Bank accidentally deposits $120,000 in coupleβs account; they spend most of it, then get charged with theft
| Source: https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2019/09/08/bank-accidentally-deposits-120000-in-couples-account-they-spend-most-of-it-then-get-charged-with-theft?fbclid=IwAR2GHC72q5MGRL0btkjM8iGZdbu2Cy9uakGtCkn2SIB2yVRSXFNOLE04S1k In my opinion, the bank should just cut its losses and be investigated as to how this happened in the first place. |
| Well that is bullshit. If I use money from my bank account, I'm not stealing from anyone. |
| The theft charge is fully deserved. The couple knowingly indulged in using money that did not belong to them. Straight from the article: The Sun-Gazette reported that the couple, in separate interrogations, told police that they “admitted to knowing the mislaid money did not belong to them, but they spent it anyway.” Imagine waking up, seeing a $120,000 charge on your credit card, and deciding "Meh, not my problem." |
 |
Bayek said: The theft charge is fully deserved. The couple knowingly indulged in using money that did not belong to them. Straight from the article: The Sun-Gazette reported that the couple, in separate interrogations, told police that they “admitted to knowing the mislaid money did not belong to them, but they spent it anyway.” Imagine waking up, seeing a $120,000 charge on your credit card, and deciding "Meh, not my problem." Imagine shilling for Multibillion dollar bakers that scam people on daily basis. If someone deposits money on your account you have a right to spend it that isn't a theft. They should do internal investigation and go after the one that made the mistake. |
  Never explain, Never retract, Never apologize Just get the thing done And let them howl |
AnimeFeminist said: Bayek said: The theft charge is fully deserved. The couple knowingly indulged in using money that did not belong to them. Straight from the article: Imagine waking up, seeing a $120,000 charge on your credit card, and deciding "Meh, not my problem." Imagine shilling for Multibillion dollar bakers that scam people on daily basis. If someone deposits money on your account you have a right to spend it that isn't a theft. They should do internal investigation and go after the one that made the mistake. This. Anyone can deposit money into someone else's account. Using your own money should never be a crime. Just don't give away the money other people are trusting you with. It's the bank's own fault. |
| Morally it's not their problem but legally they will go to jail while rich people will steal 1000 times that and get nothing. |
 |
| Morally it's not their money even if it fell right on their laps. The only money in your account that is truly yours is whatever you've put into it or earned. If someone else, or another company, accidentally transfered money in for whatever reason, it is legally NOT yours. keep money that you know is not yours, is theft, wether or not it was the bank's fault doesn't matter. Keep in your mind you can't spend money not knowing where it came from. You could play the ''I didn't know'' card, but either way I could tell you it would be a pretty stupid risk to take. Eventually, 99% of the times at least, it always comes back. And the bank is gonna pull all that money back and you better hope the wrongfully deposited money still there. Legally by law, all American banks are insured by the FDIC, whether state or federally chartered, so defrauding them is a federal offense. 5. Reversal of direct deposits. The reversal of a direct deposit made in error is not an unauthorized EFT when it involves: i. A credit made to the wrong consumer's account; ii. A duplicate credit made to a consumer's account; or iii. A credit in the wrong amount (for example, when the amount credited to the consumer's account differs from the amount in the transmittal instructions). |
''Enemies' gifts are no gifts and do no good.'' |
PsychoticDave said: Source: https://www.boston.com/news/national-news/2019/09/08/bank-accidentally-deposits-120000-in-couples-account-they-spend-most-of-it-then-get-charged-with-theft?fbclid=IwAR2GHC72q5MGRL0btkjM8iGZdbu2Cy9uakGtCkn2SIB2yVRSXFNOLE04S1k In my opinion, the bank should just cut its losses and be investigated as to how this happened in the first place. The couple should be charged with theft and pay for that crime. The couple knew neither one of them didn't put that money in their account. They should have called the bank and reported the mistake. They knew the money was not theirs because they tried to spend all the money before the bank found out about the mistake. It doesn't matter if some rich fuck down the street, in another city, state or country got away with a lot worse. Its irrelevant to the theft committed by the couple. And no the bank should not cut their losses over the theft committed by the couple. Because this probably isn't the first time a bank teller typed in 1 instead of a 2 into the computer and accidentally put money into the wrong account and nor will it be the last. Its no different if the mailman or package delivery person accidentally dropped off the wrong mail or package at your house. Its not yours and you can be criminally charged if try to keep it that mail or package that isn't yours. |
QPR said: So the fact that rich people steals 1000 times more means I have the right to grab a gun and steal a shop because rich people steals 1000 times more than I will ever get in a robbery? It also gives me an excuse to shoplift etc... Ya know cuss rich people will steal 1000 times that and get away and so should I.Morally it's not their problem but legally they will go to jail while rich people will steal 1000 times that and get nothing. |
''Enemies' gifts are no gifts and do no good.'' |
| From what I heard, the best course of action would have been for them not to use the money, but instead to call a lawyer and then sue the bank, since IIRC that's possible regardless of the bank giving too much money or taking it away by mistake, since it's falsefying their financial records or something along those lines. I heard those who sue those "transaction error" cases often make a lot of money from it. |
 |
| It's quite interesting to see how this manages to split people in two group with no in-betweens. Mod edit: removed bait |
BrandonSep 21, 2019 5:13 AM
| So from reading the article, it took the couple 2 and 1/2 weeks to spend the 120k. How did it take the bank so long to catch onto their mistake? After a certain amount of time, the money should be forfeit and belong to you. It shouldn't be YOUR responsibility to catch other peoples mistakes. That said, it's fairly obvious it's against the law. The right thing to do would have been to contact the bank about the deposit they got. |
| This shouldn't deserve prison. It shouldn't go further than civil court where they have to pay the money back as if it were an interest free loan. Corrupt system where rich assholes control the legal system. |
Fate_Saber88 said: QPR said: So the fact that rich people steals 1000 times more means I have the right to grab a gun and steal a shop because rich people steals 1000 times more than I will ever get in a robbery? It also gives me an excuse to shoplift etc... Ya know cuss rich people will steal 1000 times that and get away and so should I.Morally it's not their problem but legally they will go to jail while rich people will steal 1000 times that and get nothing. There's a big diffrence between what you say and having money end up in your lap. |
|
| These have always been my favorite type of crimes. Such incidents always result in extremely thoughtful discussions such as this one. The flawlessly written article is worth mentioning as well: " You did not make $120,000 or win $120,000, but there it is, $120,000, just sitting there. Cool! What would you do with all that cash? Pay off the mountain of student loans you’d otherwise be stuck with till you die? Buy a house? Buy a car?" The pinnacle of modern journalism. Let me help you Kayla. Spend a night in Vegas? Have a kid? Pay the rent for the next three years? Anyway, I'm glad you asked. I doubt even Elon Musk himself has ever dreamed of spending such an immense amount of money at once. Long story short, I'm super horrified by this incident. I'm glad that the evil criminals are caught. Let's move on. Oh and by the way, cease your investigations please. It's not the bank's fault, I'm pretty sure there is a good explanation for mismanaging the money. I mean it's like giving a gun to a mentally ill person by mistake, it's entirely his fault for shooting up some random place the next day. Doctors always say, treat the symptoms not the cause of the illness, right? |
149597871Sep 10, 2019 1:18 AM
| As much as I want to side with the couple, this case isn't unique and already has a few precedents to it. It would be different if they spent what was theirs in the account but the other amount was mistakenly put there. Once that was used, and things had cleared up, would the couple be able to pay back what they overspent (usually not). The bank should still conduct an investigation on itself, but the couple actively knew what they were doing. From the bank keeping track on when people check their account, to the time between balance lookup to spending. They lokely looked at past spending habits just to be doubly sure the couple had some kind of knowledge of the error w/o mentioning it to the bank. If the reverse happened and they did the same thing (woke up, account emptied, go on credit spree) then I can see how all that data would go out the window the bank had. Usually if you notice suspicious activity with your account (unexpected changes) reasonable people call to inform. Or maybe if the couple never checked the balance and didn't go on a spree but spent a little over, I could side with their view. It wouldn't be criminal then. |
SilverstormSep 10, 2019 7:39 AM
| "In the end the World really doesn't need a Superman. Just a Brave one" |
| It might not be the morally right thing to think but banks fuck over a lot of people. If it's theft, I don't think it's equivalent to stealing from an individual person that you know is going to suffer because of it. What I'm trying to say is I'd rather steal from a bank than from an individual. Besides the bank fucked up, they should have to pay for it. The only reason why they are being charged is because our legal system has become geared towards making sure large, wealthy institutions don't get to suffer consequences. |
| If you give your friend $50 to hold on to for you (just go with it, I know you don't have friends) and you come back for your money and they say "Oh, I gave it to John two and a half weeks ago." you don't blame John. |
| cringing hard @ this thread. meanwhile generic CEO bryce goldsmith is fucking some broad in his penthouse office with hundreds of thousands of dollars that go unaccounted for every year.  |
 Oh maybe, maybe it's the clothes we wear The tasteless bracelets and the dye in our hair Or maybe, maybe it's our nowhere towns or our nothing places But we're trash, you and me We're the litter on the breeze We're the lovers on the streets Just trash, me and you It's in everything we do It's in everything we do |
| Even if you find a stash of money on the ground somewhere with nobody around to claim it, you're legally obligated to turn it into the police station.. as funny as that sounds. |
| If you want to find cases of theft to defend, then defend something like hungry penniless people stealing food, not people stealing a small fortune for extravagent spending. |
| As nice as it'd be to keep to money, i know if it happened to me i'd contact the bank about it. I'd just feel guilty if i spent it all. But i'd like to keep some of the money as a reward for contacting them about it~ |
Yomiyuki said: yeah and that's reality, sucks doesn't? maybe people will come to terms with it when they grow up. If people are seriously surprised about these people being arrested for fraud they haven't experienced life yet.cringing hard @ this thread. meanwhile generic CEO bryce goldsmith is fucking some broad in his penthouse office with hundreds of thousands of dollars that go unaccounted for every year. |
 |
| Lol it is the bank that should've been held accountable for that. Even if the couple knew what they were doing, it was the bank's MAJOR screw up that allowed it all to happen. Theft? Theft is when YOU arrange the forceful exange of money, not when money is erroneously given to you by a third party RESPONSIBLE for managing cash. It's like if your boss gave you an wrong order, and you carried said order as you're told, but then your boss fires you on behalf the order that HE gave. |
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
| correct course of action for couple was to report discrepancy immediately covers your ass and immediately informs bank that something is wrong but imo bank made mistake by charging for theft. the issue started from their side, they were responsible. any losses they incurred from their own mistake should be solely their responsibility. now if I was a user of that bank, I would switch immediately because: 1. their process for handling transactions is clearly flawed somewhere 2. they blame customers for the consequences of problems that the bank itself created. even if as a user I mistakenly withdraw money that doesn't belong to me and clear it up with the bank, before legal action is taken. it's still a hassle. |
| well as they say "ignorance of the law excuses no one" so if there is a law against this kind of stuff there in USA then the couple are screwed either way so next time they should vote for a politician that will improve this kind of pro capitalists laws and i do not have a bank account but im sure there is like a terms of service that a lot of people do not read anyway and that theft charge maybe part of that there on their rules of contract with the couple |
No, that's robbery. Theft is taking things which aren't yours without force or trespass. |
logopolis said: No, that's robbery. Theft is taking things which aren't yours without force or trespass. But they didn't TAKE anything. The money was PUT on their account. The bank basically GAVE that money to them, even if it was a mistake. All the couple did was USE the money which was mechanically already of their possesion. |
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
HyperL said: But they didn't TAKE anything. The money was PUT on their account. The bank basically GAVE that money to them, even if it was a mistake. All the couple did was USE the money which was mechanically already of their possesion. So if by mistake I park my car in your driveway you don't call the towing truck but take ownership of my car? So it wasn't in their possession but they were just holding it. Even keeping certain higher amounts of money you find on the street does not make it yours but can even bring you criminal charges in some jurisdictions. |
HyperL said: But they didn't TAKE anything. The money was PUT on their account. The bank basically GAVE that money to them, even if it was a mistake. I bet if you accidentally left your wallet behind in a shop, and then realised as soon as you were outside, you'd go back in and expect to be able to pick it up, instead of going "oh well, looks like I gave it to them by mistake". |
Yzeelb said: HyperL said: But they didn't TAKE anything. The money was PUT on their account. The bank basically GAVE that money to them, even if it was a mistake. All the couple did was USE the money which was mechanically already of their possesion. So if by mistake I park my car in your driveway you don't call the towing truck but take ownership of my car? So it wasn't in their possession but they were just holding it. Even keeping certain higher amounts of money you find on the street does not make it yours but can even bring you criminal charges in some jurisdictions. A car's ownership comes with documents, markers and other stuff proving its the person's, It won't become yours just by declaring it. Money works a bit differently though. There are contracts and declarations for specific exchanges, but there's no general document for all the money you'll handle in your life. It's the responsibility of the individual and the entrusted services (Banks, Police) to ensure the money stays where it belongs. The way I see it, If you lost your money and have no way of proving it's yours within 48 hours, finders keepers apply. |
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
| By all means, they should be charged. However I don't think their actions have the same moral repugnance as theft, even though the result is the same. I'm too tired and sleepy to provide a rational explanation as to why I believe it to be the case but I'll give you an example. If it happened to any of you when a cashier accidentally gives you extra change, you may agree that it is a bit tempting to not return it. While I did gave it back both times it happened, I also couldn't help but consider not to return for a moment, even though I'd never purposefully steal from someone. So what I'm trying to get here is that when it's the inaction as opposed to action that'd let you get away with something. It becomes significantly easier to do so. And that's why I think charge should be less severe than if they made an active effort of stealing from someone. |
 |
logopolis said: HyperL said: But they didn't TAKE anything. The money was PUT on their account. The bank basically GAVE that money to them, even if it was a mistake. I bet if you accidentally left your wallet behind in a shop, and then realised as soon as you were outside, you'd go back in and expect to be able to pick it up, instead of going "oh well, looks like I gave it to them by mistake". Wrong, I would be able to pick it up much like the Bank would be able to retract that money before the couple spent it were they competent. Where I said "basically gave" I did not mean "literally gave" mind you. It is also important to recognize the differences between a physical, open commercial space like a shop and a virtual, private space for safekeeping wealth like a individual bank account. |
| You are not your body, you are your brain, the "self" that emerges from within it. |
| Imagine someone literally handing you money and you use it only for the person to LATER say it was a mistake, arrest him! What?! What the hell even is $120,000 for a bank? Nothing! The bank is BB&T btw...who are definitely a BIG bank with billions of dollars. No, FUCK this bank and their error...they fucked up, the money is gone, end of story. Next time, don’t fuck up! Seriously tho...$120,000 to a bank is like $12 for normal people....amazing how the greediest motherfuckers are ALWAYS the richest. Fuck BB&T. |
| um finders fuckin keepers they deserve to spend it |
 penis lol |
Orhunaa said: it's less repugnant becauseBy all means, they should be charged. However I don't think their actions have the same moral repugnance as theft, even though the result is the same. I'm too tired and sleepy to provide a rational explanation as to why I believe it to be the case but I'll give you an example. If it happened to any of you when a cashier accidentally gives you extra change, you may agree that it is a bit tempting to not return it. While I did gave it back both times it happened, I also couldn't help but consider not to return for a moment, even though I'd never purposefully steal from someone. So what I'm trying to get here is that when it's the inaction as opposed to action that'd let you get away with something. It becomes significantly easier to do so. And that's why I think charge should be less severe than if they made an active effort of stealing from someone. A) the victim isn't a person with feelings that can be hurt, but a faceless cooperation. B) It wasn't premeditated. It's like the difference between letting someone drown in a well vs. throwing someone into a well for them to drown. While the result might be the same, these two actions aren't equally indicative of future bad behaviour or moral degeneracy. |
| "my life at this state could be transposed into a pretty massive biography" - Cneq, "the guy who was literally using BTC in 2012 to make deals in the first main instance of a digital itemized economy forming naturally in all human history (also the precursor of NFTs) and who had 20k+ total trades.", 23 years old MAL's most prolific antivaxxer, Noboru. |
Railey2 said: Orhunaa said: it's less repugnant becauseBy all means, they should be charged. However I don't think their actions have the same moral repugnance as theft, even though the result is the same. I'm too tired and sleepy to provide a rational explanation as to why I believe it to be the case but I'll give you an example. If it happened to any of you when a cashier accidentally gives you extra change, you may agree that it is a bit tempting to not return it. While I did gave it back both times it happened, I also couldn't help but consider not to return for a moment, even though I'd never purposefully steal from someone. So what I'm trying to get here is that when it's the inaction as opposed to action that'd let you get away with something. It becomes significantly easier to do so. And that's why I think charge should be less severe than if they made an active effort of stealing from someone. A) the victim isn't a person with feelings that can be hurt, but a faceless cooperation. B) It wasn't premeditated. It's like the difference between letting someone drown in a well vs. throwing someone into a well for them to drown. While the result might be the same, these two actions aren't equally indicative of future bad behaviour or moral degeneracy. going to play devil's advocate here it's actually not illegal to not rescue some one who is drowning. especially if it puts your life at risk as well. while i dislike bystander effect when it comes to tragic accidents etc. I don't think people should be jailed for it. i think they are selfish assholes for not helping some one in trouble, but i also do think you should remember that not everyone is going to throw themselves into danger. as for this case. this really is on the bank here. they ARE the group in charge of the money distribution in this case. if some one gets delivered something by accident it's they are in fact LEGALLY allowed to keep it https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0181-unordered-merchandise and it's the company that has to foot the bill for THERE mistake. so why doesn't the bank have the same responsibility as any shipping company? (i mean the obvious answer is because how much influence they have in the government.) |
| "among monsters and humans, there are only two types. Those who undergo suffering and spread it to others. And those who undergo suffering and avoid giving it to others." -Alice “Beauty is no quality in things themselves: It exists merely in the mind which contemplates them; and each mind perceives a different beauty.” David Hume “Evil is created when someone gives up on someone else. It appears when everyone gives up on someone as a lost cause and removes their path to salvation. Once they are cut off from everyone else, they become evil.” -Othinus  |
| So was it ever known why it took the banks 2 and 1/2 weeks to notice? |
Please learn about cel animation and its technical process. Learn how special effects and backlighting were done without computers. |
| Wouldn't they worried that that money could be from some drugs transaction? |
More topics from this board
Sticky: » The Current Events Board Will Be Closed on Friday JST ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Luna - Aug 2, 2021 |
272 |
by traed
»»
Aug 5, 2021 5:56 PM |
|
» Third shot of Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine offers big increase in antibody levels: study ( 1 2 )Desolated - Jul 30, 2021 |
50 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:24 PM |
|
» Western vaccine producers engage in shameless profiteering while poorer countries are supplied mainly by China.Desolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
1 |
by Bourmegar
»»
Aug 5, 2021 3:23 PM |
|
» NLRB officer says Amazon violated US labor lawDesolated - Aug 3, 2021 |
17 |
by kitsune0
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:41 PM |
|
» China Backs Cuba in Saying US Should Apply Sanctions To ItselfDesolated - Aug 5, 2021 |
10 |
by Desolated
»»
Aug 5, 2021 1:36 PM |