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

[EBounding]

Do we really want to live in a world where if you accidentally overpay someone, you have no recourse to get your money back?

 

[RickyJ]

His employer said they made multiple attempts to get him to return the money. There was literally nothing for him to think about, except how to steal the money while staying out of prison. We already know this man is a thief, so there's no reason to assume he isn't also a liar.

The police don't just go arrest people. They investigated the complaint, including interviewing him and also his co-workers. Then they arrested him.



Sure. He had $10,000 laying around for bail, but didn't have any money to give to his former employer.

15 minutes on the phone and then calling the police is not "multiple attempts" unless you are counting each minute as an attempt.

 

[The Free Hornet]

STOP READING THIS THREAD UNTIL YOU HAVE READ THE POST BY NEWBITECH! CLICK TO READ AND DON'T FORGET TO REP HIS ASS UP!

Again, did you read the definition of theft? What he did is indeed considered theft, and theft is a criminal offense. If the money was direct deposited, and he didn't realize his balance had increased dramatically - it wouldn't be theft.

Once he knew about it, and refused to return it, it is indeed theft.

I forget the time involved, but it really makes no difference unless he is asserting that the statute of limitations has expired, which he isn't.

It *WAS* direct deposit ("received his direct deposit paycheck in February"). Per your prior posting, the definition was:

1 Knowingly obtains or exerts unauthorized control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property;
2 Knowingly obtains by deception control over the property of another, with intent to deprive the owner of his or her property; or
3 Knowingly obtains or exerts control over property in the custody of a law enforcement agency which was explicitly represented to the person by an agent of the law enforcement agency as being stolen.

3 is out. 2 is out as no deception was used. 1 is left? Nothing was unauthorized. Nor did he deprive the owner. They deprived themselves. Not returning money might be considered deprivation at some point but - AFAIK - they need a formal judgement of exactly what is to be returned. Hell, I wouldn't even know how to calculate what the amount should be (money goes to SS, 401k, and my checking - maybe a dental thing too). Spending 15 minutes on the phone to untangle this tells me the company is not that serious about getting their money back. This will likely cost them more if they are sued for incompetence and defamation. More so, Texas Steel Conversion may lose the trust of their existing employee and customer base.

Besides, this is TX not CA. Too bad the CA illegal alien lawyer isn't nearby!

This is the applicable definition:

PENAL CODE

TITLE 7. OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY

CHAPTER 31. THEFT

[CLICK LINK BELOW - IT WAS TOO LONG TO POST]

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.31.htm

The state of Texas is looking to deprive (YIKES! THEFT!) the taxpayers of the quarter million to imprison, plus what the lawyers, judge, and police get during this ordeal. Think of the hungry parole officers with nothing to do but badger people who get unexpected windfalls from stupid employers. If we don't stop this now, who knows where this can lead. It might happen again in 5 years, 10 years, but can we take that chance??? Never again! Always remember! What slogan do I need to know to prosectute this guy?

A private company is using the police instead of the civil court system. If you think this ends with Cesar, think again.

A few people here were suckered by a false, inappropriate analogy given by the police of all people:

"It's kind of like if you saw money sitting on the register, you know it's not yours. If you don't make attempts to find the owner, then you're committing theft," said Officer Kelley McKethan, Bryan Police Department.

First, the money is not "on the register" but in his private bank account. If a physical thing is needed, imagine finding the money on your kitchen table. Second, "you know it's not yours". How do you know since it was given to you and is now in your possession? Some found things can be kept (like if he was sent 100k in gold coins unsolicited in the mail - "If you open the package and like what you find, you may keep it for free. In this instance, 'finders-keepers' applies unconditionally."), others not. Third, "find the owner" - LOL - the owner knows who they are and has detailed records of who the money went to and why. Anything you tell them is something they already have knowledge of.

But for a good definition of theft,

theft
noun \ˈtheft\
Definition of THEFT
1
a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft

steal
verb \ˈstēl\
stole sto·len steal·ing
Definition of STEAL
intransitive verb
1
: to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stealing

Those things didn't happen. If Cesar was annoying Payroll Betty while she typed the numbers, then maybe there would be some intent. There is nothing! The a-hole employer needed to get a civil judgement. Since Cesar left the job after this, he might have been owed his vacation time as pay (if it was company policy to pay out and if he had any accumulated) and that would affect the amount returned.

 

[RickyJ]

Do we really want to live in a world where if you accidentally overpay someone, you have no recourse to get your money back?

Do we really want to live in a world where someone can claim they overpaid someone and then have them charged with theft if they don't get it immediately? A claim is just that, a claim, it is not a fact. Civil courts are used to settle disputes like this, not criminal courts. No one is saying there is not a legal way for the company to get the money back.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Do we really want to live in a world where if you accidentally overpay someone, you have no recourse to get your money back?

There is recourse. It happens frequently enough. If it is not worked out among the parties involved, you go to the courts, not the cops. If there is a union or existing employment contract, you might hammer out the details with emloyees or their representatives.

YOU are begging "to live in a world" where the recourse to a civil dispute is that the corporation, company, rich guy calls the cops and you are jailed.

 

[aGameOfThrones]

I cited a legal definition of criminal theft. The IRS is legally allowed to take our money. We might disagree that they should be allowed to, but at this point what they're doing isn't illegal because there is a law that says they can.

Show Me The Law?


Haha

 

[angelatc]

Do we really want to live in a world where someone can claim they overpaid someone and then have them charged with theft if they don't get it immediately? A claim is just that, a claim, it is not a fact. Civil courts are sued to settle disputes like this, not criminal courts. No one is saying there is not a legal way for the company to get the money back.

Civil courts are for contract disputes. When you steal, you don't get to whine about which court the victim chooses to pursue restitution. The guy isn't claiming that he was not overpaid, so thats a moot point anyway. He is just trying to keep money that wasn't owed to him.

Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:


(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;

The bookkeeper did not ever own the money. The owner of the company did not consent to give the employee that much money. Therefore the money was unlawfully appropriated. But it only became a crime when he refused to give the money back, because then he was intentionally depriving the owner of the property.

 

[The Free Hornet]

Note that when he signed his direct deposit agreement, he acknowledged such a thing might happen and even gave the company written permission to retrieve their funds in the unlikely event that it happened.

You have no proof of this. Even if you did, that would be for the civil court. And more so, I have evidence it doesn't mean shit!:

I also authorize Career Connections to make withdrawals from this account in the event that acredit entry is made in error.

http://www.careerconnections.info/Direct_Deposit_Agreement_Form.pdf

All you authorize is for withdrawals to be made! There is jack-shit to suggest you keep the money there for that purpose. Nor are you promising to return payroll errors. If anything, you are suggesting another reason it is not theft.

 

[newbitech]

I cited a legal definition of criminal theft. The IRS is legally allowed to take our money. We might disagree that they should be allowed to, but at this point what they're doing isn't illegal because there is a law that says they can.

LIke it or not, people make mistakes. Except maybe you, I guess. I have never over paid an employee, but I've shorted a couple. I've also paid invoices to vendors twice, and made tons of other mistakes over the course of my professional career. I have left my wallet on the supermarket checkout. (Note that the store did not assert they were entitled to keep my cash because I willingly deposited it there.)

I have also found embezzlers, and fixed mistakes that other people have made. Fortunately for all of us, there's no law against making mistakes.

Note that when he signed his direct deposit agreement, he acknowledged such a thing might happen and even gave the company written permission to retrieve their funds in the unlikely event that it happened.

I understand that he is asserting that he did nothing wrong. I never met anybody who was stealing that confessed what they were doing was wrong. Criminals always plead innocence as a matter of course. But he is wrong. He took money that did not belong to him, and won't give it back. That's a criminal offense. I get that you think that he has a moral right to keep the money, and that it should not be a criminal offense. I disagree, but even so, the point remains that it is indeed a criminal offense.

you also said this.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...d-with-theft&p=5210055&viewfull=1#post5210055

So perhaps you are making a legal and a moral argument? I think you are on slippery moral slope already if you can justify locking someone up as a thief simply for receiving an item from someone who gave it on their own free will and refusing to give it back under duress. I don't think it matters if that person gave that item by mistake or not. If the relationship between the two parties was better, this wouldn't be a story. From the sparse details I have read, the employer seems to be the party responsible for putting the strain on the relationship.

As for legal, I think you are also on slippery slope because you are applying a definition to case that you have scant facts on. You are making a prejudicial conclusion without any evidence.

First thing you need to check before you can be on the right legal course is, did the "investigators" have a search warrant? I suspect the banking institutions themselves were complicit in turning over this man's bank records as part of a fraud investigation initiated by the company when someone besides the accountant discovered the missing cash.

He very well could be a thief and it could be much more than him simply not returning money that was deposited to him by mistake. You don't know either way. So kind of hard to even consider any legal implications without even really knowing the nature of the case.

Sure he was arrested and jailed for grand theft. What was the probable cause? That he said "no" i believe I have a right to this money that was placed at will into my bank account? Come on.


edit: oops sorry, I didn't realize who I was responding to. Yeah, I am a little confused if the argument is legal or moral, sorry about that. Please accept my apology. trying to keep up

 

[newbitech]

Do we really want to live in a world where if you accidentally overpay someone, you have no recourse to get your money back?

1.) stop check
2.) FDIC rules on etf for direct deposit

Both of which the person's whose bank account was rifled through has no way to reverse. It sounds to me like not only was the company incompetent with their accounting, they also failed to take the appropriate prescribed methods for refunding their mistake. Perhaps a little more going on here than meets the eye in this less than fact filled account.

Accidents do happen, and generally the people responsible for them pays the consequences.

 

[krugminator]

There is recourse. It happens frequently enough. If it is not worked out among the parties involved, you go to the courts, not the cops. If there is a union or existing employment contract, you might hammer out the details with emloyees or their representatives.

YOU are begging "to live in a world" where the recourse to a civil dispute is that the corporation, company, rich guy calls the cops and you are jailed.

If I stole, I would expect to go to jail. It's infuriating that there is any debate. There is no difference between this guy and any other thief. He withdrew money that wasn't his. He knew it was wrong. He didn't do anything to make things right.

Calling the police is the way civilized people deal with these things. That is much more preferable than taking a baseball bat to Cesar and burying him the desert.

 

[The Free Hornet]

The bookkeeper did not ever own the money. The owner of the company did not consent to give the employee that much money. Therefore the money was unlawfully appropriated. But it only became a crime when he refused to give the money back, because then he was intentionally depriving the owner of the property.

Can you find a single instance where a payroll error correction hinges on whether or not it was an owner or bookkeeper that made the error? AFAIK, it doesn't matter if the owner typed in the wrong number.

I think what you want to say is that Cesar "did wrong". I agree (absent some facts to suggest he was due that much money). However doing wrong ought not equate to being charged with a crime, as I'm sure you would agree.

I posted the link to the text of the law if you care to find the exact section he violated. I'm fairly certain it is correct as it even references the same amount as the articles (amounts between $20,000 & $100,000).

Sec. 31.03. THEFT. (a) A person commits an offense if he unlawfully appropriates property with intent to deprive the owner of property.

(b) Appropriation of property is unlawful if:

(1) it is without the owner's effective consent;

I don't think direct deposit counts as appropriation but spending the money might. Also, I'm not sure what "owner's effective consent" means but if one out of twelve on a jury thinks a non-forged payroll check qualifies (e.g., we get these even though we're on direct deposit), then he walks.

 

[newbitech]

Civil courts are for contract disputes. When you steal, you don't get to whine about which court the victim chooses to pursue restitution. The guy isn't claiming that he was not overpaid, so thats a moot point anyway. He is just trying to keep money that wasn't owed to him.


The bookkeeper did not ever own the money. The owner of the company did not consent to give the employee that much money. Therefore the money was unlawfully appropriated. But it only became a crime when he refused to give the money back, because then he was intentionally depriving the owner of the property.

By the bookkeeper.

How about another analogy. Someone steals my 10,000 diamond ring and pawns it off. I find the ring at the pawn shot. Are they stealing if they don't give it back when I demand they return it?

 

[aGameOfThrones]

Calling the police is the way civilized people deal with these things. That is much more preferable than taking a baseball bat to Cesar and burying him the desert.

Right. That job is for the cops.

 

[angelatc]

He very well could be a thief and it could be much more than him simply not returning money that was deposited to him by mistake. You don't know either way. So kind of hard to even consider any legal implications without even really knowing the nature of the case.

Sure he was arrested and jailed for grand theft. What was the probable cause? That he said "no" i believe I have a right to this money that was placed at will into my bank account? Come on.

Maybe you missed my post on the defintion of theft, but in any event, the guy isn't a moron. He knew damned well that his employer made a mistake and he wasn't entitled to the money. That's why he moved it immediately, then pulled the cash out entirely. He was assuming he'd only get fired, and maybe even sued. What he didn't know was that it was a criminal act not to return it.

Probable cause would be required to get a warrant to dig through the guys bank accounts, and the affidavit from the employer and/or the bookkeeper about the transaction would suffice. The Fed gives the banks a lot of leeway when investigating errors, and we all agree to those terms when we open the accounts.

If he is a thief, and the bookkeeper was in on it, that would be the headline.

 

[angelatc]

By the bookkeeper.

How about another analogy. Someone steals my 10,000 diamond ring and pawns it off. I find the ring at the pawn shot. Are they stealing if they don't give it back when I demand they return it?

Can't we just talk about the scenario that exists instead of making up another one that doesn't really apply?

But since you asked, in Michigan at least, pawn shops get some special protections in that regard. But in most instances, receiving stolen property does not mean you have title. If the police find you with stolen property, and you refuse to return it, they likely would indeed charge you with theft.

 

[angelatc]

Can you find a single instance where a payroll error correction hinges on whether or not it was an owner or bookkeeper that made the error? AFAIK, it doesn't matter if the owner typed in the wrong number.

I think what you want to say is that Cesar "did wrong". I agree (absent some facts to suggest he was due that much money). However doing wrong ought not equate to being charged with a crime, as I'm sure you would agree.

I posted the link to the text of the law if you care to find the exact section he violated. I'm fairly certain it is correct as it even references the same amount as the articles (amounts between $20,000 & $100,000).



I don't think direct deposit counts as appropriation but spending the money might. Also, I'm not sure what "owner's effective consent" means but if one out of twelve on a jury thinks a non-forged payroll check qualifies (e.g., we get these even though we're on direct deposit), then he walks.

You can think all you want, but the definition specifically includes money as well as monetary instruments in their definition of property. The owner consented to pay the guy $997. He did not consent to pay him $99700.

He only became guilty of the crime when he refused to return it, not when he received it. I'm perfectly fine with that.

 

[The Free Hornet]

If I stole, I would expect to go to jail.

If I had that expectation, I wouldn't have stolen. If I got caught, I'd plea out (having expected that particular risk).

It's infuriating that there is any debate.

Infuriating is that you want to lock up a guy when you can't find or link to the text of the law or parse a sentence or understand basic definitions (like steal).

There is no difference between this guy and any other thief.

a) Luck - most thieves aren't this lucky
b) Attention - most thieves wouldn't want to be 'caught' like this
c) Not Guiltly - the evidence doesn't yet suggest he is a thief, I'd wager he walks

Calling the police is the way civilized people deal with these things.

No. Although civil processes can be served by the sheriff's office, I see no evidence that was attempted. What you are witnessing is an attempt to recreate the 'debtor's prison' via argumentation and redefinition of theft. You may favor those things or you may not, but you ought not deny that is what is happening. You could be in the same situation over a car rental agreement and smug a-holes here will yak about how you're a "thief" and will go to jail and cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars and you ought to have read the twenty pages of rental car agreement while you stood in a parking lot after a six hour flight and you just wanted to get to your hotel.

No, a civil court is the civilized way. Calling the cops is for assholes.

That is much more preferable than taking a baseball bat to Cesar and burying him the desert.

Preferable to whom? The police are increasingly not that much better and if this accidental deposit thing is such a widespread huge-ass problem, then maybe your barbaric solution is more cost effective than the hundreds of thousands it will cost Texas with your "civilized" solution.

 

[newbitech]

If I stole, I would expect to go to jail. It's infuriating that there is any debate. There is no difference between this guy and any other thief. He withdrew money that wasn't his. He knew it was wrong. He didn't do anything to make things right.

Calling the police is the way civilized people deal with these things. That is much more preferable than taking a baseball bat to Cesar and burying him the desert.

of course it could have been his since it was in his account and under his control. How do we know how much money he had in the bank? The report about the investigation in this article seems fishy to me to say the least.

The only actual date reported was the Feb. 5th date that he withdraw money which was "4 days later". So he got a direct deposit on Feb. 1st. from what I gather. How did he open a bank account for 50k and then make large cash withdraws 4 days after a direct deposit?

I could be wrong, but I don't think those kinds of transactions clear that quickly. I had to go thru all kinds of hell just to move around 10k a couple years back to a new account from an accumulation of funds. This was one big ass lump payment.

And again, I have to wonder if the cops got a warrant to investigate. Probably not. Probably a fraud alert. It is not inconceivable that if the guy didn't take action with this account then he could have had his accounts frozen by the banks for this entire time. I've seen that happen with my own accounts where money got locked down because of mistakes made my merchants. Am I able to call the cops on that merchant or the bank for stealing my money since they didn't give it back when I demanded? Rhetorical. But no, we have no proof he stole anything.

Where is the money now? If he spent it, where is the 50k merch he spent it on? Where are the purchase receipts? If he buried it in his back yard, is this just simply a case of denying the man his right to due process and trying to force him to turn over something that he feels belongs to him?

Seems like this is a perfect case to file a civil lawsuit over. This doesn't seem like the guy is guilty of unlawful appropriation without the owners consent. Or any other definition of thievery.

 

[newbitech]

Maybe you missed my post on the defintion of theft, but in any event, the guy isn't a moron. He knew damned well that his employer made a mistake and he wasn't entitled to the money. That's why he moved it immediately, then pulled the cash out entirely. He was assuming he'd only get fired, and maybe even sued. What he didn't know was that it was a criminal act not to return it.

Probable cause would be required to get a warrant to dig through the guys bank accounts, and the affidavit from the employer and/or the bookkeeper about the transaction would suffice. The Fed gives the banks a lot of leeway when investigating errors, and we all agree to those terms when we open the accounts.

If he is a thief, and the bookkeeper was in on it, that would be the headline.

I found the working definition in this thread. But yeah I did miss the one you were talking about. I mixed up in the legal vs moral issue. I still don't think there is enough to establish any kind of legal case much less a conclusion from anything in this article.

As far as the headline, that could change once his defense comes out. We'll see, but probably not. We just know he thought the money was his. Maybe he had a great idea that saved or made the company millions and someone told him that his idea was golden. All kinds of things could be going on that would make a jury decide to not only acquit, but on civil matters award him the funds. We just don't know.

I entered this thread cause I don't think from what I read that the guy stole anything. Nothing has really convinced me otherwise. Even the "evidence" presented regarding the withdraws and new account doesn't really mean much considering we have no idea what was going on in his account other than what the cops said was going on. Regardless, if he was flat broke, and if he was trying to hurry up and secure the money to keep the employer from reversing the etf, I still believe that the money was in his possession legally and he is/was within his rights to dictate the pace of the return.

That kind of BS happens all the time in the financial realm and no one goes to jail because they refuse to comply with some thugs knocking on the door or some voice over the phone demanding return.

I mean what should he have done? Asked them, "how would you like those bills?"

I probably would moved the money out of the account and split it up to, just to make sure the account didn't get frozen with a fraud alert. I would have definitely demanded something in writing before I even spoke to anyone in that scenario.

But it really depends on the relationship between the two parties. That kind of mistake from the company is not without consequences.