I have been paid twice... can I keep it??

[rogerebaker]

My daughter had a similar thing last year. I did some research and found out that by keeping it you commit no criminal offence.

 

Their only recourse is via the civil courts.

 

If they try to take it back you can appeal to the ombudsman who can apparently ajudicate.

 

buy some premium bonds and if they ask for it back cash them in and pay them.

 

You may win the jackpot in the mean time

[rogerebaker]

The above amendment to the Theft Act is not relevant in this case.

 

keeping a wrongful credit is only applicable if the orignal money kept was obtained dishonestly / by theft / by deception.

 

It was introduced to deal with people who for intance obtain a motgage fraudulently and then then transfer the money to a third party who then either keeps it or moves it on.

 

Money transfers under the original Theft Act were not considered property so this amendment was introduced to close that loop hole.

 

Heres an extract from the internet on the subject

 

 

It is made clear that a credit is only "wrongful" if it derives from a dishonest source i.e. stolen goods, blackmail, theft or the new section 15A offence. In the latter case, a credit side of a money transfer is regarded as "wrongful" if that transfer is obtained in circumstances amounting to the new offence under section 15A. So someone who, through a bank error, is credited an amount to an account, realises the mistake and does nothing about it will not be guilty of the new section 24A offence. Such conduct would not amount to an offence under the Theft legislation unless the taking of advantage of another's mistake in these circumstances can amount to theft contrary to section 1 of the 1968 Act. Clearly, if D knowingly pockets excess change in a supermarket handed to her because of an assistant's error, then that can amount to theft from the supermarket due to section 5(4) of the 1968 Act; but here the property, the excess change, "belongs to" the supermarket. In the case of the credit transfer, however, Preddy makes it clear that the property does not "belong to" the person, V, from whose account the amount is debited but instead belongs in essence to the bank who operates that account; so it would seem that there is no section 1 theft offence as against V, the customer.

[rogerebaker]

Some of you losing the plot

 

Give nailz a break for goodness sake. Whats the harm in making a bit of mischief when the occasion arises. If it was the other way round he would have to be filling in forms in triplicate, waiting for a month for the money to clear and then have to apologise and grovel to get it back and probably have to pay 35.00 to wit. Its not often you get the chance to make them grovel a bit

 

some of you need to lighten up.

[rogerebaker]

My two cents...

 

I must first say I'm recalling this from A level law and I'm now 23.

 

I do recall SOMETHING about a case which invovled theft and the situation was similar. I cannot remember the outcome but I think an argument could be made, certainly you're looking dishonest because you KNOW the money is not yours.

 

From what I recall (in laymans terms) Theft is defined as dishonestly obtaining property belonging to another with the intention to permanently deprive the other of it.

 

If you move it to another account aren't you appropriating it? It's certainly property. You know it's not yours, not sure whether this is sufficient to show it belongs to another.

 

I would've thought unless you don't touch the money at all it could be argued that you intend to deprive the other off it.

 

Also what about interest? This isn't really yours either is it?

 

I'm probably wrong as A levels do tend to over simplify stuff but I hope you can see where I am coming from. I would be very careful, exhaust all possibilities and then... still not spend the money!

 

Theres no actual appropriation of property as the transfer of money is purely an electronic process therefor falls outside of the theft Act.