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

[Schifference]

Shot-term gain, long-term destruction. This is your advice?

Destroy your character, make yourself into a worthless human being whom no one can respect, whom no one wants to deal with, whom you yourself do not respect, in order to get $50,000? Is that all your character is worth? You gonna live on that 50 grand the rest of your life?

Can't hardly live on the 50K the rest of you life. Legally I don't see the problem with that. Which negates your theft premise. He could keep it and be prepared to return it upon request. If that request never comes then he could legally keep and spend it.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

What would happen if Cesar was a private contractor LLC or Corp? He did a job was paid. Then went belly up? Does the steel corp have a criminal charge against the individual or the defunct LLC or Corp?

Obviously against Cesar, the individual with their money. They can't have a case against an organization which no longer exists, and you stated it no longer exists. If it did still exist, then yes, they have a claim against the LLC or Corp, because that's with whom they had a contract.

What's up with these questions? What point are you trying to get to?

 

[EBounding]

I'm confused why people are debating if this is theft. If your grocery store is giving you change and hands you a $50 bill instead of a $5 bill, do you really walk out with it?

 

[erowe1]

He's not getting charged with theft just for the mistake happening through no fault of his own.

He's getting charged with theft because he refused to give it back. Seems right to me. He's a thief.

 

[Schifference]

Obviously against Cesar, the individual with their money. They can't have a case against an organization which no longer exists, and you stated it no longer exists. If it did still exist, then yes, they have a claim against the LLC or Corp, because that's with whom they had a contract.

What's up with these questions? What point are you trying to get to?

You state that it is illegal / theft. I don't think a defunct corporation can be sued for being overpaid. The purpose of a corp is to protect the individual so I don't think that the individual could be sued because the individual was not paid the corp was.

 

[EBounding]

It's a thorny legal issue, all right.
I'll need to refer to the case of Finders v. Keepers.

 

[phill4paul]

Results for being honest and upstanding may vary......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/02/billy-ray-harris-home_n_3855898.html

Billy Ray Harris, Homeless Man Who Returned Diamond Ring, Gets A New Home!

Back in February, while panhandling on a Kansas City street, Billy Ray Harris noticed that a woman had accidentally dropped a diamond engagement ring in his cup, KCTV reported. He debated selling it, but decided to hold onto it instead in case the woman returned, a decision that would prove to change the course of his life forever.

So grateful for his honesty and kindness, Darling and her husband, Bill Krejci, decided to launch a fundraiser for their hero. They hoped to raise about $1,000, but as the word spread of the do-gooder’s kindness, donations starting pouring in. They’ve collected more than $190,000.

 

[Schifference]

I'm confused why people are debating if this is theft. If your grocery store is giving you change and hands you a $50 bill instead of a $5 bill, do you really walk out with it?

When the grocery store over charges you is that theft? It happens all the time. They scan an item more than once or charge you the wrong price. Who notices those things? If you pay with plastic like most people do today they could have over or under charged and no one even noticed it.

 

[EBounding]

When the grocery store over charges you is that theft? It happens all the time. They scan an item more than once or charge you the wrong price. Who notices those things? If you pay with plastic like most people do today they could be over or under charged and even notice it.

It is if I go up to the service counter and they refuse to reimburse me.

 

[phill4paul]

When the grocery store over charges you is that theft? It happens all the time. They scan an item more than once or charge you the wrong price. Who notices those things? If you pay with plastic like most people do today they could be over or under charged and even notice it.

Not when you look at the receipt and ask for a refund and it is given.

 

[erowe1]

When the grocery store over charges you is that theft?

If you find out and ask for your money back, and they refuse to give it to you? Of course that's theft.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Legally I don't see the problem with that.

"Legally"? Who cares about "legally"? Especially in today's legal situation, when the law is invented and changed day-by-day, made by a pack of rabid criminals, you are going to use "legally" as your moral compass? The whole point is that there's more to life than "legally"!

I would not want to deal with a person who took such a course as you advise. In fact, I would not want to deal with you if you are really giving that advice in seriousness and sincerity. I would try to refuse to deal with such persons. Such persons do not have a future. They are anti-social. They can try to keep their actions secret, but ultimately it will shine through. They dig themselves into a dead-end hole.

 

[Schifference]

A person leaves for work & comes home late in the afternoon to find that a new roof was just applied to 3/4 of his house. The contractor mistakingly is putting the roof on the wrong house. Does the homeowner have to pay for the roof? Must the contractor finish the roof he started?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You state that it is illegal / theft. I don't think a defunct corporation can be sued for being overpaid. The purpose of a corp is to protect the individual so I don't think that the individual could be sued because the individual was not paid the corp was.

Cesar could form a thousand intermediary corporations who pass the money to each other down the line and ultimately to Cesar. It wouldn't change the fact that his action is theft.

It could make it harder to prosecute, especially if many of the corporations were overseas in various jurisdictions uncooperative to US legal demands.

All your points and advice seems to amount to coming up with ways that Cesar could have more effectively gotten away with it. Which is interesting, I suppose, if it's all academic. But do you agree with me that Cesar's action of keeping this money is wrong? Maybe I should back up first and ask: do you believe in right and wrong?

 

[Schifference]

Please note I never said that the guy should keep the money once asked for it. All I said is that I thought it would be legal to keep it until asked for it. Have you ever been shorted in your paycheck? Personally I never even look at a pay statement. The money is direct deposited and I get no paper statement. I would have to go online to check. I don't even know when I get paid. I get paid on Thursday every other week. But don't know if it is this or last week. It doesn't matter to me. The money goes into the checking acct and is not a concern because we never spend more than we make so I don't care. True story. I worked at this organization for over a year. One day I scrutinized the paycheck and realized that for the entire year they failed to pay me an evening / night shift differential that was policy. Did I accuse them of theft? If I had not asked for reconciliation would they be thieves? If xxx years went by before I caught the mistake would they pay me for their mistake? I did get paid but it took several months and it was a sizable amount of money. Would I have been paid if I was no longer an employee or would they have found some loophole to not pay? I don't know the answer to these questions. All I do know is that if that happened to me I might not even know I was overpaid.

 

[Schifference]

Maybe I should back up first and ask: do you believe in right and wrong?

Once Cesar was asked for the money he should have verified that it was duly owed and made an agreeable repayment arrangement with the entity.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Once Cesar was asked for the money he should have verified that it was duly owed and made an agreeable repayment arrangement with the entity.

No, that is wrong. He knew this payment was a mistake, right? Right. Obviously right. He even did huge actions like starting a new bank account as if he were setting out to intentionally prove and make it undeniable that he knew this payment was a mistake.

The honest thing to do, is to not take the money. You tell the company about the mistake. That is the only honest thing to do.

This is Honesty 101. Did you not have parents? Do you not value honesty as a virtue? Do you know nothing about being a respectable human being? And even if you do not, even if you don't accept any morality nor virtue whatsoever, just from a totally practical self-interested point of view, do you know nothing about what it takes to be successful in a commercial culture such as ours? You don't rip people off! That is a road to ruin and exile.

 

[Schifference]

No, that is wrong. He knew this payment was a mistake, right? Right. Obviously right. He even did huge actions like starting a new bank account as if he were setting out to intentionally prove and make it undeniable that he knew this payment was a mistake.

The honest thing to do, is to not take the money. You tell the company about the mistake. That is the only honest thing to do.

This is Honesty 101. Did you not have parents? Do you not value honesty as a virtue? Do you know nothing about being a respectable human being? And even if you do not, even if you don't accept any morality nor virtue whatsoever, just from a totally practical self-interested point of view, do you know nothing about what it takes to be successful in a commercial culture such as ours? You don't rip people off! That is a road to ruin and exile.

Please understand that I only read the first C&P and did not know of any great lengths to hide the money. In post 35 I stated that I might not even know if I was paid correctly. However, some responsibility must go to the company that made the mistake. Pretty sloppy bookkeeping. I would return the money period. I am only debating the "legalities" of keeping it. I returned a purse I found recently. I found a wallet lying in the gutter stuffed with cash and returned it. My only point is that it is not "theft". Theft would be hacking into their system and stealing funds. The roof situation mentioned is a true story. It has happened certainly more than once. A long time ago it happened to a home before I purchased it. Let's scrutinize the roof scenario for a minute. If you were off to work and came home to a mostly new roof did you steal the roof? What if you were home and said nothing while the roofers spent the day putting on your roof? Maybe even offering them a drink of water. Maybe you had just prayed for a new roof because every time it rains you get flooded and the next day the roofers show up. You offer them water and give thanks not realizing that the contractor made a mistake. It is plausible.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

My only point is that it is not "theft".

If they are asking for it and he is not giving it back -- and that is what's happening -- it is theft.

If you just find the wallet and spend the money, that is dishonesty of a different kind. Perhaps you cannot say it is theft, because no one is claiming it, asking you to give it back. But it is still dishonest to not try to give it back to the rightful owner.

Now sometimes it is not realistic. The wallet has identifying cards or characteristics. If you find a penny in the parking lot, it is probably not possible to find the original owner. I found a hundred dollar bill in a field recently. Seriously. It was kind of weird looking from being so weathered, but it was real. But it was not on a trail, there were no houses very near, and it was just a loose bill with no wallet nor nothing that could be used to identify it. So, there was no realistic way to determine whose it had been. So I kept it. But, now you've got me thinking, and I realize I should at least call the police station and see if anyone reported losing a hundred dollars in that vicinity. So I'll do that now. But most likely they will not have heard anything, and there will be no real path forward to returning it. So it's just abandoned and becomes mine.

The roof thing? No one owed anyone else anything in the beginning. Thus, still no one owes anyone anything. It's a mistake. So putting things back how they were in the beginning makes everything right. Physically, there may be difficulties with doing this. That can be worked out. But morally, and philosophically, there is no challenge.

 

[Smart3]

There is no honor among thieves.