£80000 was randomly put into my bank account yesterday.

Perhaps you haven't read the arguments made earlier in the thread, but this is getting a little tiresome now. Banks don't need your permission to take something from your account that isn't legally yours.

Reply 102

I have no idea what you mean. Care to elaborate?

***** does not automatically refer to women; in fact, it doesn't even refer to humans (a ***** is a female dog) if you want to get technical. So now we've left aside the question of the technical, original meaning, perhaps you can find it in you to concede that in this circumstance it refers to a weak or pathetic individual.

Reply 103

Masih ad-Dajjal

5

Original post by SignFromDog

Pretty much everything you've said on this thread has been embarrassingly wrong. Whatever the source of the funds, they do not belong to the OP and he has no basis in law to keep or spend it.

Section 24 of the Theft Act 1968

Fair enough.

I always assumed that if someone quoted an incorrect code, in the unlikely event it was valid (but belonged to someone else) it was a valid transaction and that the law only covered administrative errors made by the bank.

Reply 104

Actually, they absolutely can. In fact, it is a term of pretty much all current account terms and conditions that they bank is permitted to debit funds from your account where they have made a mistake.

You are embarrassing yourself by playing up to the idea that what the OP is doing (if he is not a troll) is anything more than a straightforward criminal offence under s24A of the Theft Act 1968 and that the bank and the police won't have any problem taking the money back and prosecuting this guy

Reply 105

Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal

Fair enough.

I always assumed that if someone quoted an incorrect code, in the unlikely event it was valid (but belonged to someone else) it was a valid transaction and that the law only covered administrative errors made by the bank.

Why would you assume that? It makes no sense whatsoever. As a matter of civil law, to keep any money that comes to a person by whatever circumstance (whether through bank credit, or someone accidentally gives them too much money in payment, etc), then to keep it the person needs a legal claim to the money, either because they have a contract where the money is owed, or they have been gifted the money.

In this case, the OP has no contract with the person who paid it and no gift was made (as a gift needs to be intentional), so as a matter of law the person could simply bring an action in the law of equity for the return of the money.

And as I said, that isn't even getting into the clear criminal offences involved. People can and have been prosecuted in this situation before

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6966683.stm

Reply 106

magicstars64

I know people who have been in situations with much less money, and as soon as the bank realised, they had to get the money back. This happened to a lot of employees paid wrongly, and those who spent the money already had to pay it back in instalments.
It's tempting to keep it, and there's nothing wrong with not saying anything - but I'm sure they will figure it out soon enough, and it's not worth risking getting into any debt.
The best thing to do would be to ring and explain what happened, they'll most likely appreciate you being honest and remove it; therefore removing the temptation to spend it.

(moving and changing your name doesn't sound terrible, though...)

Reply 107

Masih ad-Dajjal

5

Original post by SignFromDog

Why would you assume that? It makes no sense whatsoever. As a matter of civil law, to keep any money that comes to a person by whatever circumstance (whether through bank credit, or someone accidentally gives them too much money in payment, etc), then to keep it the person needs a legal claim to the money, either because they have a contract where the money is owed, or they have been gifted the money.

In this case, the OP has no contract with the person who paid it and no gift was made (as a gift needs to be intentional), so as a matter of law the person could simply bring an action in the law of equity for the return of the money.

And as I said, that isn't even getting into the clear criminal offences involved. People can and have been prosecuted in this situation before

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6966683.stm

Honestly, because I once made a significant wire transfer myself and the person working in the bank said that once it has been confirmed there is no way to send a cancellation notice and that if the code is incorrect and it is passed, I simply have to rely on the goodwill of the person to send it back.

I have no legal background so I just assumed this is how it works

EDIT: In my mind it makes more sense too since your actions are much more concrete than your intent.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 108

Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal

Honestly, because I once made a significant wire transfer myself and the person working in the bank said that once it has been confirmed there is no way to send a cancellation notice and that if the code is incorrect and it is passed, I simply have to rely on the goodwill of the person to send it back.

I have no legal background so I just assumed this is how it works

The technical considerations of transfers (i.e. that once they are sent, they cannot be easily revoked) is different to the legal considerations. If money is accidentally sent to the wrong account, then the recipient faces criminal charges and civil proceedings if they fail to make good the mistake.

EDIT: In my mind it makes more sense too since your actions are much more concrete than your intent.

That still doesn't really make any sense. The law says that for a gift to be valid, it must be intended to have been made to the person. Given a mistaken transfer is not a gift in any sense of the word, either legally or morally, I'm not sure why it would make sense in a situation where someone made a typo and accidentally transferred 500k meant to pay for a house to the wrong person, that it should be considered to be the end of the matter and the recipient gets to keep it. I'm sorry but that's faintly idiotic.

Reply 109

The practical element is that a bank is almost always contractually entitled to take money from your account if it was deposited by mistake. I think we're all fine with considering the practical elements, but perhaps only when what the person is saying is actually true.

Your statement was wrong.

Reply 110

Masih ad-Dajjal

5

Original post by SignFromDog

That still doesn't really make any sense. The law says that for a gift to be valid, it must be intended to have been made to the person. Given a mistaken transfer is not a gift in any sense of the word, either legally or morally, I'm not sure why it would make sense in a situation where someone made a typo and accidentally transferred 500k meant to pay for a house to the wrong person, that it should be considered to be the end of the matter and the recipient gets to keep it. I'm sorry but that's faintly idiotic.

So what would happen if someone wired a gift and within a week changed their mind, could you claim it was a mistake?

Reply 111

jimmy_looks_2ice

I mentioned the arguments made earlier in the thread because it has been detailed at some length, citing the relevant pieces of legislation, that spending the money in this situation is a criminal offence. The OP would be tracked down and arrested for it, and the bank would seize whatever's left of the £80k. That's it. The practicalities aren't the issue here - it's a matter of the law.

Reply 112

And I was pointing out your claim that banks could not easily take the money back is wrong. Banks are almost always contractually entitled to take sums from a depositors accounts, for a variety of reasons.

When one can resort to videos of Godfrey Bloom in order to show you the idiocy of your argument it makes your claims of someone else being embarrassed by posts on the subject incomprehensibly ironic.

What on earth are you blathering on about? What Godfrey Bloom video?

You are an exceptionally silly individual.

Reply 113

Original post by Masih ad-Dajjal

So what would happen if someone wired a gift and within a week changed their mind, could you claim it was a mistake?

They could (though it would be highly inadvisable given they would have to perjure themselves to do so when it came to court and if any evidence at all turned up later that they did intend it, then they would go to prison).

In the end it would be a legal matter for the court to determine whether a gift had actually been made in a situation where someone "changes their mind". If you are expecting a large gift, you would do well to make sure some evidence of the donor's intentions have been recorded, even if it's just a text message.

The idea that because there may be some practical complexities in determining cases of whether a gift was properly made as a matter of law doesn't mean it makes any sense at all to say that if someone accidentally transfers 500k to someone they don't even know, that the recipient should get to keep it. It's a silly idea. In the scenario you've mentioned, the people know each other and there are legitimate reasons why people might disagree as to the nature of a transfer (was it a gift, was it a loan, was it an investment etc). That is a completely different barrel of fish to where money is transferred accidentally to someone the person doesn't even know; in that case, the recipient cannot in any sense (legal or moral) claim it was a gift.

Frankly, I don't think the two scenarios really overlap.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 114

And pretending that the statement in question wasn't your claim that the bank cannot easily get the money back doesn't make your statement any more relevant.

Banks are contractually entitled in the vast majority of cases to debit accounts where a transfer has been made by mistake. That it sometimes might be a headache for the sender is neither here nor there vis-a-vis your original statement.

Youtube wasn't working, changed now to video.

It's still completely unclear what you're talking about. I have no idea why you'd look to Godfrey Bloom for advice.

Reply 115

kant_touch_this

7

post a screenshot of your online banking account total amount, SHO ME DA MONEY

Reply 116

driftawaay

3

OK, even though this is a 100% troll thread, I am now wishing that this actually happened to me. Why doesnt this happen to me? :colondollar:

Reply 117

Forum User

19

s 24A Theft Act only applies where the credit is 'wrongful', where 'wrongful' is defined in s 24A(2A). There is no suggestion the credit to the OPs account is 'wrongful' (or that he knows or believes that it is, if it is).

On the other hand, he may simply commit an offence under s 1 Theft Act 1968. The funds credited mistakenly to his account may be treated as 'belonging to another' under s 5(4) Theft Act 1968. s 5(4) also provides that an intention not to make restoration counts as an intention to permanently deprive (so that the OP could commit that offence even if he didn't spend the money).

Reply 118

Forum User

19

Original post by SignFromDog

...
Section 24 of the Theft Act 1968

Your conclusion is correct but for the wrong reason.

s 24 Theft Act 1968 only applies to 'wrongful' credit. 'Wrongful' here does not simply mean 'mistaken', it is defined in s 24(2A) Theft Act 1968. The OPs offence would simply be under s 1 Theft Act 1968 (because s 5(4) Theft Act 1968 means that mistaken payments are treated as property belonging to another).

Reply 119

jimmy_looks_2ice