moral dilema

[Pete]

dont know much about money and banks but just a thought...
why not put it in a high interest account and just leave it there for about five years then if they want it back u can just say that 'i put it aside so i didnt spend it' and you will have made a few pounds in the process to buy an ice cream on the way home from the bank. if they dont ask for it after five years you can safely say that they have forgotten about it and then you will have perhaps an extra 100 pounds on top of the original money.
Pete

[Stolly]

But they can tale it back and they probably will if they notice. Tough one to call but the best thing is just to sit on it, play it by ear for a while. Leave the money in the account and see what happens.

No, i don't think they can.

[nichomach]

No, i don't think they can.

Look, Stolly, Pete, you're wrong, OK? Spending the money is theft. Moving the money into a different account is theft. Keeping the money when you know it isn't yours is theft. And the bank can take it back anytime they like, indeed it's the duty of Russ's mate to return the money as soon as possible. It's not his money, and he is neither entitled to keep it nor profit from it. If he does either it's theft. Please see posts above regarding s5(4) of the 1968 Theft Act.

[MAS]

So, bank loses money. Bank reclaims money by factoring cost of losses in to things like interest rates for savers and borrowers. Bank happy. Customers screwed. And this is a good idea?

Is there something you want to tell us? You're not on the board of Barclays are you, working a two-day week for £2m a year?

It's a fair point, but we've all already been screwed by banks...for years and years and years. You're totally right - if everyone was honest, we'd all pay less for certain things. If the dilemma involved most places other than a bank, I'd say give the money back ASAP. But it's a bank. Even if we were all 100% honest, banks would still overcharge us, extort money, etc etc. Not because they need to but just because they can. If banks were genuinely true and fair in their dealings with people, far fewer people would contemplate keeping the money, I'm sure.

In almost every business costs are pushed up by people doing things they shouldnt. If we're going to devote time, energy and resources to dealing with a problem, I'd rather it was spent chasing benefit fraudsters, etc who at the end of the day cost us all a hell of a lot more money than the odd bank mistake.

I know I'd be a lot happier with £1300 in my pocket than my principles. I'm not defending that position; I know I'm a bad man and I will probably go to Hell. But I believe Russ asked us what we would do.

[nichomach]

Is there something you want to tell us? You're not on the board of Barclays are you, working a two-day week for £2m a year?

No, I'm not, but I'm rather perturbed by the number of people here blithely advocating the commission of a criminal offence for personal gain. By the way, your suggestion that I am somehow motivated by personal gain is both utterly laughable and deeply insulting; something of an achievement, well done.

It's a fair point, but we've all already been screwed by banks...for years and years and years. You're totally right - if everyone was honest, we'd all pay less for certain things.

So campaign for the banking regs to be changed; you can do that, you know.

If the dilemma involved most places other than a bank, I'd say give the money back ASAP. But it's a bank. Even if we were all 100% honest, banks would still overcharge us, extort money, etc etc. Not because they need to but just because they can. If banks were genuinely true and fair in their dealings with people, far fewer people would contemplate keeping the money, I'm sure.

See above; but if Russ's mate follows the advice of certain people here he will be criminally liable.

In almost every business costs are pushed up by people doing things they shouldnt. If we're going to devote time, energy and resources to dealing with a problem, I'd rather it was spent chasing benefit fraudsters, etc who at the end of the day cost us all a hell of a lot more money than the odd bank mistake.

By that logic, you can forget benefit fraudsters; try VAT dodgers - tax evasion costs the country a hell of a lot more than benefit fraud (which, I would note, we already have extensive measures in place to combat). It wouldn't, by the way, take much time, effort or money to secure a conviction in a case like this if Russ's mate keeps or disposes of the money; it's the sort of thing that the phrase "open and shut case" was designed for.

I know I'd be a lot happier with £1300 in my pocket than my principles. I'm not defending that position; I know I'm a bad man and I will probably go to Hell. But I believe Russ asked us what we would do.

It's not a question of whether you're a good or bad man MAS, it's that there seem to be a lot of people stating with blithe unconcern for the facts or the law that Russ's mate is somehow entitled to do what he likes with someone else's money, and to utterly disregard the fact that he could be found guilty of theft, certainly be fined, possibly receive probation or a community-based penalty (or could theoretically be jailed) and would certainly have a criminal record for an offence involving dishonesty (something that employers, for instance, are inclined to look askance at).

[MAS]

Try putting the law book down and arguing the morals.

Benefit fraud costs this country a massive amount of money; seen the Exchequer report for last year? We have some measures, true, but it seems you've been sucked in by the government PR machine.

And it's exactly about whether you're a good man or a bad man. This is a MORAL dilemma.

I think you've made your point about the legal side of things. Please stop needlessly patronising everyone. A difference of opinion doesn't give you the right to be condescending

[nichomach]

Try putting the law book down and arguing the morals.

If you consider that being motivated by concern for someone else's wellbeing when I have nothing to gain from it being condescending, then I'm frankly ECSTATIC to be so described. You HAVE no moral argument; you're advocating that Russ's mate makes free with someone else's property for personal gain. I'd note, by the way, that you seemed quite happy to debate the law until it was utterly apparent that you were wrong, and then, and only then, to assert that the law wasn't really relevant anyway.

Benefit fraud costs this country a massive amount of money; seen the Exchequer report for last year? We have some measures, true, but it seems you've been sucked in by the government PR machine.

And tax evasion costs us a hell of a lot more, as I said, but I don't see you rushing to demand action on that. Something you're not telling us, perhaps?

And it's exactly about whether you're a good man or a bad man. This is a MORAL dilemma.

Fair enough; you're advcating that someone commit theft for personal gain, and doing so despite the fact that following your advice could land them in extremely hot water, and have repercussions for the rest of their life. What exactly would you say that makes you?

I think you've made your point about the legal side of things. Please stop needlessly patronising everyone.

Correcting the assertion that is still blithely being made that Russ's mate has some sort of right to someone else's money isn't patronising, it's necessary.

A difference of opinion doesn't give you the right to be condescending

Healer, heal thyself. Or, before pointing out the mote in MY eye, do something about the beam in your own.

[aeonf242]

Can I pause atthis point to say I'm enjoying this post.....2 camps seem to have emerged

1. The Black and White Camp...as in it's 'theft' or it isn't theft
2. The Fat Cat/Big Business against the Small guy (Them and Us?)

[nichomach]

Can I pause atthis point to say I'm enjoying this post.....2 camps seem to have emerged

1. The Black and White Camp...as in it's 'theft' or it isn't theft
2. The Fat Cat/Big Business against the Small guy (Them and Us?)

The irony is that I have a lot of sympathy with the view of banks as being the bad guys; but if the question is what would I do, then morally, even if one accepts the argument about the morality or otherwise of banks in general or this one in particular, I don't feel that two wrongs make a right, and practically I have to stand by what I've said. I wouldn't risk (even if it were a small risk) acquiring a conviction for the sake of £1300, and I sure as hell wouldn't advocate anyone else doing so. I'm not answering as I do because I hold any brief for the bank; I don't (though I've nothing against Sainsbury's in particular), but because theft is morally wrong, and the law is absolutely clear as to whether this would be theft.

[bertie]

nichomach,
Your point has been made two or three times now, and you seem to have hi-jacked the thread.
WE ARE ALL NOW AWARE OF THE 1968 THEFT ACT.

Like someone said earlier, this money could have been given to him as a gift, or as a refund for something he forgot about, ANYTHING.
He wasn't asking about the legal situation surrounding his decision - and if you look at the replies you will see that most people have said either leave it or put it in a savings account. REGARDLESS of the blessed 1968 Theft Act - the worst the bank can really do is take the money back out of your account, realising an error has been made. You might get a -ve balance for a few days, but then you would just xfer the money back into your account.
I'm not, and not many here are saying that this guy has the "right to someone else's money" - but the bank giveth and the bank taketh away

I would advise that this guy phone the bank and ask where this money came from to clear the situation up. They will be helpful and if an error has been made will likely be very thankful.
Personally I wouldn't really notice if i had £1300 in my account from nowhere as it would probably be gone quick enough anyway.


Now I expect my post to be critically analysed word by word by 11pm sharp.

[Angus]

Where are the mods when you need them???

[steve threlfall]

No, i don't think they can.

Banks never lose son

One way or the other the bank will not lose out. While its tempting to spend the cash it could and probably will lead to a lot of trouble

[Jimmy Little]

Russ - what happened with this money?

[Bazzlad]

For the record Twigman

As monopoly always says:
"Bank error in your favour, collect £20"
1300 - 20 = £1280
Therefore you you take all your money out of that account, and leave £1280 in it, and if the bank ever try and get it back or anything then just show them the monopoly card and tell them that they can't break the rules.

It's bank error in your favour take £200
Much nicer result too.............

[steve threlfall]

Russ - what happened with this money?

russ is on holiday for two weeks dude

[Big RICHARD]

Is it a crime if he spends it, not realising that it was there in the first place? (ie, he doesn't check his balance very often)