's say you see me standing next to a brand new Ferrari, door open, keys in the ignition.
You say, "sweet car!"
I respond, "You can have it if you want it"
You: "What? This is yours?"
Me: "Yeah, sure it is. But you can have it."
Would you drive off in it?


btw, it's not just US law that applies here. afaik, this sort of thing would be covered by common law everywhere.

To use another example: Let's say you see me standing next to a brand new Ferrari, door open, keys in the ignition.
You say, "sweet car!"
I respond, "You can have it if you want it"
You: "What? This is yours?"
Me: "Yeah, sure it is. But you can have it."
Would you drive off in it?

If you're the owner of a company that sells cars, and I thought you were serious? Possibly.

Now, maybe you sold the car to a different guy the day before... but it's at least reasonable to argue that that's your problem, not mine.

To use another example: Let's say you see me standing next to a brand new Ferrari, door open, keys in the ignition.
You say, "sweet car!"
I respond, "You can have it if you want it"
You: "What? This is yours?"
Me: "Yeah, sure it is. But you can have it."
Would you drive off in it?

Curiously, this sort of thing is considered etiquette in certain middle east countries (the offering of something admired), and to refuse is to insult the one doing the offering.

So where does Mr Reasonable come into the picture?

Because you are aware of a considerable possibility that you are taking what doesn't belong to you.


That makes salvage laws a bit sticky then doesn't it? And eminent domain. If this condition is an absolute.

The money was given to him by the bank. That's a gift. That makes it his money.

That the bank stole the money from someone else first isn't this guy's concern.
Even if it was somehow a gift, then he profited from the bank's crime and would be getting sued by the rightful owner of the account shortly.
legality is irrelevant, unless we are specifically discussing narrow tactical questions.

why should i have an obligation to make sure that the giant financial institution isn't retardedly giving away free money to me?
By this reasoning it would be the bank's fault if you walked into the vault and took someone's diamonds from their safety deposit box. After all, why should it be your responsibility to make sure the giant financial institution has proper security?
The man walked out with money he was given, that was not stolen, mismanaged perhaps, but not stolen... unless we count the bank as the thief... in which case, I'm not sure how the man himself is a thief.
Well he knew the money wasn't his. The bank would have too, if they had known who he really was. They didn't though. Consider, if you asked me to hold your wallet for a minute while you go and do something and I gave it to someone I thought was you, did I just steal your wallet, or did the person who took the wallet knowing it wasn't theirs?

To use another example: Let's say you see me standing next to a brand new Ferrari, door open, keys in the ignition.
You say, "sweet car!"
I respond, "You can have it if you want it"
You: "What? This is yours?"
Me: "Yeah, sure it is. But you can have it."
Would you drive off in it?


btw, it's not just US law that applies here. afaik, this sort of thing would be covered by common law everywhere.

A similar example occured to me. If a valet brings you the wrong car, does it become yours?

If you're the owner of a company that sells cars, and I thought you were serious? Possibly.

Now, maybe you sold the car to a different guy the day before... but it's at least reasonable to argue that that's your problem, not mine.
in other words, you would do more to ascertain proof of ownership than just taking my word for it. Which is pretty much the crux of the whole matter of this OP here.

So really you're arguing whether it's morally sound, rather than legally sound, for the man to keep the money. fair enough.
However, morality/logic/common sense would dictate that this guy knew the money in his account was not his.
morality/logic/common sense would dictate that because it was such a large amount of money that he should have done something a bit more than just asking the teller if it's his. At the very least asking the teller if there's been a sizeable deposit made into his a/c recently which would account for the extra millions.
On the face of it, because all he did was ask the teller, "you sure?" before drawing out $2 million, it twould appear to me that he knew the money wasn't his and thought that asking the teller would absolve him of the crime he was about to commit. Thus he wasn't acting in a moral way.
imo, when it comes to that much money it is extremely reasonable to do a bit more work in finding out the whys. Much like if I found $10 on the ground, I'd keep it and think nothing of doing so but if I found $1000 I would feel morally obliged to spend time and effort to find the true owner.

To use another example: Let's say you see me standing next to a brand new Ferrari, door open, keys in the ignition.
You say, "sweet car!"
I respond, "You can have it if you want it"
You: "What? This is yours?"
Me: "Yeah, sure it is. But you can have it."
Would you drive off in it?


btw, it's not just US law that applies here. afaik, this sort of thing would be covered by common law everywhere.

Actually, that analogy isn't very good. Here, the bank wasn't claiming they were "giving" it to him. They were claiming it already belonged to him. In your scenario, he wouldn't know they were wrong. In THIS scenario, he did.

The example of the valet is a good one. Because someone makes mistake doesn't make it legal for you to take and use someone else's property. This man knew the property belonged to someone else and that the party telling him it didn't was in error. He didn't deprive the bank of THEIR money. He deprived the true owner of the true owner's money.

This man was not under the impression it was a gift. He was under the impression that he was gaining by receiving someone else's money due to a third party's mistake. Morally and legally he is entirely in the wrong.

If you're the owner of a company that sells cars, and I thought you were serious? Possibly.

Now, maybe you sold the car to a different guy the day before... but it's at least reasonable to argue that that's your problem, not mine.

Actually, in this case, there would be no maybe. You'd be fully aware that the car you are taken is, A, not be given to you, but instead being mistaken as yours, and, B, belongs to another party not involved in the transaction. This man knew both of those things. No maybe. No if. No but. He was not under the impression that no one would care or that when the mistake was rectified that they wouldn't want the money back. He then proceeded to spend money he couldn't return, compounding the issue. He's ethically and legall responsible.

in other words, you would do more to ascertain proof of ownership than just taking my word for it.

Right. Similarly, if the person were approached by a random person who said, "This $5 million dollar account is now yours", he would be obligated to ascertain proof that the random person actually owns the account. (For the sake of argument, I'm ignoring the fact that a non-owner probably wouldn't be able to give someone else access to it.)

But when the bank, not a random person but the institution actually tasked with keeping track of people's accounts, tells him that the money's his, the matter is different.

At what point is the amount so large that I must have known?

If you can't answer that question with a firm figure (or a formula for calculating it), then you're not basing your identification of $5 million as sufficiently large on any sort of objective criteria. You're using a standard of "I know it when I see it", and that's never acceptable.
How about any amount? You know what is going to arrive via direct deposit because you've already authorized it. Interest is explained on statements. Direct transfers to bank accounts just don't happen unless they are authorized.

If the question, "Where did that come from?" ever crosses your mind and the answer is "I don't know", the reaction shouldn't be to withdraw and spend it. No matter what the amount is and no matter what the bank says, it isn't yours until _you_ can account for it.

How about any amount? You know what is going to arrive via direct deposit because you've already authorized it. Interest is explained on statements. Direct transfers to bank accounts just don't happen unless they are authorized.

Well, I would say not any amount. I honestly don't always pay attention to my balance. I check my account on occasion, but every couple months or so, so I wouldn't notice small changes by percentage. Frankly, my account could be off by as much as a couple grand and I wouldn't notice it right away, because I travel and my expenses can vary from two grand to ten a month.

I'd argue that the amount where I wouldn't have plausible deniability would be relative to how much my account had in it and the amount of money that ordinarily passes through it. For some people money is so tight that a grand would be undeniably noticeable. For others with it would take thousands or even hundreds of thousands. However, there is no way this man could claim he wasn't sure if 5 million was his. None.

Frankly, it's the difference between finding ten dollars on the ground and a million. If you found a million dollars that had fallen off a money truck, you damn well are stealing if you attempt to keep it. However, if it's ten, it's so unlikely that you'd be able to return or that it'd be worth anyone's time, that you'd not be responsible. The law is bound by reason. Llewdor is playing dumb.

Right. Similarly, if the person were approached by a random person who said, "This $5 million dollar account is now yours", he would be obligated to ascertain proof that the random person actually owns the account. (For the sake of argument, I'm ignoring the fact that a non-owner probably wouldn't be able to give someone else access to it.)

But when the bank, not a random person but the institution actually tasked with keeping track of people's accounts, tells him that the money's his, the matter is different.

No, it isn't. He still knew it didn't belong to him and that it didn't belong to the bank. It belonged to a third party that was not giving it to him. The bank is holding the third party's money. It is not theirs to give the thief.

Right. Similarly, if the person were approached by a random person who said, "This $5 million dollar account is now yours", he would be obligated to ascertain proof that the random person actually owns the account. (For the sake of argument, I'm ignoring the fact that a non-owner probably wouldn't be able to give someone else access to it.)

But when the bank, not a random person but the institution actually tasked with keeping track of people's accounts, tells him that the money's his, the matter is different.
No, not if you can't justify for its presence in your account. And you shouldn't give up just because a single teller at the bank says so. Demand to see an audit that proves its yours. Hell, call the bank regulator if the bank insists.

By this reasoning it would be the bank's fault if you walked into the vault and took someone's diamonds from their safety deposit box. After all, why should it be your responsibility to make sure the giant financial institution has proper security?

only if the official representatives of the bank led you to the vault, opened up some box for you (which they can't do), and insisted that the diamonds were yours, with no intent on your part at all to trick anybody out of anything. presuming all that happens, then sure, the diamonds are yours.

Right. Similarly, if the person were approached by a random person who said, "This $5 million dollar account is now yours", he would be obligated to ascertain proof that the random person actually owns the account. (For the sake of argument, I'm ignoring the fact that a non-owner probably wouldn't be able to give someone else access to it.)

But when the bank, not a random person but the institution actually tasked with keeping track of people's accounts, tells him that the money's his, the matter is different.

No, it really isn't, and I'm not sure why you would think it is. I'll refer to and expand on my earlier valet example. The valet is tasked with keeping track of people's cars. If a valet mistakenly tells you that someone else's car is yours does it somehow then become yours?

No, not if you can't justify for its presence in your account.

In general circumstances, we can trust a bank's authority when it tells us that something it holds is ours--that's part of its job. That obviously isn't true of a random person. That's the difference I pointed out.

In an exceptional case like this one, sure, matters differ somewhat... there's no way he really thought that the five million dollars was his.

But then, the real question is not of knowledge, but of obligation: whose job is it to ensure that the money is really his?

How worrying, Myr. We're in complete agreement about something.
ohhh...scary!

when the bank, not a random person but the institution actually tasked with keeping track of people's accounts, tells him that the money's his, the matter is different.
Only if you truly believe that bank tellers never screw up, computers never screw up and banks never make mistakes. Oh, and that money can just magically appear in your account for no reason whatsoever.

It still comes down to a very basic tenet: Did he do enough to determine rightful ownership of that money?
Simple answer is: No, he did not.

A reasonable person would know that money isn't theirs. They would also know that even if the teller said otherwise, that tellers and computers do make mistakes. A reasonable person would query the amount a lot more thoroughly than this guy did.

Reading the OP article, I notice it said he lost a lot on bad investments. I wonder:
1. Is he just saying that to cover up where the $2 mill is
or
2. He really did make a bunch of high risk/high return investments in the hope they'd pay off. He would then be able to return the $2 mill when the bank error was uncovered and keep the profits.

only if the official representatives of the bank led you to the vault, opened up some box for you (which they can't do), and insisted that the diamonds were yours, with no intent on your part at all to trick anybody out of anything. presuming all that happens, then sure, the diamonds are yours.

But why? The bank don't own the diamonds so how can any action on their part transfer legal ownership to you(assuming the laws were changed to agree with you)? If you're not at fault then the bank are, and you're profiting from their crime, and thus will be sued for those diamonds by their owner. That couldn't happen if the diamonds were yours.

Well, I would say not any amount. I honestly don't always pay attention to my balance. I check my account on occasion, but every couple months or so, so I wouldn't notice small changes by percentage. Frankly, my account could be off by as much as a couple grand and I wouldn't notice it right away, because I travel and my expenses can vary from two grand to ten a month.

See, I've been reconciling my checking account ever since I had more than a few dollars in it. I _do_ know every penny that comes in or goes out and can tell you what the exact balance is on any given day. A penny might be a bad threshold for anyone else, but I'd be careful about those travel reimbursements. I've had the company, and the government before them, make bad deposits, only to take it back later.

How worrying, Myr. We're in complete agreement about something.
ohhh...scary!


Don't worry, it's only a practical matter of ethics. I'm sure all will be well in the world soon enough.

In general circumstances, we can trust a bank's authority when it tells us that something it holds is ours--that's part of its job. That obviously isn't true of a random person. That's the difference I pointed out.

In an exceptional case like this one, sure, matters differ somewhat... there's no way he really thought that the five million dollars was his.

But then, the real question is not of knowledge, but of obligation: whose job is it to ensure that the money is really his?

No, we can't trust a teller to be correct. In fact, we can't trust a bank to be correct at all times, either, and that's why they are audited periodically. On the personal level, the account holder is responsible for his account and should reconcile it regularly.

I've argued with banks over small amounts. They don't make many mistakes, but sometimes they do. Eventually, they will catch them, but its far easier to get the errors resolved when they are found.

Don't worry, it's only a practical matter of ethics. I'm sure all will be well in the world soon enough.
I do hope so, for both our sakes! ;)

If a valet mistakenly tells you that someone else's car is yours does it somehow then become yours?

Who said anything about it becoming mine? It's not a question of ownership transfer.

Of course it doesn't "become" mine... but if we're talking about a case where it's some institution's institutional role (in part, at least) to keep track of whose car is whose, and I'm given the wrong car and told it's mine even when I protest, surely some of the responsibility lies with them?

If I am entrusted with an object by someone, then mistakenly sell it to someone else, whose responsibility is it? Is it really so clear that the responsibility (at least in a sense strong enough for legal, rather than merely ethical, restriction) changes even if the person has reason to believe that I am mistaken?

None of us would hold the person responsible if he withdrew money from an account that he could have reasonably thought was his, and I think it's more than just a matter of his ignorance excusing him. The responsibility for sorting out accounts lies with the bank, not with the person.

Of course, it might also be reasonable to put a restriction on that delegation of responsibility: people are, after all, only human, and when certainty in this case was so easily in the hands of the person, it's difficult to argue that he did not unjustly abuse the bank's error... not necessarily in failing to check more thoroughly, but in proceeding to spend a large portion of money he had to have been pretty sure was not his.

No, we can't trust a teller to be correct. In fact, we can't trust a bank to be correct at all times, either, and that's why they are audited periodically.

You're confused about what I mean by "trust." I don't intend to say that banks never make mistakes. The point is that unlike a random person on the street, we have reason to believe that they generally know.

On the personal level, the account holder is responsible for his account and should reconcile it regularly.

"Should", sure--it's wise to do so. The question is whether he must.

Who said anything about it becoming mine? It's not a question of ownership transfer.

Of course it doesn't "become" mine... but if we're talking about a case where it's some institution's institutional role (in part, at least) to keep track of whose car is whose, and I'm given the wrong car and told it's mine even when I protest, surely some of the responsibility lies with them?
Of course. Some responsibility also lies with the general you.

If I am entrusted with an object by someone, then mistakenly sell it to someone else, whose responsibility is it? Is it really so clear that the responsibility (at least in a sense strong enough for legal, rather than merely ethical, restriction) changes even if the person has reason to believe that I am mistaken?
Selling it isn't really comparable. Selling suggests that you were trying to benefit from the whole thing. The bank gain nothing by giving someone access to an account that doesn't belong to them.

None of us would hold the person responsible if he withdrew money from an account that he could have reasonably thought was his, and I think it's more than just a matter of his ignorance excusing him. The responsibility for sorting out accounts lies with the bank, not with the person.
And the person has a responsibility not to criminally capitalise on the bank's mistakes.

Selling it isn't really comparable. Selling suggests that you were trying to benefit from the whole thing.

No more than the bank does by providing a service. I didn't mean to imply in my "selling" example that the violation was intentional.

And the person has a responsibility not to criminally capitalise on the bank's mistakes.

In this case, yes. In general, whenever money a person isn't sure about appears in their account, no, not really. Again, there are reasonable limits to the delegation of responsibility, here and always, but responsibility is still delegated.

And the person has a responsibility not to criminally capitalise on the bank's mistakes.

DING!! The bank made a mistake. The man broke the law. The difference is obvious. The bank is responsible for the mistake. The man is responsible for breaking the law. No one is making him responsible for the mistake. It wasn't his job to correct the mistake. It WAS his job to not take something that didn't belong to him.

No more than the bank does by providing a service. I didn't mean to imply in my "selling" example that the violation was intentional.



In this case, yes. In general, whenever money a person isn't sure about appears in their account, no, not really. Again, there are reasonable limits to the delegation of responsibility, here and always, but responsibility is still delegated.

Actually, he would be expected to return the money regardless. So he would be held responsible. However, it would be considered a mistake provided he doesn't appear to have intentionally deprived the person or the bank of their money.

DING!! The bank made a mistake. The man broke the law. The difference is obvious. The bank is responsible for the mistake. The man is responsible for breaking the law. No one is making him responsible for the mistake. It wasn't his job to correct the mistake. It WAS his job to not take something that didn't belong to him.

Hell, the bank probably broke several laws as well. Of the top of my head I can think of negligently handling of the true owner's account, various business irregularities, breach of fiduciary obligations. The bank did a whole lot wrong. he never should have been given access to that account, and in giving him said access, the bank committed a serious error and likely opened themselves up to some quite heavy liability.

The bank is not an innocent party here, they made SERIOUS errors and the original owner of the account would be fully within his rights to sue the crap out of them for it.

However, the bank did something wrong, and this man capitalized on that mistake in a criminal fashion. If I commit an error, and you use that error as a way to commit a crime, you are still a criminal.

My error does not excuse your conduct.

You're confused about what I mean by "trust." I don't intend to say that banks never make mistakes. The point is that unlike a random person on the street, we have reason to believe that they generally know.



"Should", sure--it's wise to do so. The question is whether he must.

He is responsible for it, if he does not. That means if the bank makes a mistake and he doesn't notice, his problem. If the bank makes a mistake and the bank notices, still his problem.

This same thing happened to my mother. It's a good thing she didn't take the money.

Of course it doesn't "become" mine... but if we're talking about a case where it's some institution's institutional role (in part, at least) to keep track of whose car is whose, and I'm given the wrong car and told it's mine even when I protest, surely some of the responsibility lies with them?

Responsibility...for what? The bank is responsible to the extent of the mistakes they made. The man is responsible to the extent of the crimes he committed.

There were two errors here. One was the bank letting him have access to the account. The second was him withdrawing money from that account. The bank is fully responsible for the first. He is fully responsible for the second.

If I am entrusted with an object by someone, then mistakenly sell it to someone else, whose responsibility is it?

Which has absolutly no baring on this case. A more proper analogy would be is, if you are entrusted an object by someone, and a third party comes along and you accidentally think this third party is the person who gave you the object here to collect it back, and you give it to him, and the third party, knowing it is not his and knowing that you didn't intend to give it to him, takes it anyway, whose responsibility is it?

And the answer is clear. yours for giving it to him. His for taking it. Two seperate things that should be dealt with, and punished, seperately.


None of us would hold the person responsible if he withdrew money from an account that he could have reasonably thought was his, and I think it's more than just a matter of his ignorance excusing him.

"reasonableness" is never measured by ignorance. Reasonableness is measured by taking due consideration of the facts at the time as they appeared to be.

Of course, it might also be reasonable to put a restriction on that delegation of responsibility: people are, after all, only human, and when certainty in this case was so easily in the hands of the person, it's difficult to argue that he did not unjustly abuse the bank's error... not necessarily in failing to check more thoroughly, but in proceeding to spend a large portion of money he had to have been pretty sure was not his.

If we recognize that spending a large portion of money he had to have been pretty sure was not his is something worthy of punishment, how is taking a large portion of money he had to have been pretty sure was not his somehow not?

To me they're the same thing essentially. Taking the money. Spending the money. Burning the money. Putting the money in a big hole. All of which had the intent of depriving the true owner of the use and enjoyment of his property.

But why? The bank don't own the diamonds so how can any action on their part transfer legal ownership to you(assuming the laws were changed to agree with you)? If you're not at fault then the bank are, and you're profiting from their crime, and thus will be sued for those diamonds by their owner. That couldn't happen if the diamonds were yours.

firstly, the actual mistaken transfer is not a crime (or rather, shouldn't be treated as a crime). there was no intent to steal. there might be other crimes involved though, but those would be sort of esoteric business law things that guy off the street cannot be expected to have any clue about or responsibility for.

secondly, i should amend my statement slightly anyways. i didn't notice it, because of how i think about diamonds, but important to my position is the idea of interchangeability. one dollar is as good as any other dollar, one new car of a certain type is the same as any other new car of that type, one box of a kind of cereal is the same as another, etc. this gets at the valet problem; the reason it would be wrong to drive off in the not-the-car-you-came-in brought to you by the valet is because the valet company (which still would bear lots and lots of responsibility) cannot provide the same thing to the person they wronged while you get to keep what they gave you.

not so with directly interchangeable items - with them, the full amount of the loss can be recovered from the institution that fucked up without doing anything to the person who benefited from the fuckup. thus the full cost of institutional stupidity falls on the stupid institution. in you guys' system, the majority of the cost of institutional stupidity falls on the incidental opportunistic beneficiary of that stupidity and not so much on the institution at all.

Actually, he would be expected to return the money regardless. So he would be held responsible.

That's not holding him responsible. That's correcting the error.

There were two errors here. One was the bank letting him have access to the account. The second was him withdrawing money from that account. The bank is fully responsible for the first. He is fully responsible for the second.

Fine with me.

"reasonableness" is never measured by ignorance. Reasonableness is measured by taking due consideration of the facts at the time as they appeared to be.

"As they appeared to be" necessitates consideration of ignorance.

If we recognize that spending a large portion of money he had to have been pretty sure was not his is something worthy of punishment, how is taking a large portion of money he had to have been pretty sure was not his somehow not?

Because it's easy to return if it's an error and it's corrected. Not that he would have had much reason to take it if he wasn't going to spend it (or run off with it, which would be no better.)

That's not holding him responsible. That's correcting the error.

What do you think civil responsibility is? If I get sued for not paying my bills, let's assume I misplaced the bill and didn't know I'd not paid it, the result of the suit will be that I have to pay the bill, correct the error, take responsibility for the error I made. If you take money that is not yours, mistakenly, the law will make you give it back even if you've already spent it thinking it belonged to you. Why? Because you're responsible for it? Do you have some other definition of responsibility that makes the responsibility for a mistake EXCEED the cost of the mistake?

You'd also be held responsible for any interest the owning party was denied by your error.

The Bank.

Their error.

After all, He did tell them.

I would have let the money accrue interest instead of spending it. This kind of money will always be traced back and it is stupid (not even going into legal ramifications here) to think you can spend money that's not yours and get away scot-free.

Both the bank and the man are at fault here.

"Should", sure--it's wise to do so. The question is whether he must.

Apparently the law says "Yes".

Do you have some other definition of responsibility that makes the responsibility for a mistake EXCEED the cost of the mistake?

They're trying to send this guy to jail. That's not the same thing as making him pay back the money.

See if you can get away with "I'll pay you back" after getting arrested for theft.

I was pointing out that even if he had not intended to steal, in which case he would not be charged with a crime, he'd still have been held responsible for any money he took or spent.

He would be responsible for returning the money. But he would not be held responsible for doing anything wrong.

Two very different things.

They're trying to send this guy to jail. That's not the same thing as making him pay back the money.

See if you can get away with "I'll pay you back" after getting arrested for theft.

They're sending him to jail because he committed a crime. You just shifted the point. I was pointing out that even if he had not intended to steal, in which case he would not be charged with a crime, he'd still have been held responsible for any money he took or spent. In this man's case, he's being held responsible for a crime. The law is funny that way. Are you saying jail time exceeds the crime of stealing 2 million dollars? I'll pay you back refers to accidentally taking the money. The criminal penalties have nothing to do with the responsibility for the money itself, which a person who spends it accidentally would also have.

Again, since you forgot, here is what I said "Actually, he would be expected to return the money regardless. So he would be held responsible. However, it would be considered a mistake provided he doesn't appear to have intentionally deprived the person or the bank of their money. " This was in reply to your claim that if it was an accident he'd not have been held responsible.

Well, obviously there are all kinds of practical problems with trying to return the money. The point is that when it comes to that kind of money we are obligated to go to considerable lengths to return it. If all the available means won't work, we are excused from that obligation.

Obligated by whom?

Obligated by whom?

The law, actually. And thus, the people

He would be responsible for returning the money. But he would not be held responsible for doing anything wrong.

Two very different things.

Yes, for returning the money he took or used as a result of his mistake, which is why he's obligated to return it. He obviously wouldn't be criminally responsible, because he committed no crime.

Which is entirely and utterly irrelevant to the question. I didn't ask whether an ordinary person would have taken it, that's not relevant to the issue.

Let me re-iterate and highlight what I was responding to.

Because we are required to behave like ordinary people, and when all reason tells you the money isn't yours, you are not allowed to take it.

If what an ordinary person would do is irrelevant why did YOU bring it up?


Theft is defined as intentionally or with reckless disregard for its true ownership, taking something that does not belong to you.

The bank claimed that the money was in his account, that makes the money his. In his situation I would never have assumed that they were giving me another persons money, with everything being handled electronically I would have assumed it to be phantom money produced from nowhere by someone hitting the wrong key.

The question is not "would a reasonable person have taken it". The question is, did this man know, or should he have known, with reasonable certainty, that the 2 million dollars he took was not his?

It was in what he assumed to be his account, wherever it came from that makes it his.

Would a reasonable person have assumed that the money is his based soley on the word of a bank teller without any other evidence or support? Would a reasonable person believed a bank teller when he was told that 5 million dollars mysteriously and wonderously appeared with no explanation?

And the answer to that, unequivicably, undeniably, is no. No one here would have believed that.

And anyone who says otherwise here is a liar.

As I said I would have had no idea where the money had come from but I wouldn't for a minute have expected it to be diverted from someone else's account.

Obligated by whom?

Ethics is not a person.

yes it is. It's called the Reasonable Person (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person) standard. The courts would look at your behaviour and decide whether you acted in the way a 'reasonable person' would have acted.


For the second time I ask how the determination of what is "reasonable" is made.

Because people on the internet want to try to pretend they have the balls to walk out of a bank with 2 million dollars in stolen money

No, most of us are of the position that the money wasn't stolen in the first place.

The bank claimed that the money was in his account, that makes the money his. In his situation I would never have assumed that they were giving me another persons money, with everything being handled electronically I would have assumed it to be phantom money produced from nowhere by someone hitting the wrong key.

Phantom money? There is no such thing. All money is real even if it's electronic. It has value and by taking it you are denying someone of that value. The bank has a limited amount of "phantom money".



It was in what he assumed to be his account, wherever it came from that makes it his.

Hmmm... wouldn't it be nice if that were true. Actually, no, it wouldn't be nice. It would be ridiculous. In your own description, you admit you'd assume it was "phantom money" and in saying so admit you'd know it wasn't money that you'd earned. You have no claim to that money. Otherwise, they could simply drain your account of all your electronic "phantom money" and when you complained they could say, "what's in your account is what makes it yours. I don't see anything there."

You can't have it both ways.



As I said I would have had no idea where the money had come from but I wouldn't for a minute have expected it to be diverted from someone else's account.

Then you don't deserve a bank account, since you don't appear to have the faintest idea of how money operates.

Even if it was somehow a gift, then he profited from the bank's crime and would be getting sued by the rightful owner of the account shortly.

By this reasoning it would be the bank's fault if you walked into the vault and took someone's diamonds from their safety deposit box. After all, why should it be your responsibility to make sure the giant financial institution has proper security?

If the bank hands me a key and leads me to a safety deposit box and insists that the box is MY box, yes it's the banks fault.

No, most of us are of the position that the money wasn't stolen in the first place.

And you'd be "of that position" while you sat behind bars thinking about it. Under the law, it's stolen. By definition, it's stolen. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is stolen. It doesn't matter if someone mistakingly thought it was yours, you knew it wasn't. Just like when the 6 dollar an hour valet guy accidentally gives you the keys to a Porsche.

Let me re-iterate and highlight what I was responding to.



If what an ordinary person would do is irrelevant why did YOU bring it up?

You failing to read what I said correctly is a fault of yours, not of mine. "ordinary" and "reasonable" is fairly interchangeable in regards to a "reasonable person" standard, because an "ordinary" person is presumed to be reasonable, rational, and aware of the law.

What I said was:

Because we are required to behave like ordinary people, and when all reason tells you the money isn't yours, you are not allowed to take it.

Which is entirely and utterly irrelevant to the question. I didn't ask whether an ordinary person would have taken it, that's not relevant to the issue.

The law says you can't take what you reasonably believe to not be yours. Whether the "ordinary" and "reasonable" person would take the money in this circumstance doesn't change it. The law doesn't say "you can't take what a reasonable person would not take", it says "you may not take something that a reasonable person would know did not belong to you"

In that vein, I meant exactly what I said, I don't care from a matter of law whether an ordinary person would have TAKEN the money. That's not relevant to the law. Even if an ordinary person would have taken it, it doesn't matter, it's still illegal.

What matters is whether or not an ordinary (IE "reasonable") person would have known it did not belong to him. We are required by law to behave like ordinary people. Therefore we are required to comport ourselves to the standards that ordinary people are held to. It doesn't matter that an ordinary person would have taken the money, that's not a legal defense. Therefore, I don't care whether an ordinary person would have done it.

What I care about is whether or not an ordinary person would have come to the conclusion that the 5 million didn't belong to you. If so, then taking it is illegal, even if an "ordinary" person would have.

I meant exactly what I said. I don't care what the ordinary person would have DONE in this instance, that's not of legal relevance. If someone knows it doesn't belong ot him and takes it, that's a crime, whether that person behaves like an ordinary person would or not.

What I care about is what the ordinary person would have BELIEVED in that circumstances.

Which is exactly what I said. When all reason tells you the money isn't yours, you are not allowed to take it

If the bank hands me a key and leads me to a safety deposit box and insists that the box is MY box, yes it's the banks fault.

And yours. Both of you should have known it was not your box. You, if fact, DID know it was not your box. By taking its contents you are stealing something that does not belong to you. Or are the contents "phantom contents" that you didn't know belonged to someone else as well?

Frankly, it's the difference between finding ten dollars on the ground and a million. If you found a million dollars that had fallen off a money truck, you damn well are stealing if you attempt to keep it. However, if it's ten, it's so unlikely that you'd be able to return or that it'd be worth anyone's time, that you'd not be responsible. The law is bound by reason. Llewdor is playing dumb.

If it fell off a money truck it will be in a bag identifying it as such. $10 or $1000000 in a plain white envelope with no name address or ID is a visit from the money fairy.

No, it isn't. He still knew it didn't belong to him and that it didn't belong to the bank. It belonged to a third party that was not giving it to him. The bank is holding the third party's money. It is not theirs to give the thief.

How could he know that it didn't belong to the bank?

For the second time I ask how the determination of what is "reasonable" is made.

a jury, of course. Who else?

How could he know that it didn't belong to the bank?

It doesn't matter whose money he thought it was. All that matters is he knew it wasn't his. Whose it was is irrelevant to that question. it belonged to someone else, that's all he needed to know.

Secondly, what the hell do you mean? How should he assume it "belonged to the bank"? Are you arguing that he should have been under the impression that the bank gave him 5 million dollars of its own corporate funds for being such a good customer?

a jury, of course. Who else?

In other words there IS no set standard by which I can judge if my actions are "reasonable" until after I'm tried for taking said actions.