Australian Politics Forum - Bank Error In your Favour

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #30 - 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)

Back to top

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #31 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:40pm

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

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.

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

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #32 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:41pm

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

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

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.

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #33 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:44pm

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.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

UnSubRocky

Gold Member

Offline

Crocodile Hunter: Origins

Posts: 25008
Rockhampton
Gender: male

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #34 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:44pm

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

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!

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.

Back to top

At this stage...

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #35 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:46pm

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #36 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:47pm

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

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.

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

omissions

signifies intent.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #37 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:48pm

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 9451	Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million Reply #38 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 9:48pm Wheres Aussie gone?
Back to top	IP Logged

Schu

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 175
Gender: female

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #39 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:05pm

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #40 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:15pm

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

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.

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

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Schu

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 175
Gender: female

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #41 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:28pm

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

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

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.

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #42 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:31pm

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

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

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.

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Schu

Full Member

Offline

Posts: 175
Gender: female

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #43 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:36pm

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

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

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."

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.

Back to top

IP Logged

ian

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 9451

Re: Bank Error In your Favour - Hold One Million
Reply #44 - Apr 22^nd, 2014 at 10:41pm

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

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

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

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."

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?

Back to top

IP Logged