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

[angelatc]

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?

Having worked for a contractor, I can assure you that the homeowner is entitled to a roof that is as good as or better than the roof that the contractor stole.

 

[angelatc]

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.

If you read the definition of theft, you'd already know that the person had to be aware he was in possession of property that he was not entitled to hold.

 

[RickyJ]

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.

When the guy got his check he had no way of knowing that this wasn't a bonus. Sure he probably figured it was a mistake, but he had no way of knowing that unless he asked them. The company should stop making mistakes when writing checks out if they don't want this to happen again. The man should have returned the money he was overpaid, but I don't see how he is legally required to do so. He didn't put a gun to their head and say write me a check for this much money. No theft here legally.

 

[angelatc]

When the guy got his check he had no way of knowing that this wasn't a bonus. Sure he probably figured it was a mistake, but he had no way of knowing that unless he asked them. The company should stop making mistakes when writing checks out if they don't want this to happen again. The man should have returned the money he was overpaid, but I don't see how he is legally required to do so. He didn't put a gun to their head and say write me a check for this much money. No theft here legally.

He knows he isn't entitled to the money. That's not even in dispute. It isn't his money, it never was his money, and it will never be his money.

I already posted the legal definition of theft. "Force" isn't a factor.

 

[RickyJ]

He knows he isn't entitled to the money. That's not even in dispute. It isn't his money, it never was his money, and it will never be his money.

I already posted the legal definition of theft. "Force" isn't a factor.

Yes it is in dispute. Sure he should know, but that doesn't mean that he does know. He might have thought this was a bonus for a job well done.

 

[RickyJ]

I already posted the legal definition of theft. "Force" isn't a factor.

When you give something to someone, then demand they give it back, what is that called? Indian giver.
The company made a mistake, but it is not this man's fault they made a mistake. He shouldn't have to suffer for their mistake.

 

[angelatc]

Yes it is in dispute. Sure he should know, but that doesn't mean that he does know. He might have thought this was a bonus for a job well done.

Nobody but you, including him, thought that he ever believed he was entitled to the money. You're just making things up.

 

[angelatc]

When you give something to someone, then demand they give it back, what is that called? Indian giver.
The company made a mistake, but it is not this man's fault they made a mistake. He shouldn't have to suffer for their mistake.

Are you 12? Indian giver isn't a legal definition, either.

He wouldn't be suffering if he would give them their money back. As it stands, I hope he gets all 10 years.

 

[RickyJ]

Are you 12? Indian giver isn't a legal definition, either.

I didn't say it was.

 

[RickyJ]

He wouldn't be suffering if he would give them their money back. As it stands, I hope he gets all 10 years.

A jury will have to decide if he is guilty first. A jury of his peers probably won't find him guilty.

A gift becomes the property of the recipient, and the giver has no more rights to it.

You can't steal something that is given to you.

 

[presence]

he found out that the money did not come as a bonus for his hard work

from op

guilt can be attributed to an individual who acts "purposely," "knowingly," "recklessly," or "negligently."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Element_(criminal_law)#Concurrence

he felt he had not done anything wrong

Mens rea refers to the crime's mental elements of the defendant's intent. This is a necessary element—that is, the criminal act must be voluntary or purposeful. Mens rea is the mental intention (mental fault), or the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense, sometimes called the guilty mind.

A man was extremely happy when he received a huge amount of money from his employer.

A causal relationship between conduct and result is demonstrated if the act would not have happened without direct participation of the offender.[SUP][5][/SUP]

The act may be a "necessary but not sufficient" cause of the criminal harm.

Saldivar told employees of the company that he felt he had not done anything wrong, and he had no money left. He also said that he needed more time to figure out what to do.

Concurrence

Main article: Concurrence
In general, mens rea and actus reus must occur at the same time—that is, the criminal intent must precede or coexist with the criminal act, or in some way activate the act. The necessary mens rea may not continually be present until the forbidden act is committed, as long as it activated the conduct that produced the criminal act. However, for criminal liability to occur, there must be either overt and voluntary action or a failure to act when physically able as required by statute or law. [SUP][5][/SUP]

This is a civil issue. The man has committed no crime.

 

[ivflight]

I didn't have time to read all the posts, but I didn't see anyone make the point that he may very well have signed a contract with the company indicating that he agreed to fix such errors. I've seen such clauses in multi-page contracts (like loans) before. They ask you to sign a form saying that if there were any obvious spelling or mathematical errors in the contract you agree to facilitate the fix. The same type of clause would likely have appeared in the bank transfer agreement when he and the employer setup the direct deposit (or even when he opened an account there).

This was clearly a math/computer error and he likely was contractually obligated to help fix it.

 

[MelissaWV]

I didn't have time to read all the posts, but I didn't see anyone make the point that he may very well have signed a contract with the company indicating that he agreed to fix such errors. I've seen such clauses in multi-page contracts (like loans) before. They ask you to sign a form saying that if there were any obvious spelling or mathematical errors in the contract you agree to facilitate the fix. The same type of clause would likely have appeared in the bank transfer agreement when he and the employer setup the direct deposit.

This was clearly a math/computer error and he likely was contractually obligated to help fix it.

I mentioned it...

Often when you sign up for direct deposit, the paperwork states they have the right to recover any overpayments to your account.

 

[ivflight]

I mentioned it...

Often when you sign up for direct deposit, the paperwork states they have the right to recover any overpayments to your account.

Ok, good. To me that's pretty much the end of the discussion...

 

[presence]

Ok, good. To me that's pretty much the end of the discussion...

Certainly not.

If that is "the end" then indeed this is a CIVIL issue not a crime. Let them take him to court and recover their overpayments.

 

[ivflight]

Certainly not.

If that is "the end" then indeed this is a CIVIL issue not a crime. Let them take him to court and recover their overpayments.

That money is capital just like any other piece of the equipment that belongs to the business. It was transferred by accident and the man took it and won't give it back even though he (very likely) signed a contract indicating he would. If, while at work, some rolls of copper wire accidentally fell into the bed of his truck and he drove off with them and refused to return them I would call that theft too.

 

[Henry Rogue]

I was once at a fast food restaurant before a sporting event. The place was very busy and if i were to guess i would say It was the first day on the job for the person standing in front of me behind the counter. All I had on me was a hundred dollar bill and when I handed it to her, I could tell her stress level just doubled. She made change and i actually got more than a hundred dollars in change. I brought this to her attention and we squared up. It didn't occur to me to keep the mistake.

 

[presence]

That money is capital just like any other piece of the equipment that belongs to the business.

very well

It was transferred by accident

yes

and the man took it

You can receive but not take a kiss. This man received what in his eyes was a bonus. He didn't TAKE anything.

and won't give it back

He said he coundn't give it back. That is legally quite different from "I won't give it back"

even though he (very likely) signed a contract indicating he would.

This is conjecture, but either way would make it a civil rather than criminal matter.

If, while at work, some rolls of copper wire accidentally fell into the bed of his truck and he drove off with them and refused to return them I would call that theft too.

If that happened and he had SIGNED paperwork stating the wire was legally his, and he installed the wire into his home in clear conscience; no longer had it in hand... thinking innocently that it was his.... once again you have a civil case on your hands not a criminal matter.

 

[RickyJ]

This was clearly a math/computer error and he likely was contractually obligated to help fix it.

He was a forklift operator, it wasn't his job to fix their accounting mistakes, and on top of that, he didn't know for sure it was a mistake.
He will be found not guilty if the judge doesn't throw it out of court before that.

 

[krugminator]

He was a forklift operator, he wasn't his job to fix their accounting mistakes, and on top of that, he didn't know for sure it was a mistake.
He will be found no guilty if the judge doesn't throw it out of court before that.

Are you saying forklift operators are mildly retarded and can't tell the difference between $1000 and $100,000? Wasn't sure it was mistake? Does he make 5 million dollars a year? He withdrew the money. Who withdraws $50,000 unless its a transfer to another account?

Clearly it's stealing. He should, of course, be fired. I don't know if he should get 10 years in jail, but he should certainly get prison time. It sounds like it took the company a few months to catch the accounting error. The guy is a thief.