Guy gets paid 100k when he was supposed to get 1k, gets charged with theft.

[newbitech]

So getting legal advice from a bank and an accountant isn't your best plan either.

Oh sure. But you said he didn't do that. You made it sound like he left it in his bank until he decided to spend it, but that's not what he did. He moved it out ASAP. First to another bank, then to cash.

I suppose these days its worth it to hire a lawyer to watch over every relationship transaction to avoid going to jail over someone else's mistake.

But I was talking about the other case you mentioned. In this case we don't have that kind of detail.

 

[newbitech]

decided to click on this thread to see how such an obvious title could garner 170+ posts. hoo-boy. the things folks will try to defend.

its actually a pretty good study.

 

[angelatc]

Newbitech, this letter is from 1999, and is related to California cases, but it clearly states that under California law, wage over payments could not be deducted from payroll. The employer had to seek remedy in the court system.
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/opinions/1999-09-22-1.pdf


Again, let me ask you to think with logic for a second. If the guy had received $50 million instead of $50,000 - would it make any sense at all to limit the employer to seeking restitution only through payroll deduction?

 

[angelatc]

I suppose these days its worth it to hire a lawyer to watch over every relationship transaction to avoid going to jail over someone else's mistake.

If you don't seek to profit from other people's mistakes, I think you'll be alright.

 

[angelatc]

before i go into any further, I think you are wrong about this.

It's not "the employer is allowed to consider"

it's

"DOL interpretation of FSLA and Texas Wage Commission considers"

And again, I do payroll. I know exactly what they're saying. The employer might wish to consider this to be handled like child support, meaning essentially that it they can attach everything and anything to recover the money. This limits the employer to using the same rules as a payroll advance, *if* they have the consent of the employee to pay it back that way.

The employer is not prohibited from using other legal methods of collection. And so far nothing you've shown me indicates that it is illegal for them to pursue criminal charges.

 

[newbitech]

Newbitech, this letter is from 1999, and is related to California cases, but it clearly states that under California law, wage over payments could not be deducted from payroll. The employer had to seek remedy in the court system.
http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/opinions/1999-09-22-1.pdf


Again, let me ask you to think with logic for a second. If the guy had received $50 million instead of $50,000 - would it make any sense at all to limit the employer to seeking restitution only through payroll deduction?

Ok, I think you are hung up on the payroll deduction part. But to answer your question, No.
I don't think it makes sense to limit the employer to RESTITUTION only thru payroll deduction.

There are some other things that I don't think make sense either.

1.) the company not using FDIC laws to reverse the transaction
2.) the company making that big a mistake in the first place
3.) knocking on the guys door to try to collect $50k
4.) harassing and threatening legal action over the phone
5.) the guy being charged as a criminal for grand theft

But, I am not going to ask you to logically think about those things because I don't think we are going to agree on some basic premise. For instance, you already think the guy had the intent to deprive the owner of his property. You already think that I am looking for a reason for the guy to keep the money.

So just those couple of things I will have to convince you to set aside in your mind first before I can ask you to pursue the logical path that I am on.

1.) I don't know why the guy acted the way he did, and absent that knowledge or some evidence that makes it obvious, I won't conclude anything about his motive.
2.) I don't think he should keep the money, never did.

 

[newbitech]

And again, I do payroll. I know exactly what they're saying. The employer might wish to consider this to be handled like child support, meaning essentially that it they can attach everything and anything to recover the money. This limits the employer to using the same rules as a payroll advance, *if* they have the consent of the employee to pay it back that way.

The employer is not prohibited from using other legal methods of collection. And so far nothing you've shown me indicates that it is illegal for them to pursue criminal charges.

You cannot attempt to collect a debt by hiring a strong man to go to someones house and put a gun to their face and threaten them with kidnapping and caging them!

You cannot attempt to collect a debt by making harassing and threatening phone calls!

They may pursue criminal charges all they want, but if they want a conviction, they have to prove the guy stole the money!

The criminal defense in this case is easy, given the evidence we have. The money was a payroll advance. Case closed.

Again we can debate whether or not a mistaken overpayment *should* be considered a payroll advance, but its pretty clear that Federal and State laws views it as such.

now as far as how the company should proceed since their criminal case is essentially DOA, at least if the system is sane, they obviously can't deduct the funds from payroll, so they will want to pursue a civil case and place liens.

That is about it.

Apparently they thought that the best course of action to take was using force against him. We'll see how that works out.

 

[angelatc]

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/pdf/uilawcompar/2004/overpayments.pdf

You'll have to click on this to see the whole context, but this document deals with overpayments. Nowhere in it does it say that employers are required to use payroll deduction to collect the debt.

RECOVERY PROVISIONS

—All state laws provide for recovering be nefits paid to workers who later are found not to be entitled to them. In addition to direct repayment, states utilize several tools to recoup these funds. States may, at the discretion of the agency, recover overpayments by deducting from future benefits payable (benefit offset).

The way I read it, this is what Texas says

TX; Class B misdemeanor if the value of the amount of money obtained or sought to be obtained is less than $300, Class A misdemeanor if the money is $300-$1,000, 3rd degree felony if value of the money is $1,000 - $5,000, or a 2nd degree felony if the value of money exceeds $5,000,

Also, reading some cites that aren't credible enough to be linked, I've seen people be told that while it isn't illegal to not tell the employer about the mistake, any attempt to hide the money and the refusal to return it can and will result in criminal prosecution. So I"m thinking there are precedents out there - I just don't have a subscription to a legal database to pull them up.

 

[newbitech]

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/pdf/uilawcompar/2004/overpayments.pdf

You'll have to click on this to see the whole context, but this document deals with overpayments.

The way I read it, this is what Texas says

I did see a lot of info on unemployment compensation overpayments. I didn't pursue that path because I didn't think it would really fit in this case, since it's not unemployment benefits we are talking about.

 

[newbitech]

http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/pdf/uilawcompar/2004/overpayments.pdf

You'll have to click on this to see the whole context, but this document deals with overpayments. Nowhere in it does it say that employers are required to use payroll deduction to collect the debt.

The way I read it, this is what Texas says



Also, reading some cites that aren't credible enough to be linked, I've seen people be told that while it isn't illegal to not tell the employer about the mistake, any attempt to hide the money and the refusal to return it can and will result in criminal prosecution. So I"m thinking there are precedents out there - I just don't have a subscription to a legal database to pull them up.

I've seen that too. To me, that is a threatening way for a company to deal with a mistake that the company made, and I think it's wrong to threaten people when the consequences of my mistake are my responsibility and my responsibility alone.

I am sure there is legal recourse, and I am sure that mistakes like this are quite common with the advent of direct deposit and automated payroll systems prone to computer errors. I just don't think it is common or standard practice, and maybe even unlawful to make those types of threats, considering labor laws treat these types of mistakes as loans or advances.

I mean put the shoe on the other foot. Think about the situations where a company is held responsible for underpaying employees overtime. That was big news and you probably know about. See anyone marched off to jail over that? Don't think so.

 

[angelatc]

Ok, I think you are hung up on the payroll deduction part. But to answer your question, No.
I don't think it makes sense to limit the employer to RESTITUTION only thru payroll deduction.

There are some other things that I don't think make sense either.

1.) the company not using FDIC laws to reverse the transaction
2.) the company making that big a mistake in the first place
3.) knocking on the guys door to try to collect $50k
4.) harassing and threatening legal action over the phone
5.) the guy being charged as a criminal for grand theft

But, I am not going to ask you to logically think about those things because I don't think we are going to agree on some basic premise. For instance, you already think the guy had the intent to deprive the owner of his property. You already think that I am looking for a reason for the guy to keep the money.

So just those couple of things I will have to convince you to set aside in your mind first before I can ask you to pursue the logical path that I am on.

1.) I don't know why the guy acted the way he did, and absent that knowledge or some evidence that makes it obvious, I won't conclude anything about his motive.
2.) I don't think he should keep the money, never did.

1.) the company not using FDIC laws to reverse the transaction

The FDIC doesn't make the recovery laws. There's an electronic clearing house that sets the regulations - I don't remember their initial right off the top of my head though. The employer has only 5 days to reverse a deposit that was made in error. Since your boy took the money out, that wasn't a possibility.


2.) the company making that big a mistake in the first place

That mistake was small. One single misplaced decimal point. The consequences were big. ( But my mind boggles that the same people who can't conceive of this have no problem thinking that perhaps a 100x increase in salary was actually some sort of an intentional bonus.)

3.) knocking on the guys door to try to collect $50k

Indicates that perhaps he stopped showing up to work, don't you think? And in any event - you find it objectionable to try talk to people before getting the cops involved?

4.) harassing and threatening legal action over the phone No court in the world would count a single phone conversation as harassment, and offering the guy the chance to avoid getting entangled in the legal system is a bad thing?

5.) the guy being charged as a criminal for grand theft - I wouldn't have expected it, but I don't blame them for pursuing that avenue. The guy stole their money.

 

[angelatc]

I did see a lot of info on unemployment compensation overpayments. I didn't pursue that path because I didn't think it would really fit in this case, since it's not unemployment benefits we are talking about.

LOLz - you're 100% right. Says right there in the first line - UI benefits. I glossed right over that. Sorry for the diversion.

 

[angelatc]

I mean put the shoe on the other foot. Think about the situations where a company is held responsible for underpaying employees overtime. That was big news and you probably know about. See anyone marched off to jail over that? Don't think so.

??? The DOL has lots of criminal penalties on the books for wage violations. Accidentally violate child labor laws and you're potentially facing serious prison time.

And I've certainly seen several brokers marched off to jail for using money that wasn't theirs, even once when the check was indeed made out to them personally.

 

[newbitech]

1.) the company not using FDIC laws to reverse the transaction

The FDIC doesn't make the recovery laws. There's an electronic clearing house that sets the regulations - I don't remember their initial right off the top of my head though. The employer has only 5 days to reverse a deposit that was made in error. Since your boy took the money out, that wasn't a possibility.


2.) the company making that big a mistake in the first place

That mistake was small. One single misplaced decimal point. The consequences were big. ( But my mind boggles that the same people who can't conceive of this have no problem thinking that perhaps a 100x increase in salary was actually some sort of an intentional bonus.)

3.) knocking on the guys door to try to collect $50k

Indicates that perhaps he stopped showing up to work, don't you think? And in any event - you find it objectionable to try talk to people before getting the cops involved?

4.) harassing and threatening legal action over the phone No court in the world would count a single phone conversation as harassment, and offering the guy the chance to avoid getting entangled in the legal system is a bad thing?

5.) the guy being charged as a criminal for grand theft - I wouldn't have expected it, but I don't blame them for pursuing that avenue. The guy stole their money.

on point 1.) I think you might want to check out what was available to the company regarding erroneous EFT's
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-500.html#fdic65001005.11

I am pretty sure direct deposit is and Electronic Funds Transfer, so FDIC is the governing body. Correct me if I am wrong please.

2.) Yeah, i was referring to the consequences. I understand how a decimal point error could be made. Not sure if the error only impacted this one employee or not tho. I really can't make any assumptions about what the guy thought when the money showed up in his account. The story didn't really cover those details. We just know that the law puts overpayment mistakes in the same category as loans and advances. AND if the guy did sign that recommended policy as the Texas Wage Commission suggests, or a similar policy, then it's pretty much in black and white that what showed up in his account was a loan or advance. So just taking the situation at face value, he had no reason to believe his salary was increase 100x's or he got a bonus. It was just an advance, according to the documentation that are available.

3.) Well, it sounds to me like it was probably someone trying to do some CYA to be honest. I have no idea if he stopped showing up to work. The only time I have ever known a representative of a company to show up at anyone's house it was because there was a relationship established beyond the work environment. The article indicates that the employer rep showed up to collect money, not to question if the guy was coming back to work.

And in this case, I find it objectionable to get the cops involved, period.

4.) Right, but showing up at the door + phone calls is harassment. Regardless if he pursue Consumer Protection Act legal definition of harassment, I think the company displayed the tendency to harass. And, as you said, 1 phone call. All we know that happened on that one phone call is that he was threatened with legal action and he refused the collection terms. (that is his right by the way according to the Texas Payday Law). So now he's a thief?

5.) I blame them for pursuing that avenue because there was a better option, and potentially an option that didn't put them at risk of violating the law themselves. He didn't steal their money. THEY GAVE IT TO HIM.

 

[newbitech]

??? The DOL has lots of criminal penalties on the books for wage violations. Accidentally violate child labor laws and you're potentially facing serious prison time.

And I've certainly seen several brokers marched off to jail for using money that wasn't theirs, even once when the check was indeed made out to them personally.

Right, but there is not a wage violation here. I think we agree on that. So since we know that the DOL has criminal code for labor disputes, why don't they have a criminal code for this type of dispute? Perhaps the end result of this debate is that they should?

Currently, there is no criminal law in this case that says a mistake by the payroll department in overpaying/underpaying an employee has criminal consequences for anyone. Are you aware of any that fit this case?

for example

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=21f6878d-914a-41ed-890f-ef924c9cd771

Do you think that when confronted by employees that the Hutco said oh sure we owe you that money here let us make out that 2 million check right away?

no they didn't. They refused to pay those employees what was owed to them. In the mean time, Hutco moved that money all over the place doing whatever they wanted to do with it.

Anyone from Hutco go to jail? Nerp...

 

[The Free Hornet]

Dude, I do payroll. I've passed out weekly, quarterly and annual bonuses based on production, seniority, personal profitability, department profitably attendance, and several other factors. I've given them to CEOs and part time mail sorters. But I've never passed out one to a guy who didn't know he was getting one. And I never passed out one to a forklift driver for an amount that was twice his annual salary.

Could it happen? Sure. Does it? Uh, no.

If you want to question my integrity, you'll have better luck doing it in a thread where you're not forced to make up scenarios to defend a guy who stole $50,000 from his employer.

Seriously, when your forced to resort to fantasy to defend your scenario, you should really step back and think that maybe - just maybe - you're wrong. Not gonna happen of course, but it should.

A) He sure as hell didn't steal the money. It is doubtful it meets even the sketchiest definition of theft.

B) I've done payroll too. I *SUMCHECK* the hours. I note the $TOTALS$. The mistake in question seems sketchy ("$992.75 ---> $99,275"). In payroll I've seen for hourly workers, you type in the hours and the other totals autocomplete. If "80.25" hours was miskeyed as "8025" hours, that would make more sense (or the wage like you suggest $11.15-->$1115). Either way, I cannot excuse payroll from an extreme degree of liability here. Putting it all on Cesar is bullshit. You believe in personal responsibility, right? Where is Texas Steel taking responsibility here?

You seem to agree that the official story doesn't match how payroll is typically done:

And in the very least, if there's not a separate line item that says "Bonus" on the stub, someone is doing payroll wrong. But we already know in our hearts that the guy didn't have a stub that said "Bonus," don't we? He had a stub that said he either worked 4000 hours, or that his hourly wage went up to $2500.00 an hour.

It doesn't make sense. What kind of weird ass software are they using? If it was a manual process, then they *SAW* the check and hand signed or hand stamped it. It it was an automatic process, the error ought to have occurred differently.

C) YES, I question the integrity of people wanting the police involved via needless escalation to a criminal matter. This is a sub-six-figure mistake on Cesar's end (after tax) and even in total (he was due, unquestionably, some of the money). The false arrest is a six figure mistake. Ten years imprisonment will cause the actual THEFT from Texas citizens about $250,000:

Doesn't anybody complain about the state stealing money anymore?

D) YES, I question your integrity since you didn't call on the Texas Steel Conversion CEO to be charged with theft as well. If Cesar isn't guilty, they sure as hell - by your reasoning - are.

E) Re bonuses. Where I'm at, workers know they're getting a bonus when it is on their check not before. Highly compensated people are commissioned (they would have the most paper to back up their checks). The ownership/management knows about their bonus, but there is no paper trail that I'm aware of to confirm the company was "super serious" about the money. The CHECK is the communication of intent. If you don't intend to give them the money, then you don't fucking give them the money. This isn't fantasy, it is truth.

There's no internal paperwork that says your employees are getting bonuses? Your boss just walks in and verbally instructs your payroll clerks to stick extra cash in the envelope? Nobody discusses the tax implications of putting it on separate checks?

Not really and nothing the bonus receiver will see. There are no payroll clerks. Ownership takes check generation seriously (multiple signatures are required for large checks and this is enforced by the bank which will call to confirm if a signature is missing). Separate checks have separate deductions for witholding, SS, 401, etc. No biggie.

F) Guy driving fork truck. Maybe you believe a guy driving a fork truck can't get a huge ass bonus. I believe in America, not in laws that say who earns how much or in a predjudicial system that says this job or ethnicity is worth X amount of dollars.

G) If I come to your house and hand you a check for $60,000 it doesn't matter what it is for. Maybe you sold a $6 candybar and I just tip really really well or suck at math. It becomes your damn money and me getting it back requires a CIVIL court action. That he had a job and could even be in a position to earn a bonus or get an advance - for which $98,000 is not unusual enough to be evidence of anything - are more reasons to consider it not theft.

 

[angelatc]

on point 1.) I think you might want to check out what was available to the company regarding erroneous EFT's
http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-500.html#fdic65001005.11

I am pretty sure direct deposit is and Electronic Funds Transfer, so FDIC is the governing body. Correct me if I am wrong please.

Seriously, dude? I mean, what would it possibly matter if I were to tell you that the group that sets the law about reversing the direct deposits is actually the NACHA?

2.) Yeah, i was referring to the consequences. I understand how a decimal point error could be made. Not sure if the error only impacted this one employee or not tho. I really can't make any assumptions about what the guy thought when the money showed up in his account. The story didn't really cover those details. We just know that the law puts overpayment mistakes in the same category as loans and advances.

AND if the guy did sign that recommended policy as the Texas Wage Commission suggests, or a similar policy, then it's pretty much in black and white that what showed up in his account was a loan or advance. So just taking the situation at face value, he had no reason to believe his salary was increase 100x's or he got a bonus. It was just an advance, according to the documentation that are available.

No, that's not true and you should stop saying it like that. We know that overpayment mistakes can be treated as a loan for purposes of payroll deduction, but that's at the sole discretion of the employer.

I love you to death, but it's absurd to think that the guy believed that his employer just decided to loan him, interest free and without any application process or repayment agreement, a gross sum roughly equal to 100 weeks of his net salary.

3.) Well, it sounds to me like it was probably someone trying to do some CYA to be honest. I have no idea if he stopped showing up to work. The only time I have ever known a representative of a company to show up at anyone's house it was because there was a relationship established beyond the work environment. The article indicates that the employer rep showed up to collect money, not to question if the guy was coming back to work.

And in this case, I find it objectionable to get the cops involved, period.

So, what was the right way to try to talk to him? You object to them sending the cops, you object to them sending an employee out, and you object to them phoning him, and you apparently object to them trying to recover their money at all, even though I've already established that he has no legal right to keep it.

4.) Right, but showing up at the door + phone calls is harassment. Regardless if he pursue Consumer Protection Act legal definition of harassment, I think the company displayed the tendency to harass. And, as you said, 1 phone call. All we know that happened on that one phone call is that he was threatened with legal action and he refused the collection terms. (that is his right by the way according to the Texas Payday Law). So now he's a thief?

The way I remember it, he wasn't even man enough to talk to them face to face, so they called him. That's not harassment. And with regard to the second half, he was morally a thief the minute he decided to keep someone else's money. But legally, he wasn't a thief until he refused to give the money back. I suspect that legally he would have been better off if he had not talked to them at all.

5.) I blame them for pursuing that avenue because there was a better option, and potentially an option that didn't put them at risk of violating the law themselves. He didn't steal their money. THEY GAVE IT TO HIM.

"They" didn't "give him" anything. The bookkeeper made a mistake that resulted in a large sum of money landing in his bank account. It could of been anybody that got the money, but it just happened to be him. That's not a gift.

I disagree that the option to recover the money via payroll deduction was better for the victim, for reasons that I outlined above.

 

[angelatc]

It doesn't make sense. What kind of weird ass software are they using? If it was a manual process, then they *SAW* the check and hand signed or hand stamped it. It it was an automatic process, the error ought to have occurred differently.

It makes perfect sense. And it wasn't a check. It was direct deposit. If they were using a third party system, the home office never sees the stubs. They are delivered in an overnight envelope the day before payday, all sealed up in envelopes to be passed out by a supervisor.

The bookkeeper should have noticed that the payroll was for far more than it should be, but that' doesn't give the guy any legal right to keep the money. None, nada, zero, zip.

C) YES, I question the integrity of people wanting the police involved via needless escalation to a criminal matter. This is a sub-six-figure mistake on Cesar's end (after tax) and even in total (he was due, unquestionably, some of the money). The false arrest is a six figure mistake. Ten years imprisonment will cause the actual THEFT from Texas citizens about $250,000:

You have no idea if it was a needless escalation. But I'd say someone who is holding $50,000 of my money, made an effort to hide it, and has indicated he has at minimum no plan to return it should expect that the police would become involved at some point.

D) YES, I question your integrity since you didn't call on the Texas Steel Conversion CEO to be charged with theft as well. If Cesar isn't guilty, they sure as hell - by your reasoning - are.

No, because they are not in possession of his property. They stole nothing from him.

E) Re bonuses. Where I'm at, workers know they're getting a bonus when it is on their check not before. Highly compensated people are commissioned (they would have the most paper to back up their checks). The ownership/management knows about their bonus, but there is no paper trail that I'm aware of to confirm the company was "super serious" about the money. The CHECK is the communication of intent. If you don't intend to give them the money, then you don't fucking give them the money. This isn't fantasy, it is truth.

.....nothing the bonus receiver will see.

And yet these people did not intend to give him the money, and yet the money ended up in his bank account. That's the truth.

And I don't know what kind of payroll software you are using, but bonus wages are reported on the stub under the category "Bonus." They are taxed differently if they are issued on a separate check than if they are added to the regular paycheck, too.

There is zero evidence to support any indication that this payment appeared on his stub as a bonus.

F) Guy driving fork truck. Maybe you believe a guy driving a fork truck can't get a huge ass bonus. I believe in America, not in laws that say who earns how much or in a predjudicial system that says this job or ethnicity is worth X amount of dollars.

The laws of economics dictate wages. IF this guy was getting a bonus, which he wasn't, he would not be getting a bonus that was equal to 10x's his annual salary unless he saved the owner's daughter from drowning or something. It's nice that you are still young enough to believe in fairy tales, but trust me on this: Not. Gonna. Happen. Ever.

G) If I come to your house and hand you a check for $60,000 it doesn't matter what it is for. Maybe you sold a $6 candybar and I just tip really really well or suck at math. It becomes your damn money and me getting it back requires a CIVIL court action. That he had a job and could even be in a position to earn a bonus or get an advance - for which $98,000 is not unusual enough to be evidence of anything - are more reasons to consider it not theft.

You could not be any more wrong. If you agree to pay me $60.00 then accidentally send me a check for $6000.00 you do indeed have legal recourse to collect the overpayment, and I have absolutely no legal right to keep the money. If I refuse to give you the money, you can seek to use the legal system to recover it. I don't get to choose which court you're going to go to.

This guy isn't the first person ever to be convicted for criminal theft for refusing to return money that was paid in error. I cited a case above. Here's another one.
You can screech all you want about how unfair it is, but that's just your opinion. But the fact is that there are legal precedents, and apparently the DA in Texas is aware of them even though you and the thief in Texas are not.

 

[The Free Hornet]

You could not be any more wrong. If you agree to pay me $60.00 then accidentally send me a check for $6000.00 you do indeed have legal recourse to collect the overpayment, and I have absolutely no legal right to keep the money. If I refuse to give you the money, you can seek to use the legal system to recover it. I don't get to choose which court you're going to go to.

Stop lying! I said there is legal recourse. I have said that repeatedly.

You do it in a civil court of law. The paragraph you quoted, I mention this:

G) If I come to your house and hand you a check for $60,000 it doesn't matter what it is for. Maybe you sold a $6 candybar and I just tip really really well or suck at math. It becomes your damn money and me getting it back requires a CIVIL court action. That he had a job and could even be in a position to earn a bonus or get an advance - for which $98,000 is not unusual enough to be evidence of anything - are more reasons to consider it not theft.

The fundamental issue is involving the police, prematurely, in what ought to be a civil dispute. I also acknowledged in an earlier post that sometimes the local sheriff's office is involved serving/collecting on behalf of civil court actions.

I'll even acknowledge that someone disobeying or disregarding a civil court judgement can fun afoul of the law (criminal contempt). None of this has been denied. Stop misrepresenting the issue.

 

[newbitech]

Seriously, dude? I mean, what would it possibly matter if I were to tell you that the group that sets the law about reversing the direct deposits is actually the NACHA?


No, that's not true and you should stop saying it like that. We know that overpayment mistakes can be treated as a loan for purposes of payroll deduction, but that's at the sole discretion of the employer.

I love you to death, but it's absurd to think that the guy believed that his employer just decided to loan him, interest free and without any application process or repayment agreement, a gross sum roughly equal to 100 weeks of his net salary.








So, what was the right way to try to talk to him? You object to them sending the cops, you object to them sending an employee out, and you object to them phoning him, and you apparently object to them trying to recover their money at all, even though I've already established that he has no legal right to keep it.





The way I remember it, he wasn't even man enough to talk to them face to face, so they called him. That's not harassment. And with regard to the second half, he was morally a thief the minute he decided to keep someone else's money. But legally, he wasn't a thief until he refused to give the money back. I suspect that legally he would have been better off if he had not talked to them at all.



"They" didn't "give him" anything. The bookkeeper made a mistake that resulted in a large sum of money landing in his bank account. It could of been anybody that got the money, but it just happened to be him. That's not a gift.

I disagree that the option to recover the money via payroll deduction was better for the victim, for reasons that I outlined above.

1.) seriously I don't know. From what I could read and see, the direct deposit is an EFT. In my experience, and erroneous EFT is handled by contacting the bank and showing evidence of the error. I have gone through this process and have had the funds provisionally credited to my account until the outcome of the investigation was resolved. What did suck was that until the specific FDIC mandated time period had elapsed for investigative purposes, the existing funds in my account that had nothing to do with the error were frozen. That was my personal experience with EFT. I have also seen deposit accounts get frozen in much the same manner, because of "usual account activity" when there was a surge in incoming EFT's.

I do not see how this is much difference from paying a stop check fee to prevent a check from clearing, except it appears that with EFT there are protections in place in the FDIC rules that govern EFT's to make sure an erroneous EFT can be challenge despite of the near instantaneous clearing of the transaction.

I'd like to see what NACHA has to say about it. Will you link me to the source of that?

2.) You are saying that the law does not consider overpayment mistakes from employer->employee in the same category as a loan or as an advance. I showed you where it does. In fact the Texas Wage Commission has put together a sample company policy for handling Wage Overpayment/Underpayment. There is a distinction between that policy and the sample policy they created for authorized deductions. Why do you think that is? Not only that, the guidance on the link that I pointed out as well as the verbatim text from the Texas Wage Commission explains WHY there is a distinction between the policies. It's actually a way for the employer to protect themselves.

I get that in this case, the law falls short of protecting the employer from themselves. At the same time, what I have said in this regard is in fact true.

3.) I am not sure what the company policy is in the matter, but I have looked at policy and procedure published publicly for government entities that makes sure those entities are in compliance with state and federal laws. I would recommend the company speak to their legal council and I believe the correct course of action would have been to start civil proceedings which would include sending documentation to the employee explaining IN WRITING the company's position. It is not clear if that did or did not happen.

I agree he has no legal right to keep it. It was an advance/loan/overpayment mistake that must be repaid. I do not object to the company establishing in writing these facts and presenting those facts in a legal AND civil way (typically in writing through a lawyer). It is not clear yet whether the path that the company took is legal, nor is it clear that the company provided the employee in writing the facts of what happened. For all we know, someone in the company told him the week before that he had a great idea and he would be compensated for it.

4.) Or maybe he wasn't home or maybe he didn't recognize who was at the door or maybe he was in the shower or maybe he was out back banging his billy goat. They still tried to come to his house to collect a debt. That is possibly a violation of the consumer protection act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Debt_Collection_Practices_Act

I know you have already prosecuted the man in your mind, but I think you can't do that if I am able to establish that the legal status of the money in his account is/was a payroll advance. Agree?

5.) we actually don't know who made the mistake. They refers to the company as a whole. Whoever did make the mistake was acting on behalf of "them". "them" being everyone at the company that participated in the entire incident.

No, I don't think it's a gift, I think the correct legal status of those funds is "a payroll advance".

I still think you are hung up on the deductions part. There is a clear distinction between deductions and wage overpayment/underpayment. We can work on clearing that up if we need to.