Through a bank error your account is deposited one million dollars.

What do you do?

     You don't spend it.

     You don't spend the interest it earns.

     You don't use it as collateral for a loan.

     And... You don't inform the bank of the error.

Have you committed a crime?

because of the last point i think you have

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 8:27pm:

because of the last point i think you have

Are you sure?

Of course, it could be argued you have not acted ethically... You have been 'unjustly enriched'.

However, you have not profited from this enrichment.

From a legal perspective (not an ethical one) have you committed a crime?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 8:29pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:27pm: because of the last point i think you have Are you sure? Of course, it could be argued you have not acted ethically... You have been 'unjustly enriched'. However, you have not profited from this enrichment. From a legal perspective (not an ethical one) have you committed a crime?

By not informing yes.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 8:37pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:29pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:27pm: because of the last point i think you have Are you sure? Of course, it could be argued you have not acted ethically... You have been 'unjustly enriched'. However, you have not profited from this enrichment. From a legal perspective (not an ethical one) have you committed a crime? By not informing yes.

This is a carry over from another Thread, but I'll play a bit.

How quickly must one inform the Bank, Mr Farian?  If there is an obligation to inform, there surely must be a time limit.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 8:37pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:29pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:27pm: because of the last point i think you have Are you sure? Of course, it could be argued you have not acted ethically... You have been 'unjustly enriched'. However, you have not profited from this enrichment. From a legal perspective (not an ethical one) have you committed a crime? By not informing yes.

Then you will need to quote an Australian case and/or the section of the Act which declares it is a crime and the circumstances by which it is a crime.

It should be a like the rules when you have something sent to you accidently ... inform the sender that they made an error and they have 3 months to collect, don't inform them and they have 6 months ... after which the goods are yours.

Aussie wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 8:43pm:

[ How quickly must one inform the Bank, Mr Farian?  If there is an obligation to inform, there surely must be a time limit.

Why? The question here hinges on whether or not you intended to keep the money in your account.

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 8:49pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:43pm: [ How quickly must one inform the Bank, Mr Farian?  If there is an obligation to inform, there surely must be a time limit. Why? The question here hinges on whether or not you intended to keep the money in your account.

If you do not profit from your 'intention', how have you been enriched?

Case and/or Act, otherwise its not a crime.

http://www.banks.com.au/news/bank-errors-in-your-favour/


Its not a case, but if you dont return it the banks would try and get its return and you'd be forced to give it back crime or not. If you ignore it would be a crime.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 8:57pm:

http://www.banks.com.au/news/bank-errors-in-your-favour/ Its not a case, but if you dont return it the banks would try and get its return and you'd be forced to give it back crime or not. If you ignore it would be a crime.

You don't intend to dispute the error nor challenge/resist a reversal when (or if) it is finally discovered.

However, six months has now passed and the money and the interest is still unspent and therefore is still recoverable by the bank at any time.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:02pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:57pm: http://www.banks.com.au/news/bank-errors-in-your-favour/ Its not a case, but if you dont return it the banks would try and get its return and you'd be forced to give it back crime or not. If you ignore it would be a crime. You don't intend to dispute the error nor challenge/resist a reversal when it is finally discovered. However, six months has now passed and the money and the interest is still unspent and therefore is still recoverable by the bank at any time.

I think the problem with your hypothetical is no bank would let it go that long

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 8:49pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:43pm: [ How quickly must one inform the Bank, Mr Farian?  If there is an obligation to inform, there surely must be a time limit. Why? The question here hinges on whether or not you intended to keep the money in your account.

How about I have nil intention.

Aussie wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:06pm:

ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:49pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:43pm: [ How quickly must one inform the Bank, Mr Farian?  If there is an obligation to inform, there surely must be a time limit. Why? The question here hinges on whether or not you intended to keep the money in your account. How about I have nil intention.

But thats not the premise of the OP.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:05pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:02pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:57pm: http://www.banks.com.au/news/bank-errors-in-your-favour/ Its not a case, but if you dont return it the banks would try and get its return and you'd be forced to give it back crime or not. If you ignore it would be a crime. You don't intend to dispute the error nor challenge/resist a reversal when it is finally discovered. However, six months has now passed and the money and the interest is still unspent and therefore is still recoverable by the bank at any time. I think the problem with your hypothetical is no bank would let it go that long

Well, its my hypothetical and I say the bank has not discovered the error for six months so far.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 8:20pm:

Through a bank error your account is deposited one million dollars. What do you do?      You don't spend it.      You don't spend the interest it earns.      You don't use it as collateral for a loan.      And... You don't inform the bank of the error. Have you committed a crime?

withdraw the money, close the account and move to a nice private beach in the Phillipines .... $1millions buys you a lot of pinapples over there. ;D ;D ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:08pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:05pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:02pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:57pm: http://www.banks.com.au/news/bank-errors-in-your-favour/ Its not a case, but if you dont return it the banks would try and get its return and you'd be forced to give it back crime or not. If you ignore it would be a crime. You don't intend to dispute the error nor challenge/resist a reversal when it is finally discovered. However, six months has now passed and the money and the interest is still unspent and therefore is still recoverable by the bank at any time. I think the problem with your hypothetical is no bank would let it go that long Well, its my hypothetical and I say the bank has not discovered the error for six months so far.

Well then I'm adding and saying magic pixies are responsible.

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:06pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:49pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:43pm: [ How quickly must one inform the Bank, Mr Farian?  If there is an obligation to inform, there surely must be a time limit. Why? The question here hinges on whether or not you intended to keep the money in your account. How about I have nil intention. But thats not the premise of the OP.

I have not suggested an intention in the OP.

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:06pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:49pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:43pm: [ How quickly must one inform the Bank, Mr Farian?  If there is an obligation to inform, there surely must be a time limit. Why? The question here hinges on whether or not you intended to keep the money in your account. How about I have nil intention. But thats not the premise of the OP.

I answered your Post.

John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:08pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:20pm: Through a bank error your account is deposited one million dollars. What do you do?      You don't spend it.      You don't spend the interest it earns.      You don't use it as collateral for a loan.      And... You don't inform the bank of the error. Have you committed a crime? withdraw the money, close the account and move to a nice private beach in the Phillipines .... $1millions buys you a lot of pinapples over there. ;D ;D ;D

Then you have committed a crime (or so you think). Go to jail. Go directly to jail... Do not finish your Harvey Wall Banger...

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:11pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:08pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:20pm: Through a bank error your account is deposited one million dollars. What do you do?      You don't spend it.      You don't spend the interest it earns.      You don't use it as collateral for a loan.      And... You don't inform the bank of the error. Have you committed a crime? withdraw the money, close the account and move to a nice private beach in the Phillipines .... $1millions buys you a lot of pinapples over there. ;D ;D ;D Then you have committed a crime (or so you think). Go to jail. Go directly to jail... Do not finish your Harvey Wall Banger...

got to find you first ....  ;)

Quote:

Well then I'm adding and saying magic pixies are responsible.

Well, that's that then.  My Tooth Fairies can spend it, and if they can't the Easter Bunny and Santa can fight for the left overs.

John Smith wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:12pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:11pm: John Smith wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:08pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:20pm: Through a bank error your account is deposited one million dollars. What do you do?      You don't spend it.      You don't spend the interest it earns.      You don't use it as collateral for a loan.      And... You don't inform the bank of the error. Have you committed a crime? withdraw the money, close the account and move to a nice private beach in the Phillipines .... $1millions buys you a lot of pinapples over there. ;D ;D ;D Then you have committed a crime (or so you think). Go to jail. Go directly to jail... Do not finish your Harvey Wall Banger... got to find you first ....  ;)

Yes!  Good luck, Ronnie Biggs!

Aussie wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:09pm:

ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:06pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:49pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:43pm: [ How quickly must one inform the Bank, Mr Farian?  If there is an obligation to inform, there surely must be a time limit. Why? The question here hinges on whether or not you intended to keep the money in your account. How about I have nil intention. But thats not the premise of the OP. I answered your Post.

I see. Of course there is no crime committed.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:09pm:

ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:06pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:49pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:43pm: [ How quickly must one inform the Bank, Mr Farian?  If there is an obligation to inform, there surely must be a time limit. Why? The question here hinges on whether or not you intended to keep the money in your account. How about I have nil intention. But thats not the premise of the OP. I have not suggested an intention in the OP.

sure you did. You dont inform the bank. Thats intent.

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:22pm:

Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:09pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:06pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:49pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:43pm: [ How quickly must one inform the Bank, Mr Farian?  If there is an obligation to inform, there surely must be a time limit. Why? The question here hinges on whether or not you intended to keep the money in your account. How about I have nil intention. But thats not the premise of the OP. I answered your Post. I see. Of course there is no crime committed.

If that was a facetious comment, then maybe you can provide a case precedent or the section of an act which proscribes nondisclosure for this omission.

No?

If there is no case successfully prosecuted and/or no act which proscribes it (and there may be) then that's the difference between a bit a bush lawyerin' and the real deal.

Money "once upon a time" showed up in my old bank account, totalling in the hundreds of thousands. It was promptly removed from my account by the bank, and I was told about it when I received my bank statement for the period. I felt that I was unjustly robbed of 10 years worth of pay, but I just accepted it as a bank error.

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:24pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:09pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:08pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:06pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:49pm: Aussie wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:43pm: [ How quickly must one inform the Bank, Mr Farian?  If there is an obligation to inform, there surely must be a time limit. Why? The question here hinges on whether or not you intended to keep the money in your account. How about I have nil intention. But thats not the premise of the OP. I have not suggested an intention in the OP. sure you did. You dont inform the bank. Thats intent.

And that 'intent' (such that it is) under these circumstances is proscribed where under Australian law?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:27pm:

[ I see. Of course there is no crime committed. If that was a facetious comment, then maybe you can provide a case precedent or the section of an act which proscribes nondisclosure for this omission. No? If there is no case successfully prosecuted and/or no act which proscribes it (and there may be) then that's the difference between a bit a bush lawyerin' and the real deal.

Your question was whether a crime had been committed , not whether it could  be or has been successfully prosecuted.  Im pretty sure that intent would have to be proved in order for a successful prosecution. The fact that you intended not to inform the bank and thereby  to keep the money obviously means you have committed a crime. You dont have to use the money for other purposes, you just have to intend to keep it. The fact that you dont spend the money is largely irrelevant. 

UnSubRocky wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:27pm:

Money "once upon a time" showed up in my old bank account, totalling in the hundreds of thousands. It was promptly removed from my account by the bank, and I was told about it when I received my bank statement for the period. I felt that I was unjustly robbed of 10 years worth of pay, but I just accepted it as a bank error.

Sad, if the bank flogged if it turned out your giddy old Aunty Mavis dropped it in there 2 days before she fell off the perch!

This might help you out, note the highlighted text

Quote:

A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:36pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:27pm: [ I see. Of course there is no crime committed. If that was a facetious comment, then maybe you can provide a case precedent or the section of an act which proscribes nondisclosure for this omission. No? If there is no case successfully prosecuted and/or no act which proscribes it (and there may be) then that's the difference between a bit a bush lawyerin' and the real deal. Your question was whether a crime had been committed , not whether it could  be or has been successfully prosecuted.  Im pretty sure that intent would have to be proved in order for a successful prosecution. The fact that you intended not to inform the bank and thereby  to keep the money obviously means you have committed a crime. You dont have to use the money for other purposes, you just have to intend to keep it. The fact that you dont spend the money is largely irrelevant.

And yet no reference to an Act... so far you're going on gut feeling, not legal facts.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:36pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:27pm: [ I see. Of course there is no crime committed. If that was a facetious comment, then maybe you can provide a case precedent or the section of an act which proscribes nondisclosure for this omission. No? If there is no case successfully prosecuted and/or no act which proscribes it (and there may be) then that's the difference between a bit a bush lawyerin' and the real deal. Your question was whether a crime had been committed , not whether it could  be or has been successfully prosecuted.  Im pretty sure that intent would have to be proved in order for a successful prosecution. The fact that you intended not to inform the bank and thereby  to keep the money obviously means you have committed a crime. You dont have to use the money for other purposes, you just have to intend to keep it. The fact that you dont spend the money is largely irrelevant.  And yet no reference to an Act... so far you're going on gut feeling, not legal facts.

Intention is a legal principle. nothing to do with gut feeling. im not sure what you are talking about when you refer to an "act". Are you asking what crime you could be charged with?

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

But is it a crime not to inform the bank of its error? If its not a crime, then the test of intent doesn't apply.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:38pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:27pm: Money "once upon a time" showed up in my old bank account, totalling in the hundreds of thousands. It was promptly removed from my account by the bank, and I was told about it when I received my bank statement for the period. I felt that I was unjustly robbed of 10 years worth of pay, but I just accepted it as a bank error. Sad, if the bank flogged if it turned out your giddy old Aunty Mavis dropped it in there 2 days before she fell off the perch!

Well, there is quite a reasonable chance that the money was actually mine, and that I was quite entitled to it. The bank(s) and I have had quite a disagreement as to what I'm entitled to have. Even today, for minor interest sake, I felt that I was hit with $200 more in my credit card bill than I should have. Atleast I can get refunded on my work shoes, since I am still on an employment support pension.

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:41pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:36pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:27pm: [ I see. Of course there is no crime committed. If that was a facetious comment, then maybe you can provide a case precedent or the section of an act which proscribes nondisclosure for this omission. No? If there is no case successfully prosecuted and/or no act which proscribes it (and there may be) then that's the difference between a bit a bush lawyerin' and the real deal. Your question was whether a crime had been committed , not whether it could  be or has been successfully prosecuted.  Im pretty sure that intent would have to be proved in order for a successful prosecution. The fact that you intended not to inform the bank and thereby  to keep the money obviously means you have committed a crime. You dont have to use the money for other purposes, you just have to intend to keep it. The fact that you dont spend the money is largely irrelevant.  And yet no reference to an Act... so far you're going on gut feeling, not legal facts. Are you asking what crime you could be charged with?

Yes.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:44pm:

ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law) But is it a crime not to inform the bank of its error? If its not a crime, then the test of intent doesn't apply.

its a crime to keep money not belonging to you, its called theft. whether you do this by acts or omissions signifies intent.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:46pm:

ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:41pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:36pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:27pm: [ I see. Of course there is no crime committed. If that was a facetious comment, then maybe you can provide a case precedent or the section of an act which proscribes nondisclosure for this omission. No? If there is no case successfully prosecuted and/or no act which proscribes it (and there may be) then that's the difference between a bit a bush lawyerin' and the real deal. Your question was whether a crime had been committed , not whether it could  be or has been successfully prosecuted.  Im pretty sure that intent would have to be proved in order for a successful prosecution. The fact that you intended not to inform the bank and thereby  to keep the money obviously means you have committed a crime. You dont have to use the money for other purposes, you just have to intend to keep it. The fact that you dont spend the money is largely irrelevant.  And yet no reference to an Act... so far you're going on gut feeling, not legal facts. Are you asking what crime you could be charged with? Yes.

theft.

Wheres Aussie gone?

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm:

This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property."

A failure to act is not the same as an omission.

Schu wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:05pm:

ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." A failure to act is not the same as an omission.

Yes, the question is then, under the circumstances of the OP, and under Australian law, does the account holder have a duty to act.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:15pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 10:05pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." A failure to act is not the same as an omission. Yes, the question is then, under the circumstances of the OP, and under Australian law, does the account holder have a duty to act.

No.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:15pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 10:05pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." A failure to act is not the same as an omission. Yes, the question is then, under the circumstances of the OP, and under Australian law, does the account holder have a duty to act.

yes

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:47pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:44pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." But is it a crime not to inform the bank of its error? If its not a crime, then the test of intent doesn't apply. its a crime to keep money not belonging to you, its called theft. whether you do this by acts or omissions signifies intent.

Theft requires more than just keeping something that doesn't belong to you such as the issue of the owners' consent and an intent to deprive the owner, neither of which is the case here.

Schu wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:36pm:

ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:47pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:44pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." But is it a crime not to inform the bank of its error? If its not a crime, then the test of intent doesn't apply. its a crime to keep money not belonging to you, its called theft. whether you do this by acts or omissions signifies intent. Theft requires more than just keeping something that doesn't belong to you such as the issue of the owners' consent and an intent to deprive the owner, neither of which is the case here.

Keeping something that doesnt belong to you without the owners consent is  theft, who told you it wasnt?

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:41pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 10:36pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:47pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:44pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." But is it a crime not to inform the bank of its error? If its not a crime, then the test of intent doesn't apply. its a crime to keep money not belonging to you, its called theft. whether you do this by acts or omissions signifies intent. Theft requires more than just keeping something that doesn't belong to you such as the issue of the owners' consent and an intent to deprive the owner, neither of which is the case here. Keeping something that doesnt belong to you without the owners consent is  theft, who told you it wasnt?

The owner inadvertently leaves it in my possession. I don't use it (or spend it). Do I have a legal duty (not a moral duty) to return it / inform the owner?

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:41pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 10:36pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:47pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:44pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." But is it a crime not to inform the bank of its error? If its not a crime, then the test of intent doesn't apply. its a crime to keep money not belonging to you, its called theft. whether you do this by acts or omissions signifies intent. Theft requires more than just keeping something that doesn't belong to you such as the issue of the owners' consent and an intent to deprive the owner, neither of which is the case here. Keeping something that doesnt belong to you without the owners consent is  theft, who told you it wasnt?

The bank, as the owner of the money, gave implied consent to it being in the account when it was deposited into the account. This is akin to someone using my property to store some of their goods.

It would only be if the bank asked for the money back and I refused to give it back, or if I then used the money in some way, that I would have potentially committed a crime because then I am depriving ownership. In much the same way as if I refused to give back a person goods they had stored at my place when they asked for them or used those goods for my own purposes without permission.

its exactly the same as if you found it on your front lawn and told no one. Where you found the money and who put it there is irrelevant, by not notifying the owner and keeping it you are committing theft.

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:53pm:

its exactly the same as if you found it on your front lawn and told no one. Where you found the money and who put it there is irrelevant, by not notifying the owner and keeping it you are committing theft.

No, you aren't. The prosecution would have to demonstrate that at some point you assumed ownership rights and it merely being on your front lawn does not equate to assuming ownership rights.

OK.

Now for a clearer case of unjust enrichment.

The bank deposits the one million dollars into your mortgage account, instantly wiping out your mortgage. Your automatic payments to your mortgage are stopped.

Its harder now to argue that you don't have a duty to act as it is evident that you have financially gained from the error.

I don't know if it's still on the books but there used to be a charge of "Stealing by Finding"...

crime north, there have been cases where people spent money that turned up and they were charged and convicted.
Recent case where a malfunctioning ATM gave a guy several thousand dollars, here in Brisbane.
Hunted down by the authorities and told to hand it over or would be charged.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 8:20pm:

Through a bank error your account is deposited one million dollars. What do you do?      You don't spend it.      You don't spend the interest it earns.      You don't use it as collateral for a loan.      And... You don't inform the bank of the error. Have you committed a crime?

My bank made an error once and deposited 10k in my bank account. I rang them and told them about it and they acted as if i stole it. Froze my account for a week while they "investigated".

SOB

aquascoot wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 7:18am:

crime north, there have been cases where people spent money that turned up and they were charged and convicted. Recent case where a malfunctioning ATM gave a guy several thousand dollars, here in Brisbane. Hunted down by the authorities and told to hand it over or would be charged.

Yes, that's true where you have spent the money (theft), or used used it as collateral for a loan (fraud) clearly you have committed a crime.

Also there's another problem with risking 'no duty to act' (if in fact you don't have a duty to act in the first instance) where a bank error in your favour (under the circumstances of the OP) has occurred.

That is, if, say, an unexpected payment (say rates) incidentally uses some of the one million dollar balance. While you may not be aware of it at the time and you know that your pay (or a legitimate payment will be made to your account to cover the rates payment within a day or two), you have in fact unlawfully used the money originally transferred to you in error. As you have not informed the bank of the error, you have little defense against any charge of theft subsequently brought against you. Insisting that you had effectively paid it back almost immediately will not be a defence that will exonerate you from the original charge.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 7:28am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:20pm: Through a bank error your account is deposited one million dollars. What do you do?      You don't spend it.      You don't spend the interest it earns.      You don't use it as collateral for a loan.      And... You don't inform the bank of the error. Have you committed a crime? My bank made an error once and deposited 10k in my bank account. I rang them and told them about it and they acted as if i stole it. Froze my account for a week while they "investigated". SOB

And the error was acknowledged. I'm guessing, and reversed?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 7:35am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 7:28am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:20pm: Through a bank error your account is deposited one million dollars. What do you do?      You don't spend it.      You don't spend the interest it earns.      You don't use it as collateral for a loan.      And... You don't inform the bank of the error. Have you committed a crime? My bank made an error once and deposited 10k in my bank account. I rang them and told them about it and they acted as if i stole it. Froze my account for a week while they "investigated". SOB And the error was acknowledged. I'm guessing, and reversed?

Oh yeah . . . . .

SOB

One thing on your side in the case of 'bank error in your favour' is that banks are highly reluctant to publicise their errors for fear of causing a loss of faith in its banking system with its customers and are happy to just reverse the funds (and interest) and be done with it. If you don't resist, even better.

There are many stories where the banks themselves will not acknowledge errors in your favour even if you do report it. Still not wise to spend the money or use it as collateral as (if indeed it is an error) as you have still been unjustly enriched. However, if the bank insists there is no error and refuses to reverse the payment, you at least have some defence against a charge of theft or fraud if and when they finally accept an error has occurred... and you will, of course, have to pay it back.

if you were ill in hospital and did not access your account.....how do they prove you knew of the error..

it did happen to someone I knew she used her bank book..when she got home she had $100.000 more than when she went in the bank..

however they discovered it more or less straight away and took it back...before she had a chance to spend any.......shame

cods wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 8:14am:

if you were ill in hospital and did not access your account.....how do they prove you knew of the error.. it did happen to someone I knew she used her bank book..when she got home she had $100.000 more than when she went in the bank.. however they discovered it more or less straight away and took it back...before she had a chance to spend any.......shame

Proving you were aware of the error would be in the form of your accessing the account, particularly where you have requested a balance, or a statement has been sent to you, for example. It is easy to verify that you did not access your account and easy to prove you were in hospital.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 7:32am:

Also there's another problem with risking 'no duty to act' (if in fact you don't have a duty to act in the first instance) where a bank error in your favour (under the circumstances of the OP) has occurred. That is, if, say, an unexpected payment (say rates) incidentally uses some of the one million dollar balance. While you may not be aware of it at the time and you know that your pay (or a legitimate payment will be made to your account to cover the rates payment within a day or two), you have in fact unlawfully used the money originally transferred to you in error. As you have not informed the bank of the error, you have little defense against any charge of theft subsequently brought against you. Insisting that you had effectively paid it back almost immediately will not be a defence that will exonerate you from the original charge.

I think that one's borderline.

There is still a question of whether there was any intent to deprive and any assumption of ownership rights.

The theft laws (at least in Victoria) have been updated to incorporate electronic theft, but these require the person getting a machine to do something they shouldn't, which I don't think would apply in this instance.

The issue of whether you knew what was happening is also relevant. Cods' example of a person being in hospital and not even being aware of what was happening in their bank account would make it extremely difficult for any charge of theft.

The duty to act relates to the issue of taking reasonable steps to return something to the owner. However, just because I find something does not oblige me to do that. It is only if I assume ownership rights that I must take reasonable steps to find the owner.

Schu wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 11:38am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 7:32am: Also there's another problem with risking 'no duty to act' (if in fact you don't have a duty to act in the first instance) where a bank error in your favour (under the circumstances of the OP) has occurred. That is, if, say, an unexpected payment (say rates) incidentally uses some of the one million dollar balance. While you may not be aware of it at the time and you know that your pay (or a legitimate payment will be made to your account to cover the rates payment within a day or two), you have in fact unlawfully used the money originally transferred to you in error. As you have not informed the bank of the error, you have little defense against any charge of theft subsequently brought against you. Insisting that you had effectively paid it back almost immediately will not be a defence that will exonerate you from the original charge. I think that one's borderline. There is still a question of whether there was any intent to deprive and any assumption of ownership rights. The theft laws (at least in Victoria) have been updated to incorporate electronic theft, but these require the person getting a machine to do something they shouldn't, which I don't think would apply in this instance. The issue of whether you knew what was happening is also relevant. Cods' example of a person being in hospital and not even being aware of what was happening in their bank account would make it extremely difficult for any charge of theft. The duty to act relates to the issue of taking reasonable steps to return something to the owner. However, just because I find something does not oblige me to do that. It is only if I assume ownership rights that I must take reasonable steps to find the owner.

Interesting.... And the plot thickens!

To add to the premises in the OP... The account owner is aware that one million has been deposited and the account owner does not claim ownership of the money.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 12:27pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 11:38am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 7:32am: Also there's another problem with risking 'no duty to act' (if in fact you don't have a duty to act in the first instance) where a bank error in your favour (under the circumstances of the OP) has occurred. That is, if, say, an unexpected payment (say rates) incidentally uses some of the one million dollar balance. While you may not be aware of it at the time and you know that your pay (or a legitimate payment will be made to your account to cover the rates payment within a day or two), you have in fact unlawfully used the money originally transferred to you in error. As you have not informed the bank of the error, you have little defense against any charge of theft subsequently brought against you. Insisting that you had effectively paid it back almost immediately will not be a defence that will exonerate you from the original charge. I think that one's borderline. There is still a question of whether there was any intent to deprive and any assumption of ownership rights. The theft laws (at least in Victoria) have been updated to incorporate electronic theft, but these require the person getting a machine to do something they shouldn't, which I don't think would apply in this instance. The issue of whether you knew what was happening is also relevant. Cods' example of a person being in hospital and not even being aware of what was happening in their bank account would make it extremely difficult for any charge of theft. The duty to act relates to the issue of taking reasonable steps to return something to the owner. However, just because I find something does not oblige me to do that. It is only if I assume ownership rights that I must take reasonable steps to find the owner. Interesting.... And the plot thickens! To add to the premises in the OP... The account owner is aware that one million has been deposited and the account owner does not claim ownership of the money.

This is fun; reminds me of Uni.

In the case of there being awareness, I think it would depend on how long that awareness had been the case without notification. There is a difference between claiming ownership and assumption of ownership, the former requiring a positive act, the latter not.

I think that if the money was there for a reasonable amount of time (say a few months) and the person was consistently aware of this then an argument could be made that they had assumed ownership. But I still think that's borderline if the bank never made any attempt to ask for it back and was refused. It would come down I think to whether the court believed that the timeframe indicated assumption of ownership and an intent to deprive. There would probably be a lot of questions about why the person didn't notify the bank to establish whether there was some purpose for leaving the money in the account.

But if the money was there for, say, a week I don't think there would be any case for theft. It could be argued that the person was waiting for the bank to contact them and/or reverse the error and that during that time they believed it was simply a glitch that would resolve itself.

None of these time limits are written anywhere, of course. I'm applying an interpretation to the legislation based on differing circumstances.

Another relevant component would be the use of the bank account. If the account was completely dormant and not touched then it would likely be harder to make a case for theft. However if the account was used on a daily basis then it would be easier because, even if the person didn't touch that particular amount of money in any way, it would still be impacting on interest. Plus the access and use would likely be seen as an assumption of ownership rights.

There is another component to this situation, which is the issue of ownership rights around money in accounts. If a bank erroneously places money in a person's account, can they just take it back or do they require permission from the account holder? I am not sure of this. If the bank can just take it back without permission then theft becomes an even less likely possibility because the money was technically never out of the bank's control.

In reality, I think what would happen is that the bank would ask for the money back or inform the person that they were taking it back and it would only be if the person refused that there would be a problem. I've never heard of a person being charged simply because money was in their bank account, only if they have used it.

Schu wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 1:18pm:

This is fun; reminds me of Uni. In the case of there being awareness, I think it would depend on how long that awareness had been the case without notification. There is a difference between claiming ownership and assumption of ownership, the former requiring a positive act, the latter not. I think that if the money was there for a reasonable amount of time (say a few months) and the person was consistently aware of this then an argument could be made that they had assumed ownership. But I still think that's borderline if the bank never made any attempt to ask for it back and was refused. It would come down I think to whether the court believed that the timeframe indicated assumption of ownership and an intent to deprive. There would probably be a lot of questions about why the person didn't notify the bank to establish whether there was some purpose for leaving the money in the account. But if the money was there for, say, a week I don't think there would be any case for theft. It could be argued that the person was waiting for the bank to contact them and/or reverse the error and that during that time they believed it was simply a glitch that would resolve itself. None of these time limits are written anywhere, of course. I'm applying an interpretation to the legislation based on differing circumstances. Another relevant component would be the use of the bank account. If the account was completely dormant and not touched then it would likely be harder to make a case for theft. However if the account was used on a daily basis then it would be easier because, even if the person didn't touch that particular amount of money in any way, it would still be impacting on interest. Plus the access and use would likely be seen as an assumption of ownership rights. There is another component to this situation, which is the issue of ownership rights around money in accounts. If a bank erroneously places money in a person's account, can they just take it back or do they require permission from the account holder? I am not sure of this. If the bank can just take it back without permission then theft becomes an even less likely possibility because the money was technically never out of the bank's control. In reality, I think what would happen is that the bank would ask for the money back or inform the person that they were taking it back and it would only be if the person refused that there would be a problem. I've never heard of a person being charged simply because money was in their bank account, only if they have used it.

Thanks for that, Schu. I think you have nailed it. I had added earlier that 6 months had elapsed and the bank had neither reversed it nor had the account owner informed the bank.

However, you cover that in your reply.

I think you're right. I think in most cases, the bank would be happy to easily recover its money and interest without resistance and be done with it... But, I guess after 6 months of non-disclosure, you may possibly be rolling the dice a little too often.

OK one final ironic twist... (Why not... It could make a good movie plot!!)

Through a bank error your account is deposited one million dollars.

     You don't spend it.

     You don't spend the interest it earns.

     You don't use it as collateral for a loan.

     And... You don't inform the bank of the error.

FAST FORWARD 10 YEARS

You haven't spent the money, you haven't informed the bank... You've striven all those years to maintain the balance (including the now whopping interest in the account).
And you've spent 10 sleepless years angsting about the money... After all, its been 10 years and there's no way (you're sure) you're going to get out of this one when the bank discovers the error.

Finally the bank contacts you and asks you to a meeting with them.You agree.

[add lengthy capers trying to defer the meeting... Illness, death in family... in psychiatric hospital having suffered nervous breakdown... etc... etc...]

The day comes you meet wit the bank manager...

They're very sorry there's been a bank error... 11 years ago you helped an ancient (and rich) Mrs Huntington-Smyth cross the road safely. You gave her your name. With six months to live, she tracks you down and anonymously deposits ... 10 million into your account... The bank has deposited a mere one million in error and now, wishes to correct that error if you'd agree to going halves on the interest the other nine million has earned over the 10 year period and wants your non-disclosure of the error.

One of those 'Honesty is the best policy' stories.

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:41pm:

Schu wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 10:36pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:47pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:44pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." But is it a crime not to inform the bank of its error? If its not a crime, then the test of intent doesn't apply. its a crime to keep money not belonging to you, its called theft. whether you do this by acts or omissions signifies intent. Theft requires more than just keeping something that doesn't belong to you such as the issue of the owners' consent and an intent to deprive the owner, neither of which is the case here. Keeping something that doesnt belong to you without the owners consent is  theft, who told you it wasnt?

You are wrong because the bank never lost anything at all.  the money was still in their bank and they still have full access to it at any time.  no interest was gained or lost and since the money was not spent the bank can take it back at any time.

to use another example, somebody leaves an expensive item on your front lawn during the night.  You don't touch it or take it but you do not report it.  It stays there for months.  DId you steal it? no.  no crime has been committed and the bozo who left it there is still free to take it back.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 6:33am:

OK. Now for a clearer case of unjust enrichment. The bank deposits the one million dollars into your mortgage account, instantly wiping out your mortgage. Your automatic payments to your mortgage are stopped. Its harder now to argue that you don't have a duty to act as it is evident that you have financially gained from the error.

I think it would still be hard to make a prosecution stick. At any point in time the bank can take their money back and rework your payments as if nothing has happened. It is my central argument that you cannot be charged with stealing something you didn't take and still have in your possession. And I am sure a half-decent lawyer would be able to defend that rather easily.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 7:32am:

aquascoot wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 7:18am: crime north, there have been cases where people spent money that turned up and they were charged and convicted. Recent case where a malfunctioning ATM gave a guy several thousand dollars, here in Brisbane. Hunted down by the authorities and told to hand it over or would be charged. Yes, that's true where you have spent the money (theft), or used used it as collateral for a loan (fraud) clearly you have committed a crime. Also there's another problem with risking 'no duty to act' (if in fact you don't have a duty to act in the first instance) where a bank error in your favour (under the circumstances of the OP) has occurred. That is, if, say, an unexpected payment (say rates) incidentally uses some of the one million dollar balance. While you may not be aware of it at the time and you know that your pay (or a legitimate payment will be made to your account to cover the rates payment within a day or two), you have in fact unlawfully used the money originally transferred to you in error. As you have not informed the bank of the error, you have little defense against any charge of theft subsequently brought against you. Insisting that you had effectively paid it back almost immediately will not be a defence that will exonerate you from the original charge.

It is an interesting side argument but it doesn't change the basic tenet that you did not take nor spend the money.  this automatic payment was just that - automatic, not a choice. Without the money the account would have been overdrawn temporarily and nothing else.  I don't see that it in any way changes the facts.  Even taking out $500 in cash from an ATM (without a balance receipt) wouldn't change anything.

What perhaps some are forgetting that the bank has committed a breach of regulations (and perhaps law) by even putting the money there in the first place. 

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 8:21am:

cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 8:14am: if you were ill in hospital and did not access your account.....how do they prove you knew of the error.. it did happen to someone I knew she used her bank book..when she got home she had $100.000 more than when she went in the bank.. however they discovered it more or less straight away and took it back...before she had a chance to spend any.......shame Proving you were aware of the error would be in the form of your accessing the account, particularly where you have requested a balance, or a statement has been sent to you, for example. It is easy to verify that you did not access your account and easy to prove you were in hospital.

I open my statements quarterly (BAS return) so receipt of a statement is meaningless.  and if it is a business account with normally 200K-500K in it, would you notice  $100K extra anyhow without a line-by-line check?

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:09pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:08pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:05pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:02pm: Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 8:57pm: http://www.banks.com.au/news/bank-errors-in-your-favour/ Its not a case, but if you dont return it the banks would try and get its return and you'd be forced to give it back crime or not. If you ignore it would be a crime. You don't intend to dispute the error nor challenge/resist a reversal when it is finally discovered. However, six months has now passed and the money and the interest is still unspent and therefore is still recoverable by the bank at any time. I think the problem with your hypothetical is no bank would let it go that long Well, its my hypothetical and I say the bank has not discovered the error for six months so far. Well then I'm adding and saying magic pixies are responsible.

OR,
"My bank deposited one million dollars into MY account?          ....It must have been an act of God!!!!"

:)

Yes, it is still an unethical thought/reaction.




p.s.
Another 'hypothetical'....
What action would the bank take, if [after 6 months and one day] i donated the one million dollars [in my account] to the Salvation Army Street Kids Fund ?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:23am:

ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 10:41pm: Schu wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 10:36pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:47pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:44pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." But is it a crime not to inform the bank of its error? If its not a crime, then the test of intent doesn't apply. its a crime to keep money not belonging to you, its called theft. whether you do this by acts or omissions signifies intent. Theft requires more than just keeping something that doesn't belong to you such as the issue of the owners' consent and an intent to deprive the owner, neither of which is the case here. Keeping something that doesnt belong to you without the owners consent is  theft, who told you it wasnt? You are wrong because the bank never lost anything at all.  the money was still in their bank and they still have full access to it at any time.  no interest was gained or lost and since the money was not spent the bank can take it back at any time. to use another example, somebody leaves an expensive item on your front lawn during the night.  You don't touch it or take it but you do not report it.  It stays there for months.  DId you steal it? no.  no crime has been committed and the bozo who left it there is still free to take it back.

You are assuming, of course, that the originating bank making the error was your bank and not a third-party bank.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:31am:

It is an interesting side argument but it doesn't change the basic tenet that you did not take nor spend the money.  this automatic payment was just that - automatic, not a choice. Without the money the account would have been overdrawn temporarily and nothing else.  I don't see that it in any way changes the facts.  Even taking out $500 in cash from an ATM (without a balance receipt) wouldn't change anything. What perhaps some are forgetting that the bank has committed a breach of regulations (and perhaps law) by even putting the money there in the first place.

I'd refer to Schu's argument at http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1398162029/61#61

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:26am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 6:33am: OK. Now for a clearer case of unjust enrichment. The bank deposits the one million dollars into your mortgage account, instantly wiping out your mortgage. Your automatic payments to your mortgage are stopped. Its harder now to argue that you don't have a duty to act as it is evident that you have financially gained from the error. I think it would still be hard to make a prosecution stick. At any point in time the bank can take their money back and rework your payments as if nothing has happened. It is my central argument that you cannot be charged with stealing something you didn't take and still have in your possession. And I am sure a half-decent lawyer would be able to defend that rather easily.

And in the case of a third-party bank?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:36am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 8:21am: cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 8:14am: if you were ill in hospital and did not access your account.....how do they prove you knew of the error.. it did happen to someone I knew she used her bank book..when she got home she had $100.000 more than when she went in the bank.. however they discovered it more or less straight away and took it back...before she had a chance to spend any.......shame Proving you were aware of the error would be in the form of your accessing the account, particularly where you have requested a balance, or a statement has been sent to you, for example. It is easy to verify that you did not access your account and easy to prove you were in hospital. I open my statements quarterly (BAS return) so receipt of a statement is meaningless.  and if it is a business account with normally 200K-500K in it, would you notice  $100K extra anyhow without a line-by-line check?

It's not a business account... Its an everyday savings account.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 9:23am: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 10:41pm: Schu wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 10:36pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:47pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:44pm: ian wrote on Apr 22nd, 2014 at 9:40pm: This might help you out, note the highlighted text Quote: A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well. Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property." But is it a crime not to inform the bank of its error? If its not a crime, then the test of intent doesn't apply. its a crime to keep money not belonging to you, its called theft. whether you do this by acts or omissions signifies intent. Theft requires more than just keeping something that doesn't belong to you such as the issue of the owners' consent and an intent to deprive the owner, neither of which is the case here. Keeping something that doesnt belong to you without the owners consent is  theft, who told you it wasnt? You are wrong because the bank never lost anything at all.  the money was still in their bank and they still have full access to it at any time.  no interest was gained or lost and since the money was not spent the bank can take it back at any time. to use another example, somebody leaves an expensive item on your front lawn during the night.  You don't touch it or take it but you do not report it.  It stays there for months.  DId you steal it? no.  no crime has been committed and the bozo who left it there is still free to take it back. You are assuming, of course, that the originating bank making the error was your bank and not a third-party bank.

damn...  you are right although in my experience it has been intra-bank errors that are the preponderance of problems. 

A previous poster made the rather important claim that no one has ever been charged never mind convicted of theft in the situations(s) you define.  I think that pretty much outlines what the law has to say in the matter.

My daughter had $300 deposited in her account from 'someone'.  she told the bank about it and they did nothing.  After about 6 months she basically claimed it as there was nothing else to do.

I am pretty sure the legal situation would only be an issue if the person refused or was unable to return the misplaced money.  Even then it is not so clear cut.  A british example was of a woman who put $2000 a month into her investment account not realising she had entered the account number wrong and after TEN YEARS realised it.  The person who got the money refused to return it and she has been forced into CIVIL court to reclaim it.  The notable fact is that no criminal charges have been laid.  No doubt the court will order the return and if they refuse THEN maybe charged with theft.  But this example simply shows that there needs to be definite intention to steal for any legal action to be taken which only makes sense.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 9:36am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 8:21am: cods wrote on Apr 23rd, 2014 at 8:14am: if you were ill in hospital and did not access your account.....how do they prove you knew of the error.. it did happen to someone I knew she used her bank book..when she got home she had $100.000 more than when she went in the bank.. however they discovered it more or less straight away and took it back...before she had a chance to spend any.......shame Proving you were aware of the error would be in the form of your accessing the account, particularly where you have requested a balance, or a statement has been sent to you, for example. It is easy to verify that you did not access your account and easy to prove you were in hospital. I open my statements quarterly (BAS return) so receipt of a statement is meaningless.  and if it is a business account with normally 200K-500K in it, would you notice  $100K extra anyhow without a line-by-line check? It's not a business account... Its an everyday savings account.

I think Id notice $100K in my savings account given that it had $11 in it last night and I spent $10.61 at Coles on card!

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 9:59am:

I am pretty sure the legal situation would only be an issue if the person refused or was unable to return the misplaced money.

Yes, I think you're right. Every lawyer I've asked seems to think so too. Not least for the reason that banks only very reluctantly disclose their system errors, for the obvious reasons.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 7:40am:

OK one final ironic twist... (Why not... It could make a good movie plot!!) Through a bank error your account is deposited one million dollars.      You don't spend it.      You don't spend the interest it earns.      You don't use it as collateral for a loan.      And... You don't inform the bank of the error. FAST FORWARD 10 YEARS You haven't spent the money, you haven't informed the bank... You've striven all those years to maintain the balance (including the now whopping interest in the account). And you've spent 10 sleepless years angsting about the money... After all, its been 10 years and there's no way (you're sure) you're going to get out of this one when the bank discovers the error. Finally the bank contacts you and asks you to a meeting with them.You agree. [add lengthy capers trying to defer the meeting... Illness, death in family... in psychiatric hospital having suffered nervous breakdown... etc... etc...] The day comes you meet wit the bank manager... They're very sorry there's been a bank error... 11 years ago you helped an ancient (and rich) Mrs Huntington-Smyth cross the road safely. You gave her your name. With six months to live, she tracks you down and anonymously deposits ... 10 million into your account... The bank has deposited a mere one million in error and now, wishes to correct that error if you'd agree to going halves on the interest the other nine million has earned over the 10 year period and wants your non-disclosure of the error. One of those 'Honesty is the best policy' stories.

In that instance I'd probably be admitted to hospital for fainting out of shock.

Otherwise I'd gratefully accept the proposal, go away feeling mightily relieved and kick myself for awhile for being such an oddball in the first place.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 11:41am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 9:59am: I am pretty sure the legal situation would only be an issue if the person refused or was unable to return the misplaced money.  Yes, I think you're right. Every lawyer I've asked seems to think so too. Not least for the reason that banks only very reluctantly disclose their system errors, for the obvious reasons.

I think this exchange makes a really good point: that there's a difference to how these matters are handled in practice compared to how they could be handled in theory.

Police and prosecutors generally only pursue matters where they think there is a good chance of a charge sticking. So many of these are borderline that even if a theoretical argument for theft could be made the chances of it being pursued are minimal.

Plus I doubt the bank would pursue anything so long as the moment they asked for the money back they got it and, if any was spent, restitution was made.

Schu wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 12:06pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 11:41am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 9:59am: I am pretty sure the legal situation would only be an issue if the person refused or was unable to return the misplaced money.  Yes, I think you're right. Every lawyer I've asked seems to think so too. Not least for the reason that banks only very reluctantly disclose their system errors, for the obvious reasons. I think this exchange makes a really good point: that there's a difference to how these matters are handled in practice compared to how they could be handled in theory. Police and prosecutors generally only pursue matters where they think there is a good chance of a charge sticking. So many of these are borderline that even if a theoretical argument for theft could be made the chances of it being pursued are minimal. Plus I doubt the bank would pursue anything so long as the moment they asked for the money back they got it and, if any was spent, restitution was made.

plus the banks know that they would be killed in the PR storm that would follow a prosecution for money THEY stuck in someones account and which wasn't spent.

I worked in the IT dept of a bank for a long time.  You would be very surprised at how many mistakes are made.  We had a system of 'matched reversals' whereby the computer system would look for reversals of mistakes and exclude them from printing on statements so that no one would know.

ian wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:53pm:

its exactly the same as if you found it on your front lawn and told no one. Where you found the money and who put it there is irrelevant, by not notifying the owner and keeping it you are committing theft.

The owner of the money ?

Who, is the owner of the money ?

Surely possession of the money, by the bank, does not necessarily imply that the bank was the actual owner of the money [which the bank had in its possession] ?

And if the bank were so reckless as to, mistakenly, deposit one million dollars into MY account, wouldn't that action by the bank suggest some degree of reckless negligence, on the banks part ?


p.s.
I have not taken or spent the money.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2014 at 6:33am:

OK. Now for a clearer case of unjust enrichment. The bank deposits the one million dollars into your mortgage account, instantly wiping out your mortgage. Your automatic payments to your mortgage are stopped. Its harder now to argue that you don't have a duty to act as it is evident that you have financially gained from the error.

RESPONSE.....


Yadda wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 12:42pm:

......if the bank were so reckless as to, mistakenly, deposit one million dollars into MY account, wouldn't that action by the bank suggest some degree of reckless negligence, on the banks part ? p.s. I have not taken or spent the money.

Do you remember the Kiwi couple who did a runner a 2 years ago?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2193145/Accidental-millionaire-given-3-4m-bank-error-caught-international-fugitive.html

Petrol station owner accidentally given £3.4million in bank error gets four years after going on the run and spending it



I felt sorry for them...temptation :-/

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 12:21pm:

plus the banks know that they would be killed in the PR storm that would follow a prosecution for money THEY stuck in someones account and which wasn't spent.

There was a case some years back (couldn't find it on google) where into a young woman's (18) bank account went something like $100,000 in error.

She told her mother, who took her access card to check it for herself. Yes, there was $100,000 in the account.

The mother informed the bank of the error...

However, instead of being grateful, the bank insisted there was no error and told her they were now considering closing the daughter's account because she (the daughter) had breached the usage agreement of her access card by giving her mother the PIN number!!

Mum wasn't put off... She went to "Today Tonight" (or "A Current Affair... can't remember which) with her story and made an arse of the Bank.

Which Bank? Yep... Commonwealth Bank.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 1:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24th, 2014 at 12:21pm: plus the banks know that they would be killed in the PR storm that would follow a prosecution for money THEY stuck in someones account and which wasn't spent. There was a case some years back (couldn't find it on google) where into a young woman's (18) bank account went something like $100,000 in error. She told her mother, who took her access card to check it for herself. Yes, there was $100,000 in the account. The mother informed the bank of the error... However, instead of being grateful, the bank insisted there was no error and told her they were now considering closing the daughter's account because she (the daughter) had breached the usage agreement of her access card by giving her mother the PIN number!! Mum wasn't put off... She went to "Today Tonight" (or "A Current Affair... can't remember which) with her story and made an arse of the Bank. Which Bank? Yep... Commonwealth Bank.

which is why a bank would never make a scene about retrieving money unhindered from an account they accidentally credited.  it is all loss even if the person spent a small (and retrievable) amount of it.

This morning ironically there was an extra $125 in my bank account and when i tried to see where it came from it said from the ATO. Thats the tax office right? Argh.

SOB

Using the ATO as an example I once had my tax payment put in the WRONG persons account by the ATO and I was getting rude threatening letters about non-payment. But the ATO refused to rectify the mistake by simply transferring the money to the right account even after acknowledging the mistake. So what did I have to do?  Well... I had to get the person who got my money and a subsequent REFUND to give me the money - my money. But it gets worse.  the ATO couldn't tell me who had it from privacy reasons but they COULD tell my accountant.  Now the money went to my daughter so in the end it was tedious and pointless but with no loss. But imagie if your $10,000 tax payment went to some bogan who simply refused to give it back and the ATO refused to tell you who it went to but still demanded you pay it... again?

If you think banks area bad then think of the ATO.  and they have prosecution powers!

Many years ago, before internet banking, I used to do phone banking occasionally, or else, wait till I get the statement, can't remember if it was month, or 3 monthly.

Out of the blue one day, I got a phone call from another ANZ Bank (not my usual ANZ bank).....as there was an error in banking and funds were put into my account that were not mine.

They seemed to need my permission if they can withdraw that amount out.
Of course I obliged and said yes they can, and the relief I heard in the voice was obvious, and they couldn't thank me enough.
Then in the meantime, whilst they had their eye on my account, found I had a mortgage with the ANZ banking corp. and at that time, entitled me to a waiver in monthly accountant fee of $5.
They did this favour to inform me because I obliged for them to take money out that wasn't mine. This was not my own ANZ bank, but another branch, and it made me a bit cross with my own ANZ bank for not letting me know about the waiver.

Of course, I got back a nice bit of money counting back for a fee refund since we had the mortgage with them.

The point I am making, is I am not so sure if it is the same principle now, where the bank asked permission if they could withdraw it out due to error of depositing into the wrong account number.

Just saying, if you realize you had a big amount of dosh deposited and you didn't know where it came from, nor expecting it, and the bank finds out eventually and asks for it, then this is the part where it depends on the person's scruples and if they say no, it's mine, tuff luck, what can the bank do about that?

On the other hand, if you find a large sum of money (or anything else that you find) and hand it into the police, and no one claims it, after 3 months, its yours. The police ask you to come in and collect it.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 24^th, 2014 at 6:13pm:

Using the ATO as an example I once had my tax payment put in the WRONG persons account by the ATO and I was getting rude threatening letters about non-payment. But the ATO refused to rectify the mistake by simply transferring the money to the right account even after acknowledging the mistake. So what did I have to do?  Well... I had to get the person who got my money and a subsequent REFUND to give me the money - my money. But it gets worse.  the ATO couldn't tell me who had it from privacy reasons but they COULD tell my accountant.  Now the money went to my daughter so in the end it was tedious and pointless but with no loss. But imagie if your $10,000 tax payment went to some bogan who simply refused to give it back and the ATO refused to tell you who it went to but still demanded you pay it... again? If you think banks area bad then think of the ATO.  and they have prosecution powers!

I used to work in the legal department of the ATO, in the typing pool, where we used to send out summonses all the time, and for the most pathetic things I recall, I sometimes wanted to take the summons and just tear it up and trash it.
When the busy time passed (mid year) and we had other months of quieter times, we used to get send down to the mailing section to check the cheques.
For the tiniest thing, they will reject any payment you make, even if you make a mistake on the cheque for paying tax, if you do not cross your t's or dot your i's, it's not acceptable.
Your cheque is then sent back, and as the timing was important to pay the tax by a due date or face paying interest penalty rates, if your cheque was sent in time into the ATO, but then sent back to you, you lose the privelege of having paid on time, and pay the penalty rates.
Obviously, do not wait till the last minute to pay in time for those reasons.

But what a shyte eh?  >:(
Used to annoy me and felt sorry for people.