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

[69360]

Yes, agreed.

I don't know how it could be any clearer that Cesar Saldivar does, in fact, have Texas Steel Conversion's property, and that he does not, in fact have that company's consent.

No, they did not. If they had, this would not be happening.

I didn't think I'd need to make an analogy, I thought it was too obvious, but I was wrong. Here you go:

What if, in handing the clerk at the grocery store a 5 dollar bill your ring slips off and into his hand? You ask for it back. He says no. He won't give it back. He never gives it back. He just keeps your ring for the rest of his life. Is he a thief?

Obviously and without a doubt he is a thief! He has committed the crime of theft. Theft is a crime, 69360. I consider it a crime, you consider it a crime, virtually everyone who believes in the concept of crime at all would place theft into the category of crime.

He is stealing it from them right now! It doesn't matter how the property came to be wrongfully in his possession. It really doesn't. A windstorm could have blown it onto his front yard. But it's not his and so he doesn't get to keep it. And he is intentionally keeping it, knowing it is not his, ignoring requests from its owner to return it. That's criminal. Just because the flood waters sweep the neighbor's Ferrari onto your lawn doesn't mean it is yours now.

It most certainly does matter how the money came into his possession because they charged him with the crime of theft. He didn't steal anything and I don't think he will be found criminally liable.

To successfully prosecute him for theft, they will have to prove that he took the money. He didn't take it, they gave it to him erroneously. You can't just say ex post facto he took it. Theft is the act of taking property with out consent. He didn't get possession of it through embezzlement or fraud either which is intentional deception. They gave it to him in error.

If they were smart, the correct action would be a civil suit for the return of their property.

We all know what the guy is doing and know it's wrong morally, but I don't think he'll be found guilty of theft.

 

[mczerone]

This is clearly theft. If one should not be charged with theft when one has committed theft, well then when should one be charged with it?

In what way is it "lame" to charge someone with theft who is committing theft, Tod? Do you not think stealing is criminal, 69360?

Basically, what are you all thinking?

It's not (legally) theft. There was no unlawful taking of the money. He was given the money, perhaps mistakenly, but rightfully. He didn't defraud the bank, he didn't defraud his employer or extort him.

Without that element, it's not theft. It's at most "conversion" - the re-appropriation of rightfully possessed property in a manner inconsistent with the true owner's clearly relayed intentions.

Because it's clear that it was a mistake, and the recipient reasonably knew that the money was transferred erroneously, it's likely that the court will impute the knowledge to the employee that the money should be returned to the employer as a condition of possessing the money.

When he opened the second bank account, it could be claimed that he was just placing the funds in escrow until the error was resolved or discovered. But after he refused to return the money it became a conversion, and a civil case would be the rightful remedy for the employer.

 

[Schifference]

Honor? I seem to recall that Ron Paul was criticized for accepting money for his state. He rationalized that his state paid in so he should try to get as much back as possible per the prevailing rules. Furthermore I remember the idea to acquire delegates to win the election. Honestly how honest, moral, or reputable is that? The popular vote is totally against you but you have the winning number of delegates so you win according to the prevailing rules. A moral compass always points the way one wants. Sleaze ball tactics are are sleaze ball tactics but that does not necessarily render them illegal. What would you recommend your loved one do that has fallen on hard times and is debt ridden? Would you discourage them from bankruptcy when they have no job or work 2-3 part time jobs at minimum wage and have trouble buying food? What would you do if you had a business and great personal credit and over time the business needed things so you used you personal credit to inject cash or pay for things the business needed. You employ 25 people. Then after several years the business is no longer viable and you have no job but owe $750,000 in unsecured personal debt. Would you file for bankruptcy? How could you ever repay the creditors? You have nothing and your family of 4 sleeps on the floor in a one bedroom mice infested apartment while you try to recover. Who will rent to you with terrible credit? The business you had has lost favor with the economy so your talents are rendered useless. Would you file bankruptcy?

 

[angelatc]

It's not (legally) theft. There was no unlawful taking of the money. He was given the money, perhaps mistakenly, but rightfully. He didn't defraud the bank, he didn't defraud his employer or extort him..

You might want to read the definition of theft.

I encourage noticing that the word "or" is used, instead of "and."

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.

Without proof of intent to deprive, no criminal act has occurred. There must be an element of dishonesty which may be revealed from the words or actions of the perpetrator. In California, the Supreme Court has held that proof that a defendant intended to take property only temporarily, but for so extended a period of time as to deprive the owner of a major portion of its value or enjoyment, satisfies the intent element of a theft prosecution in California.

There is no deception required for the definition to apply. He got the money, he knew it did not belong to him, and he has clearly stated his intention to deprive the rightful owner of the property.

It might be considered theft by conversion, but it is indeed theft.

 

[Schifference]

This seems like theft.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?426410-59-of-the-%91Tuna%92-Americans-Eat-Is-Not-Tuna

 

[angelatc]

This seems like theft.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?426410-59-of-the-%91Tuna%92-Americans-Eat-Is-Not-Tuna

Only to people who only read the headline.

 

[Schifference]

Only to people who only read the headline.

I read the whole thing and my interpretation is that the fish is mislabeled and fraudulently misrepresented as something other than what it is.

 

[satchelmcqueen]

yes morally he should give it back. BUT his company screwed up. they should take him to court and try to win. but since it was their mistake, i think the guy legally can keep it. it happened on peoples court twice lol.

 

[RickyJ]

When someone gives you a check for worked performed, that is not theft! It does not matter that they didn't mean to give him that much, what matters is they did. He has a right to keep it if he wants to, although giving it back would be the morally right thing to do, but not legally required.

 

[RickyJ]

He got the money, he knew it did not belong to him.

When someone gives you something, it does indeed belong to you.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

If someone dropped a wallet with their driver's license and a lot of money in it, and its owner located the person who found it and asked for it back, but that person said they were going to keep it because of the money, that would be called....?

 

[RickyJ]

If someone dropped a wallet with their driver's license and a lot of money in it, and its owner located the person who found it and asked for it back, but that person said they wanted to keep it because of the money, that would be called....?

Finders keepers, losers weepers. Morally, sure they should give it back, legally, possession is 9/10 of the law. The driver's license would have to returned under law, but not the money. The person who lost the wallet would have no way to prove they had money in it anyway.

 

[erowe1]

It does not matter that they didn't mean to give him that much

It matters.

 

[69360]

If someone dropped a wallet with their driver's license and a lot of money in it, and its owner located the person who found it and asked for it back, but that person said they were going to keep it because of the money, that would be called....?

It would be called a different situation. The person didn't give the wallet to the person who found it.

 

[VIDEODROME]

What if this error was from faulty accounting software? Is the computer programmer who wrote a flawed program the Theif?

 

[MelissaWV]

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?

The contractor should have to make the homeowner whole again. They left for work and their house had a roof on it. They came home and it had 3/4 of a roof on it. I'm not sure how you think this relates to the matter at hand.

yes morally he should give it back. BUT his company screwed up. they should take him to court and try to win. but since it was their mistake, i think the guy legally can keep it. it happened on peoples court twice lol.

When someone gives you a check for worked performed, that is not theft! It does not matter that they didn't mean to give him that much, what matters is they did. He has a right to keep it if he wants to, although giving it back would be the morally right thing to do, but not legally required.

If you get direct deposit from your company, you might want to reread the conditions. Most companies do state that they can go into your bank account and recover overpayments to your account.

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

It would be called a different situation. The person didn't give the wallet to the person who found it.

Did the owner of the company himself give the money to this guy?

 

[erowe1]

What if this error was from faulty accounting software? Is the computer programmer who wrote a flawed program the Theif?

No. The person who keeps the money after being asked to return it is.

 

[69360]

Did the owner of the company himself give the money to this guy?

Irrelevant, but probably a bookkeeper who was authorized to sign checks did.

 

[angelatc]

When someone gives you something, it does indeed belong to you.

No , not necessarily. "Finders keepers" is not a legal term. Posession does not equal entitlement.

Suppose I rent a cottage to you for the week. Does that give you the right to stay for a month? I agree to pay you $500. That does not give you a right to collect $5000.00.