Turn on thread page Beta

£80000 was randomly put into my bank account yesterday. watch

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 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.
    I didn't say the OP should spent it, or shouldn't tell the bank to take it back, I said that the process of retrieval is a headache.

    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    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.
    Again, not saying they can't, saying the process to get the funds back isn't simple. Denying that doesn't make it any less true.
    What on earth are you blathering on about? What Godfrey Bloom video?

    You are an exceptionally silly individual.
    [ youtube] wasn't working, changed now to [video].
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Again, not saying they can't, saying the process to get the funds back isn't simple. Denying that doesn't make it any less true.
    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.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    post a screenshot of your online banking account total amount, SHO ME DA MONEY
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SignFromDog)
    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.



    It's still completely unclear what you're talking about. I have no idea why you'd look to Godfrey Bloom for advice.
    My God...you are surely trolling now?

    Yes, the bank will likely be entitled to get the money back, that doesn't mean doing so is easy.

    And I haven't looked to Godfrey Bloom for advice, I've highlighted your argument as being the same content wise as his adviser's argument in the video. Not sure why you're struggling to comprehend that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    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?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Financier)
    Notify the bank asap and whatever you do, DON'T spend it. You can be charged under Section 24A of the Theft Act 1968 for retaining/spending money that doesn't belong to you.
    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).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (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).
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    I didn't say the OP should spent it, or shouldn't tell the bank to take it back, I said that the process of retrieval is a headache.
    Again, not saying they can't, saying the process to get the funds back isn't simple. Denying that doesn't make it any less true.
    I don't really understand what point you're trying to make here. Do you have some experience with or knowledge of the banking sector? If you have some practical knowledge of how the banks go about reclaiming money in this situation, please state it. I admit I don't know how it actually works, so I'm happy for you to enlighten me. Otherwise, however, you're not really making any substantive contribution here.

    The key point in the context of this thread is that the OP is not entitled to spend the money. Yes, it may be difficult for the bank to retrieve money he's already spent, but that doesn't change the fact that he's committed a criminal offence in doing so, nor does it mean that there won't be considerable efforts made by the bank to reclaim said funds.

    This thread has been rumbling on because of a basic misunderstanding about the law and a naivete by some posters that has led them to think that they can just profit from accidental windfalls. If a large sum of money belonging to another person or entity inadvertently ends up in your possession, you don't think that that person or entity will do everything in their power to get it back?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh ooo)
    Weren't you the same user that apparently had 80000 girlfriends?:curious:

    On you Flan20 account?

    Now you have £80000 in the bank by accident.

    Right and all that makes perfect sense.:thumbsup:

    He is King Solomon
    Offline

    21
    (Original post by driftawaay)
    Is it still in your account?

    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?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    if it was me i'd move to rural italy with a hellaload of gold jewellery, bullion and watches and disappear
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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).
    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)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Kitchener)
    He is King Solomon
    ayyyylmao gotta part them seas and make the wetness taste of salt
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original 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/l...961114_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).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eggs20)
    but its innocent until proven guilty.

    They have no reasonable evidence that I did know of the money.
    What if they found this thread?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Gamble it


    (Not really)
















    Really?
 
 
 

4,563

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources
AtCTs

Ask the Community Team

Got a question about the site content or our moderation? Ask here.

Welcome Lounge

Welcome Lounge

We're a friendly bunch. Post here if you're new to TSR.

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.