Guy Mistakenly Gets 1.5mil Then Gambles it Away

[Crazyirishman]

This whole situation kinda reminds me of the scene from "The Invention of Lying" where the guy withraws more money that is in his account and the bank is like "oh my bad".

[Lootifer]

Guy did a similar thing in NZ:

Link

[Army of GOD]

I would have no moral problem by taking the money. The only thing I would worry about are the legal repercussions.

[2dimes]

So if you found a giant sack of money in your living room you would just assume it's a gift from the gold tooth fairy?

This is a more complicated senario. How much money is this? Sounds like it was a mistake or some sort of trap/test, you should probably pretend you did not find it.

[2dimes]

Wait, so if I find cash on the street and take it it's theft?

Probably yes for formal rules, but with informal rules probably not (e.g. finder's keepers).

For $5? Not illegal. For $100,000 in a briefcase? Probably illegal, but if you take it to the cops, they're likely to keep it (assuming the owner couldn't be found, lolol). So, if the law enforcers are likely to steal it, then it makes sense to disregard some of the formal rules which they enforce.

Sounds about right?

In the case of something that obviously belongs to someone the amount comes into play. I guess it's a matter of if the value is low there is so much of that sort of theft now that the police will not even come out to take information. You have to decide for yourself if it's worth your personal time to go to a station and fill out a report in order to claim it on insurance keeping in mind your deductible.

Personal property is easier to steal because a store will have records, many people buy and sell used things without bills of sale. I have discussed a custom guitar here before valued at a couple of thousand dollars a guy left at a jam session. Someone found it and took it home. They never figured out who took it for sure but the police told him, "It doesn't matter if we find it in someone's possesion, he just has to say you owed him money or he bought it. It's your word against his."

[BigBallinStalin]

Probably yes for formal rules, but with informal rules probably not (e.g. finder's keepers).

For $5? Not illegal. For $100,000 in a briefcase? Probably illegal, but if you take it to the cops, they're likely to keep it (assuming the owner couldn't be found, lolol). So, if the law enforcers are likely to steal it, then it makes sense to disregard some of the formal rules which they enforce.

Sounds about right?

Pretty much. It just seems ridiculous that there would even be formal rules trying to control something like this.

Again, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. Huge busts where police officers place wallets with cash + id in them, also with a hidden gps device. You pick up the wallet and don't report it within a week. Jail motherfucker.
Doesn't sound too reasonable to me.

Sure, because that's entrapment, which is illegal.

If it's a wallet, then presumably the owner can be located, so taking the money would be wrong because you have a duty to return that money to its rightful owner. If it's cash money on the ground, then... what do? Go to the police? (lol). Take the money, and that's all good.

Yeah, probably, because there's implied consent. It's understood between both parties that you exchange the dollars for the amount shown. I think the business simply gives the cashier a pass or two, but afterward deducts the extra change you receive from her paycheck. That seems to be the most efficient way.

However, let's assume they don't deduct the amount from her paycheck. If the company is unwilling to enforce this imbalance, then legally--(I guess)--you're A-okay because it's implied that they don't care if a few customers occasionally get more than required.

It seems absolutely fine for the business to charge the cashier, cause he actually made a mistake. You screw up, you face repercussions. It doesn't seem ok to make it illegal for people to profit from serendipity though.

Well, regarding your last sentence, I wouldn't say that's good for all cases. Let's say we engage in an exchange: I offer your my life-time subscription to the Handsome Boy Modeling School, and we agree on the price of $100; however, you accidentally give me $200 because those Bennies be so crisp, yo.

Now, I take the $200, and fail to mention your mistake. You go home, but realize that you're missing $100. You call me to ask if I received that $100 by mistake. I say, "Of course, but I gained this by serendipity; therefore, it's not illegal!" Clearly, this seems wrong on my part, and by law I should be required to give you back the $100. Your position, to be logically consistent, would claim that the extra $100 is mine, and it's not illegal to keep it. I just don't agree with that in this scenario because it's obvious that the extra $100 was not intended to be my property, which means that the extra $100 I received was not based on a legitimate contract. The legitimate contract only mentioned the transfer of $100--not $200. Therefore, it's illegal to retain profits dishonestly even if the profit was gained by luck.

[BigBallinStalin]

You have a point, but if it's a mistake shouldn't the bank at least have a legal claim to their own money?

If the money is still there, perhaps.

Since they were incompetent enough to allow the guy to take out 1.5 mil and spend it all, I'm not sure what claim they could have. I definitely don't think the guy should be forced to sell his house or go to jail because of taking advantage of the bank's mistake.
Besides 1.5 mil is peanuts to BoA.

This is an issue about property rights.

Other reasons, e.g. "1.5 mil is peanuts to BoA," or "they were incompetent" do not change the fact that the gambler had no legal right to the property of BoA's 1.5 mil; however, since it was in his account, which is deemed his property, then he has some claim. Nevertheless, if you simply ask him, "why did you think that you somehow had 1.5 million?", then it would become obvious that at some point, this gambler knew that the money was not his.

If you knowingly spend money which is not yours, you're gonna have a hard time explaining why it's legal to enjoy the property rights of goods which you dishonestly claimed to be yours.

[BigBallinStalin]

the way to determine punishment in a case like this is to determine the harm inflicted on the damaged party.

in /'s mailman scenario, the mailman suffers a great deal from the loss of his wallet.

in the cashier scenario, a business loses some money and the cashier might get docked some pay. not all that much suffering.

how much does bank of america suffer from the loss of a million dollars? does it even cause anyone to lose their job?

this has nothing to do with "implied consent" or any such nonsense.

No, that's bullshit because this is a property rights issue based on contract law. You don't lose your right to your own property because you accidentally gave someone extra money with the implied understanding that the extra money which was given was not intentional. See my 2nd response here for an example.


Let's all sit in a room and decide who suffers the least when we take their money. How's that sound? "Hey, J9B, it's only a dollar, so shut up and give it to us."

There's no legitimate contract here. Property rights have to be respected; otherwise, you can justify all sorts of involuntary and/or dishonest/fraudulent exchanges.

[nietzsche]

I would have no moral problem by taking the money. The only thing I would worry about are the legal repercussions.

Who would? Everybody hates banks, if anything, they owe us money.

[john9blue]

No, that's bullshit because this is a property rights issue based on contract law. You don't lose your right to your own property because you accidentally gave someone extra money with the implied understanding that the extra money which was given was not intentional. See my 2nd response here for an example.


Let's all sit in a room and decide who suffers the least when we take their money. How's that sound? "Hey, J9B, it's only a dollar, so shut up and give it to us."

There's no legitimate contract here. Property rights have to be respected; otherwise, you can justify all sorts of involuntary and/or dishonest/fraudulent exchanges.

i'm not trying to say that taking money or property that isn't yours is ever perfectly morally acceptable. i also never said that the person who accidentally gave the money lost their right to it.

i thought we were talking about the extent of the punishment that this guy should receive? shouldn't that be decide by the harm inflicted on the victims of the theft? it's not just about the monetary value of the theft... that's why a man who robs a gas station at gunpoint for $100 will go to jail for years, but an executive who embezzles millions from some other rich people will go for a few months, if that.

[BigBallinStalin]

No, that's bullshit because this is a property rights issue based on contract law. You don't lose your right to your own property because you accidentally gave someone extra money with the implied understanding that the extra money which was given was not intentional. See my 2nd response here for an example.


Let's all sit in a room and decide who suffers the least when we take their money. How's that sound? "Hey, J9B, it's only a dollar, so shut up and give it to us."

There's no legitimate contract here. Property rights have to be respected; otherwise, you can justify all sorts of involuntary and/or dishonest/fraudulent exchanges.

i'm not trying to say that taking money or property that isn't yours is ever perfectly morally acceptable. i also never said that the person who accidentally gave the money lost their right to it.

i thought we were talking about the extent of the punishment that this guy should receive? shouldn't that be decide by the harm inflicted on the victims of the theft? it's not just about the monetary value of the theft... that's why a man who robs a gas station at gunpoint for $100 will go to jail for years, but an executive who embezzles millions from some other rich people will go for a few months, if that.

Oh, I see. ANyway!

Harm matters, but so does intent.

For example, if you ask the gambler, "why did you think that you somehow had 1.5 million?", then after an extensive questioning it would likely become obvious that at some point, this gambler knew that the money was not his. So, after some point beyond making an honest mistake, we can reasonably assume that the gambler was knowingly using money which was not his. Of course, that's not as overt as robbing a convenience store, but it's still theft.

that's why a man who robs a gas station at gunpoint for $100 will go to jail for years, but an executive who embezzles millions from some other rich people will go for a few months, if that.

In my opinion, the primary cause for this discrepancy lies in the legal resources which the accused can muster. It's also a product of the convulated nature of the legal code, but we digress.

Another important factor is culpability (see wiki page, section: at law). It mentions acting purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently. The gambler (I assume) at some point, knowingly used money which was not his; however, a case could be made that BoA was acting negligently (assuming that they had no effective safeguards to prevent this from happening). So, it's not just harm that matters, but intent (and obligation/duty) as well--however, that may be shown in court.

RE: the gambler, it does go back to implied consent. If his defense argues that the gambler simply acted this way because the money in his account was assumed to be his," then BoA could counter with an implied consent argument, e.g. "if the bank makes a mistake as significant as $1.5 mil, then it should be understood between both parties that the money is still not the recipient's." For all I know, this instance could already be covered explicitly in the contract the gambler signed when creating his bank account with BoA.

thought we were talking about the extent of the punishment that this guy should receive? shouldn't that be decide by the harm inflicted on the victims of the theft?

As far as punishment is concerned, I'm in favor of restitution and against criminal prosecution. Having the gambler serve X amount of years in prison doesn't benefit anyone, nor does it serve as an effective threat deterrent against future mistakes like this one. With restitution, the issue would be resolved between the two parties, but not the state with its self-serving laws which "necessitate" its supply of prisons. The amount of harm would factor in, but as already mentioned, there's other factors which are also important.

[Woodruff]

As far as punishment is concerned, I'm in favor of restitution and against criminal prosecution. Having the gambler serve X amount of years in prison doesn't benefit anyone

Surely, you jest. It benefits Prison Inc., corporate prisonhood, here in the United States.

[BigBallinStalin]

"With restitution, the issue would be resolved between the two parties, but not the state with its self-serving laws which "necessitate" its supply of prisons."

Already there, Woodruff.

[Ogeron]

If it's not yours, you are required by law and common sense to try to find the owner and return the item. If after you make whatever the local law thinks is a fair effort to find the owner and a set time goes by, you can keep the found item.

What the guy did and Haggis theorized is theft. It's not hard to understand. TANSTAAFL.

[Army of GOD]

If it's not yours, you are required by law and common sense to try to find the owner and return the item. If after you make whatever the local law thinks is a fair effort to find the owner and a set time goes by, you can keep the found item.

What the guy did and Haggis theorized is theft. It's not hard to understand. TANSTAAFL.

"common sense"

so if you found 20 dollars on the ground, and knew that there wasn't going to be any legal consequences for taking it, you would still attempt to find the owner?

5 dollars? 1 dollar? At what point is there "enough money" to make an attempt to find the owner?


also, f*ck you Inkl00sed for telling me about the argument of the beard. I never know if I'm the one committing the fallacy like above or if the other person is.

[2dimes]

If you find something with no way to determine ownership like cash money in a public place it's not like finding a wallet.

If you find my wallet and take out all the cash then send it back. I would be relieved to get my license back and consider the money you stole from me as a reward for sending the rest of the crap back.

If I find your wallet I send it back as found. Don't get too excited though I probably found it after some more typical person took the cash and credit cards then tossed it aside.

However if it fell out of your low rider baggy pants and I'm the first one to find it, you'd get it back with all your birthday money intact.

[Symmetry]

If you find something with no way to determine ownership like cash money in a public place it's not like finding a wallet.

If you find my wallet and take out all the cash then send it back. I would be relieved to get my license back and consider the money you stole from me as a reward for sending the rest of the crap back.

If I find your wallet I send it back as found. Don't get too excited though I probably found it after some more typical person took the cash and credit cards then tossed it aside.

However if it fell out of your low rider baggy pants and I'm the first one to find it, you'd get it back with all your birthday money intact.

You can always turn the cash in to a police station, get a receipt, and see if anyone reports the missing money to the police. Not sure how things work in Canada, but in the UK, if nobody claims it, it becomes yours after a certain period of time.

[Baron Von PWN]

If you find something with no way to determine ownership like cash money in a public place it's not like finding a wallet.

If you find my wallet and take out all the cash then send it back. I would be relieved to get my license back and consider the money you stole from me as a reward for sending the rest of the crap back.

If I find your wallet I send it back as found. Don't get too excited though I probably found it after some more typical person took the cash and credit cards then tossed it aside.

However if it fell out of your low rider baggy pants and I'm the first one to find it, you'd get it back with all your birthday money intact.

You can always turn the cash in to a police station, get a receipt, and see if anyone reports the missing money to the police. Not sure how things work in Canada, but in the UK, if nobody claims it, it becomes yours after a certain period of time.

We have something similar in Canada

[Woodruff]

If you find something with no way to determine ownership like cash money in a public place it's not like finding a wallet.

If you find my wallet and take out all the cash then send it back. I would be relieved to get my license back and consider the money you stole from me as a reward for sending the rest of the crap back.

If I find your wallet I send it back as found. Don't get too excited though I probably found it after some more typical person took the cash and credit cards then tossed it aside.

However if it fell out of your low rider baggy pants and I'm the first one to find it, you'd get it back with all your birthday money intact.

You can always turn the cash in to a police station, get a receipt, and see if anyone reports the missing money to the police. Not sure how things work in Canada, but in the UK, if nobody claims it, it becomes yours after a certain period of time.

We have something similar in Canada

SOCIALISM!!!! WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION!!!!!

[kentington]

If you find something with no way to determine ownership like cash money in a public place it's not like finding a wallet.

If you find my wallet and take out all the cash then send it back. I would be relieved to get my license back and consider the money you stole from me as a reward for sending the rest of the crap back.

If I find your wallet I send it back as found. Don't get too excited though I probably found it after some more typical person took the cash and credit cards then tossed it aside.

However if it fell out of your low rider baggy pants and I'm the first one to find it, you'd get it back with all your birthday money intact.

You can always turn the cash in to a police station, get a receipt, and see if anyone reports the missing money to the police. Not sure how things work in Canada, but in the UK, if nobody claims it, it becomes yours after a certain period of time.

It works the same in the US as well. Although, I can't remember the time period.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you find something with no way to determine ownership like cash money in a public place it's not like finding a wallet.

If you find my wallet and take out all the cash then send it back. I would be relieved to get my license back and consider the money you stole from me as a reward for sending the rest of the crap back.

If I find your wallet I send it back as found. Don't get too excited though I probably found it after some more typical person took the cash and credit cards then tossed it aside.

However if it fell out of your low rider baggy pants and I'm the first one to find it, you'd get it back with all your birthday money intact.

You can always turn the cash in to a police station, get a receipt, and see if anyone reports the missing money to the police. Not sure how things work in Canada, but in the UK, if nobody claims it, it becomes yours after a certain period of time.

We have something similar in Canada

That's a great way to never see your money again.

Which reminds me. I once found a bike that was new but missing a few parts. I brought it to the police station--thinking I could get it back if no one claimed it. They basically said, "no, we take the bike, wait 30 days to see if anyone claims it (I'm sure they widely advertised to get the owner's attention), and then hold an auction."

That's the last time I went to a police station. With those incentives in place, hardly anyone in their right mind would use the police station to connect the owners with their lost goods---assuming that they aren't extremely valuable and whose owner is easy to find (e.g. stolen car).

[IcePack]

Finding extra $ in ur account and accidentally spending it is one thing. $1.5 million is ridiculous. At some point even if ur pulling in $100k$250k/ year ur going to realize the $1.5 m your pulling out ISN'T YOURS.

The only excuse is if u regularly have multi millions sittin in the account and u didn't realize they didn't carry the 1.

Any "regular" person pulling out $1.5 m of thee regular checking / savings knows it doesn't belong to them. While its ur account you agree to a membership / contract for where ur pay check goes and how they handle ur monies. Pulling out more money then you put in I gaurentee you is covered in their fine print".

IcePack

[MrBenn]

If you find something with no way to determine ownership like cash money in a public place it's not like finding a wallet.

If you find my wallet and take out all the cash then send it back. I would be relieved to get my license back and consider the money you stole from me as a reward for sending the rest of the crap back.

If I find your wallet I send it back as found. Don't get too excited though I probably found it after some more typical person took the cash and credit cards then tossed it aside.

However if it fell out of your low rider baggy pants and I'm the first one to find it, you'd get it back with all your birthday money intact.

You can always turn the cash in to a police station, get a receipt, and see if anyone reports the missing money to the police. Not sure how things work in Canada, but in the UK, if nobody claims it, it becomes yours after a certain period of time.

It all depends about what's reasonable. Whatever some of money you find, did you take (or more importantly can you argue that you took) reasonable steps to identify the rightful owner?

[Symmetry]

If you find something with no way to determine ownership like cash money in a public place it's not like finding a wallet.

If you find my wallet and take out all the cash then send it back. I would be relieved to get my license back and consider the money you stole from me as a reward for sending the rest of the crap back.

If I find your wallet I send it back as found. Don't get too excited though I probably found it after some more typical person took the cash and credit cards then tossed it aside.

However if it fell out of your low rider baggy pants and I'm the first one to find it, you'd get it back with all your birthday money intact.

You can always turn the cash in to a police station, get a receipt, and see if anyone reports the missing money to the police. Not sure how things work in Canada, but in the UK, if nobody claims it, it becomes yours after a certain period of time.

It all depends about what's reasonable. Whatever some of money you find, did you take (or more importantly can you argue that you took) reasonable steps to identify the rightful owner?

To be fair, I was kind of replying on the premise that there was no way to determine ownership.