£80000 was randomly put into my bank account yesterday.
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Oh ooo
Weren't you the same user that apparently had 80000 girlfriends?
On you Flan20 account?
Now you have £80000 in the bank by accident.
Right and all that makes perfect sense.
On you Flan20 account?
Now you have £80000 in the bank by accident.
Right and all that makes perfect sense.
He is King Solomon
Original post by driftawaay
Is it still in your account?
Please tell me you didn't tell the bank...
is this a troll tho..
Please tell me you didn't tell the bank...
is this a troll tho..
Troll maybe, but good question anyway. Where would someone stand legally if it happened to them? .........but they spent it or at least most of it?
if it was me i'd move to rural italy with a hellaload of gold jewellery, bullion and watches and disappear
Original post by Forum User
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).
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).
I think "wrongful" is construed more broadly than you might think.
In R v Douglas (Thelma) EWCA Crim 1579, the money came into the defendant's accounts as an overpayment from a computer error by her local authority. She was charged and convicted of an offence under s24A. The BBC article on this subject also appears to indicate that a Sarah Jane Lee who got 150k in this kind-of situation was prosecuted under s24A.
And when you look at s24A(2A)(d), it should be read in conjunction with
(8)References to stolen goods include money which is dishonestly withdrawn from an account to which a wrongful credit has been made, but only to the extent that the money derives from the credit.
If, for example, you have no money in your account and the bank mistakenly puts in 100 pounds, which you then dishonestly withdraw, then the (2A)(d) "stolen goods" bar will have been surmounted (but would not have been surmounted, due to the fungibility of money, where you already had sufficient funds on deposit to cover any withdrawals which happen to come after the credit has been made).
I can see how s24A(8) almost seems like it is putting the cart before the horse re "derived" (it has a circular, postfacto-legitimising character to it) the legislative intent (at least, to my mind) seems clear and the courts have interpreted it thus (or perhaps one could say that the formulation of the charge in R v Douglas drew no adverse comment in the Court of Appeal)
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by driftawaay
If that was me, I would transfer the money to another account immediately, leave the country, change my appearance and never come back
Same
Original post by Lord Kitchener
He is King Solomon
ayyyylmao gotta part them seas and make the wetness taste of salt
Do not spend it, unless you intend to withdraw it and "disapear" 
. They almost always fix payments like this. HOWEVER there has been legal precident where people have moved the money from there current account into a savings account with the same bank for "safe keeping" allowing them to recieve interest on the cash sum well it is in there account. It can take banks a little while to process things like this so you MAY have the money for a couple of months. To cite an example 80k in a 1% AER variable rate ISA (this is the rate I get with my bank) over a period of say ~3 months if it takes them that long to process the error will earn you £200 in interest. Sadly though nowadays they tend to sort these things out more quickly
. They almost always fix payments like this. HOWEVER there has been legal precident where people have moved the money from there current account into a savings account with the same bank for "safe keeping" allowing them to recieve interest on the cash sum well it is in there account. It can take banks a little while to process things like this so you MAY have the money for a couple of months. To cite an example 80k in a 1% AER variable rate ISA (this is the rate I get with my bank) over a period of say ~3 months if it takes them that long to process the error will earn you £200 in interest. Sadly though nowadays they tend to sort these things out more quicklyOriginal post by SignFromDog
I think "wrongful" is construed more broadly than you might think.
That case (R v Douglas) certainly supports your interpretation, although the CoA judgment is only dealing with sentencing rather than guilt, so I wouldn't put too much weight on it.
I still don't really see that the section can bear that interpretation. Subsection 8 doesn't seem to advance the argument, because it still requires that the money be wrongfully credited in the first place, and 'wrongful' is defined in Subsection 2A. The wording of Subsection 2A seems 'exclusive', to me - it doesn't say 'wrongful includes...' rather 'a credit is wrongful to the extent that'. The fact that s24A appears in a section of the Act entitled 'Offences Related to Goods Stolen' etc, might lend slight support to my view. Two more definite points in favour of my view.
1) If you look at the Law Commission report which gave rise to s 24A - http://www.bailii.org/ew/other/EWLC/1996/243.pdf, you can see that the wrongfulness of the credit in the narrow sense of the word was what was intended, and that the section was just introduced to handle a gap in the law in the case of R v Preddy. There was no such gap in the case of retaining mistaken payments, because that was already dealt with by s 5(4), as had been confirmed by AG's Reference No 1 of 1983 (if not before that).
2) If you are really really bored you can look at the discussion in Hansard: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1996/nov/14/theft-amendment-bill-hl#S5LV0575P0_19961114_HOL_177. See in particular this passage of Lord Wilberforce:
"At first sight, it [s24A] looks as though it deals with a general offence of retaining money to which one knows one is not entitled—one suddenly finds a favourable item in one's bank account. But the explanation—a very elaborate one—in Part VI of the Law Commission's report tells us that it is not that; it is in fact only a section, as my noble and learned friend explained, about handling stolen goods."
On the basis of the Law Comm report and the Hansard debates (and the actual words of the section!) I am virtually certain that the trial judge was wrong in R v Douglas (if the facts are as the CoA seems to think).
Original post by Forum User
That case (R v Douglas) certainly supports your interpretation, although the CoA judgment is only dealing with sentencing rather than guilt, so I wouldn't put too much weight on it.
Of course you are right about that, hence my comment saying "(or perhaps one could say that the formulation of the charge in R v Douglas drew no adverse comment in the Court of Appeal)"
On the basis of the Law Comm report and the Hansard debates (and the actual words of the section!) I am virtually certain that the trial judge was wrong in R v Douglas (if the facts are as the CoA seems to think).
I would say that, according to the plain words of the statute, you are absolutely correct, though equally I would say that perhaps it's not the most artfully drafted statutory provision I've seen which leads to a degree of confusion as to what conduct is being prohibited. If we take the very strict interpretation of 24A(8), it would be saying that stolen goods for the purposes of 2A includes the actual money withdrawn, but then confuses the effect of that language by then saying that this is only if it is "derived" from the credit. Also, the money withdrawn being "stolen goods" can logically have no actual bearing on the source, for the purposes of 2A, which provides the vital element of the offence
That seems like a rather clunky statutory provision, and I'm not entirely sure that was what was intended. It appears that prosecutions on the basis I put forward have been successful, but perhaps such convictions on that basis are not wholly justifiable in terms of the way the statute is actually worded. Certainly, if I were Douglas' lawyer I would have raised the question of the formulation of the charge rather than just sentencing considerations; there is absolutely something to what you are saying.
What kind of conduct do you think s24A(8) covers? What is the scenario do you think they contemplated? I would have thought they were at least trying to cover the conduct in Douglas, but that the wording is flawed in that it says "to the extent the money was derived from the stolen credit" which, strictly speaking, would mean that there has to be money which in the first place is stolen or fraudulently obtained in the normal sense, not in the 24A(8) sense. It's like they are confusing the downstream withdrawal (by characterising that as "stolen goods") with the upstream source (fraud/theft/stolen goods etc) which is actually what is supposed to create the conditions for the s24A offence.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Eggs20
but its innocent until proven guilty.
They have no reasonable evidence that I did know of the money.
They have no reasonable evidence that I did know of the money.
What if they found this thread?
Original post by Bupdeeboowah
Maybe it's a pound from every one of his girlfriends?
Stfu I was going to say that..
Original post by SignFromDog
What kind of conduct do you think s24A(8) covers? What is the scenario do you think they contemplated? I would have thought they were at least trying to cover the conduct in Douglas, but that the wording is flawed in that it says "to the extent the money was derived from the stolen credit" which, strictly speaking, would mean that there has to be money which in the first place is stolen or fraudulently obtained in the normal sense, not in the 24A(8) sense
What kind of conduct do you think s24A(8) covers? What is the scenario do you think they contemplated? I would have thought they were at least trying to cover the conduct in Douglas, but that the wording is flawed in that it says "to the extent the money was derived from the stolen credit" which, strictly speaking, would mean that there has to be money which in the first place is stolen or fraudulently obtained in the normal sense, not in the 24A(8) sense
I think it is intended to cover something like this: D1 steals some goods, fences them and pays the money into D2s account. D2 withdraws some or all of that money and hands the withdrawn notes to D3. The effect of s 24A(8) is that D3 can be convicted of handling stolen goods provided he is dishonest etc (it doesn't matter whether D3 pays those notes into yet another account). Without s 24A(8) he could not be, because the actual notes received by D2 when he makes a withdrawal from his account are not stolen - they belonged to the bank and the bank paid them out pursuant to a contractual obligation to do so.
Original post by Eggs20
I am being serious £80000 has been put into my account
My head is telling me to tell the bank my heart is saying keep your mouth shut.
My head is telling me to tell the bank my heart is saying keep your mouth shut.
Tell the bank that there appears to have been a slight mishap in your bank account, and how it appears as if some money has been accidentally placed in there. If you're courteous about it, they'll probably give you a largeish sum of money for your honesty. That happened to me when I had 3,500 placed into my account. I told them about it, and they gave me £1,750 as a 'sweet gift' for my honesty :')
Original post by Forum User
I think it is intended to cover something like this: D1 steals some goods, fences them and pays the money into D2s account. D2 withdraws some or all of that money and hands the withdrawn notes to D3. The effect of s 24A(8) is that D3 can be convicted of handling stolen goods provided he is dishonest etc (it doesn't matter whether D3 pays those notes into yet another account). Without s 24A(8) he could not be, because the actual notes received by D2 when he makes a withdrawal from his account are not stolen - they belonged to the bank and the bank paid them out pursuant to a contractual obligation to do so.
Ahh, very good. The idea is that I shouldn't be reading s24A(8) as being in conjunction with s24A(2A)(d), it has nothing to do with that. (8) provides the ability to then prosecute for handling of stolen goods under s22, rather than an intention to expand the type of conduct covered by s24A?
That makes a lot more sense. Thanks indeed for taking the time to provide the links and the explanation.
Original post by TeenPolyglot
That happened to me when I had 3,500 placed into my account. I told them about it, and they gave me £1,750 as a 'sweet gift' for my honesty :'
That sounds highly improbable. Commercial banks don't get to where they are by giving away money.
Original post by Eggs20
I could just take the 80000 and go to the casino and put it all on red. If it comes up I could let the bank know about their mistake and give the orignal 80000 back. If not just keep my mouth shut and act stupid if the bank ever come calling.
The Bank: Oh? You didn't realise you made an £80,000 withdrawal/made an online transaction for £80,000?
They would see that you've used it if you betted online or in a casino...
It was me. A gift from me to you.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ILovePancakes
Stfu I was going to say that..
too slow as always pancake eater.
Original post by SirMasterKey
The Bank: Oh? You didn't realise you made an £80,000 withdrawal/made an online transaction for £80,000?
They would see that you've used it if you betted online or in a casino...
They would see that you've used it if you betted online or in a casino...
I could say it wasn't me and it must be fraud.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Does HMRC know about multiple bank accounts?
- maintenance loan not processed
- Asos returns
- Dont know what to provide as evidence
- Maybe I have Cifas marker
- Lent some money out and now I'm feeling betrayed.
- NHS Learning support fund
- waiting on student finance?
- Opening a bank account for maintenance loan
- Has anyone had their student finance paid into their partners or parents bank?
- How do I find my UCAS personal Id
- Cifas Marker
- Mum wont let me get the money out of a bank account i have
- UK High Interest Savings Account
- Scammed someone.
- I think I have a Cifas Marker on my name , can I still open any banks ?
- Has anyone had SFE reapply for student finance without their knowledge/consent?
- parents hogging student loan but not using it?
- Help
- Santander student overdraft
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UKTrending
Last reply 3 days ago
If you could instantly become fluent in any foreign language which one would it be?Last reply 3 months ago
About the NCUK IFY Program for university Studies in the UK
