Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
bank's mistake?
24 Answers
Recently noticed �2000 that had been paid out of my account for a purchase reappeared.Company to which money is owed have received payment. Is there a period of time by which if this is not noticed that i can keep this or should I contact the bank...... dont want to break the law
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by issy35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This is probably not what you want to hear...
The money is not yours and there is no 'period of time' after which it would become yours automatically.
If you are overpaid in any way by accident then you should correct the mistake. If you do not do this then it can lead to charges of theft. This is particularly likely if you withdraw or otherwise spend the money knowing that it is not yours to spend.
I would suggest calling the bank...
However, what you MAY like hearing is this... some banks, as a matter of good will, allow customers who report accidental gains of money to keep all or part of the money. Although you are legally bound to be honest, they MIGHT (but might not, of course) let you keep a bit! If they do - this week's chocolate cakes are on you! :-)
I do not think that you can steal a credit made to your account in error, but if you withdrew the money, and the bank then spotted the error and asked for it back, you would have to repay them. Interestingly if you had not spotted the error, and innocently used up the money then you may not have had to pay it back, becuse you would have altered your position relying on the accuracy of what you had been told about the state of your bank balance.
Didwot is both correct and incorrect. You can steal a credit made to your account in error. This used not to be the case as 'property' needed to be taken for it to be theft and an electronic credit isn't property. Following the case of R v Preddy - where this loophole was exploited the loophole was closed. An electronic transfer can be property.
The definition of theft is 'dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the intent to permanently deprive' Appropriation simply means carrying out any act of ownership - such as withdrawing the money from a cashpoint. Electronic transfers can be property. Belonging to another - means what you would think. In this case it is the bank's money. Intent to permanently deprive means not planning on returning the property - spending it is a big clue that you aren't planning on returning it as is moving it out of the account.
What is key - as Didwot said - is dishonesty. You need all elements of the offence for there to be an offence. Dishonesty bears an everyday meaning. If you don't know that there has been a mistake then you are not dishonest and cannot be charged. However now you know that there was a mistake any act from now on to try to keep the money would complete all of the elements of the offence and mean you were committing theft.
Depending on the length of time i.e. within the last couple of weeks, it may well be in the system that the error has been detected. Banks must 'balance the books' at the end of each day and the end of the month and there is a strong chance this error will not go undetected for too long.
Tempting though isnt it!!! LOL
I may have misunderstood what's happened here so this may or may not be relevant. Here's an example, tell me if this is what's happened to you.
You have a current account with exactly �2000 in it, no overdraft. Your available balance and current balance are both �2000.
You swipe your card to spend �2000 and on this day, the bank are aware that you've spent it and give authorisation to the company for the payment. This authorisation means that the company are guaranteed to be able to debit your account although the *quickest* that they can do this is a day or so later.
Because of this, your bank deducts the money from your available balance for a few days (3 at my bank). Available balance = �0 but current still = �2000 (money is still physically in your account waiting to be debited)
These 3 days elapse without the company debiting your account, you have available and current of 2K and post a question on answerbank
??
IF this is the case then there is no time limit on when the company can take it from you. If you spend the money AND the company debit it to take you overdrawn I'd say you're liable for any charges.
All of the above hinges on �2000 disappearing from your available balance and then reappearing without actually showing as separate transactions on a statement. If, on your *bank/mini statement* there's a debit and a credit then that's another story altogether.
You have a current account with exactly �2000 in it, no overdraft. Your available balance and current balance are both �2000.
You swipe your card to spend �2000 and on this day, the bank are aware that you've spent it and give authorisation to the company for the payment. This authorisation means that the company are guaranteed to be able to debit your account although the *quickest* that they can do this is a day or so later.
Because of this, your bank deducts the money from your available balance for a few days (3 at my bank). Available balance = �0 but current still = �2000 (money is still physically in your account waiting to be debited)
These 3 days elapse without the company debiting your account, you have available and current of 2K and post a question on answerbank
??
IF this is the case then there is no time limit on when the company can take it from you. If you spend the money AND the company debit it to take you overdrawn I'd say you're liable for any charges.
All of the above hinges on �2000 disappearing from your available balance and then reappearing without actually showing as separate transactions on a statement. If, on your *bank/mini statement* there's a debit and a credit then that's another story altogether.
The same thing happened to my friend they bought some furniture for the new house and the comapny is suppose to take the money out of their account but they never. Either the company made a mistake or the bank. In your case is the bank. The company and bank had not contacted my friend, they havent discovered the problem to this day and this was years ago. They kept the furniture and the "money". Is up to you!! but it might catch up with you....!!??
Hi Lillabet. When you refer to the Preddy loophole being closed, you are referring to the Theft Act 1996, which created new offences of obtaining a money transfer by deception, and of dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit. I am no expert, but I do not see how the circumstances issy35 sets out contravene either. Perhaps there is some other offence, and I should be grateful for your views.
Surely it's "Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit"? I understood it exactly as issy35 said - the money was "paid out of my account... (then) reappeared". She shouldn't have been credited with the money, but she was.
Moreover, Issy is clearly aware that there might be an issue with breaking the law, and therefore she knows there's possibly something wrong in keeping the money. Dishonesty is (Lillabet correct me if I'm wrong) usually interpreted as "Known or ought to have know that the act was not honest or right". (Or words to that effect).
I just don't see the harm in contacting the bank. Issy35 will either lose �2000 that she expected to lose anyway but avoid prosecution, keep �2000 - (bonus!) or be 'rewarded' by the bank with part of the sum (bonus!). She knows the money isn't really hers, so where's the loss?
(Issy35 - sorry to speak about you like you're not there - it's just easier to avoid confusion if I keep putting your name in the answer! I hope this all helps you in some way!)
Basically what Preddy and the 1996 Act do is create the possibility for electronic figures to be construed as property and form part of a theft offence. If the money is moved.
If she does nothing with the money then as acw pointed out it is dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit - a theft offence.
If she withdraws the money as cash then the cash is property and there is no problem with the offence being theft.
There hasn't been a case on this precise scenario but if she were to spend the money using her debit card - typing in her pin - then I would expect that this act could be construed as an act of deception. In the past writing a cheque or presenting a credit card knowing that the funds are not yours / aren't there have counted as obtaining property / services by deception theft offences - and typing in your pin would surely be the same. See MPC v Charles [1977] AC 177 and R v Lambie [1982] AC 449
issy35's question ended by saying she didn't want to break the law. The answer is that to avoid breaking the law she needs to contact the bank
But the offence of dishonestly obtaining a money transfer requies dishonesty on the part of the accused, and deception. issy35's question does not suggest either dishonesty or deception. The offence of dishonestly retaining requires the credit itself to have been wrongful, and the act defines that as being contrary to s15A (obtaining a money transfer by deception) or deriving from certain specified crimes. Now I am not advocating that issy35 takes the money and runs, but I would like to get the criminal liability straight in my mind, and at the moment I just do not see it.
Dishonesty has been interpreted very broadly in case law. Halpin, �The test for dishonesty�, (1996) Crim.L.R 283
It would include omissions to act as well as actually doing something. Failing to inform when an error has taken place can be dishonest. So can failure to correct an error DPP V Ray (1974) A.C. 370 and Rai (2000) Crim.L.R. 192
Deception is also taken extremely broadly. In Rai the deceptive act was doing nothing. In Charles and Lambie the House of Lords interpreted the act of taking goods to a counter and paying for them when there weren't sufficient funds in the account to cover them as an act of deception.
This is despite the fact that the shops were paid by the banks and it was the bank that lost out. The HoL ruled that had the shops known the true state of affairs they wouldn't have sold the goods to the customers. They did not ask the shop representatives whether or not this was true so this has to be taken as an objective ruling applying to transactions. Charles and Lambie were ruled to have acted deceptively by implying through their conduct that they had a right to use the credit card and cheque book. In this case by using her card to buy goods and typing in her pin / signing for the debits to be taken etc etc
issy35 would be acting deceptively if she was spending money she knew to not be hers. The reasoning is tortuous and flawed but until the cases mentioned above are overruled it does reflect the precedents by which this situation would be judged...
I personally think that from Lillabet's extensive and well researched answers it's clear that spending the money would be dishonest. I understand this to be a strict liability offence and that it doesn't really matter who's "fault" it is that she has the money. The fact that it isn't hers is enough to make any use of it, or failure to return it, illegal.
