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

[helmuth_hubener]

And again, in the ideal free society, legally it probably should matter very little (if at all) in the case of money and property transfers whether it was accidental or intentional. The goal is just to make the victim whole. Not to punish slimeballs.

But morally, it matters a lot. And for acceptance in polite society vs. shunning, it should matter a lot.

 

[newbitech]

Then you have no honor, sir. You simply have no honor.

If you are making decisions like this all the time, you need to take some time for introspection to think about your moral code. Anyway, you won't care about what I say. But your approach to life disgusts me. If everyone around you seems to be untrustworthy (e.g. the problem with the sentimental item you discussed above) just look in the mirror and there is why. Trustworthy people do not like associating with malignantly untrustworthy and mercenary people.

You question my honor in a hypothetical scenario? WTF is that? Why are you trying to be my psychologist?

If I didn't care about what you say, I wouldn't bother to respond. My approach to life has nothing to do with you, so blaming your disgust on me is irresponsible IMO. What is the deal with you taking my anecdote completely out of context and then proceeding to attack my personal relationships that you really have no clue about?

I think you are a little off the hinges over this issue. I tried to show you how this case could have easily been resolved in a civil way without involving police or imprisoning someone who did not put anyone's life or property in jeopardy.

There are all kinds of other serious questions that need to be asked in a situation like this. We don't have all the details to be jumping to conclusions. Making rash, outlandish, and unsubstantiated accusations against people IS a dishonor to one's self. Taking your idiot neighbors car for a spin around the block after he left it in your driveway, unlocked is not theft. Selling a car in which you possess the title, the keys, and the car is also not theft.

Perhaps people and companies should be more responsible with their own property and not disrupt my life with their stupid mistakes? Perhaps those same people should find more rational and civil ways of dealing with the consequences of their mistakes instead of banging on my door making demands?

 

[ItsTime]

For those of you who have never paid federal income taxes for your employees as an employer, let me explain how it works...

1. You figure the amounts due to your employees and the amounts due to the feds.
2. You pay your employee and give him a slip explaining how much has been deducted by the employer to pay the feds later.
3. Usually once a month for a large business, quarterly for a medium business, or annually for a really small business, you pay the feds their share of the paycheck + additional amounts for unemployment, business taxes, etc. These amounts are due at earliest 30 days after the paycheck given to the employee.

Thus, the feds hadn't gotten anything yet.

This guy was asked to return it and he refused. Did you read the article. When he refused to return the money is when it became theft. Before that, it was just an error.

I would bet that the business hired a new bookkeeper that was accustomed to an accounting program setting where the decimal point for cents is automatically inserted in every number so if I type "1" it will come out as $0.01. But the business has their program set to place two zeros at the end of every typed number so typing "1" will result in "$1.00"

Thank you for typing this. I was being lazy and waiting for someone else to explain it haha.

 

[RickyJ]

And again, in the ideal free society, legally it probably should matter very little (if at all) in the case of money and property transfers whether it was accidental or intentional. The goal is just to make the victim whole. Not to punish slimeballs.

But morally, it matters a lot. And for acceptance in polite society vs. shunning, it should matter a lot.

Morally the guy is wrong to keep the money, no doubt about it. However legally he did nothing wrong. In a civil case he will have to pay some or all of it back, but in a criminal case it very well could get thrown out by the judge before a jury even gets a chance to hear it. There is only a very small chance he will get convicted of theft here.

 

[angelatc]

Morally the guy is wrong to keep the money, not doubt about it. However legally he did nothing wrong. In A civil case he will have to pay some or all of it back, but in a criminal case it very well could get thrown out by the judge before a jury even gets a chance to hear it. There is only a very small chance he will get convicted of theft here.

Often wrong, never in doubt.

What he did is indeed legally wrong. There won't be a civil case. It is already a criminal case.

 

[RickyJ]

Often wrong, never in doubt.

What he did is indeed legally wrong. There won't be a civil case. It is already a criminal case.

We will see, how much money are you willing to risk to back up your position?

 

[angelatc]

.

Facts are facts. The company for whatever reason gave the guy 100,000. Should the guy recognize the mistake and not take advantage of it? That to me is subjective. I say yes, he should recognize the mistake and try to help correct it. But again, fact is, he didn't make a mistake. I am not sure if he was written a check or if he had some kind of direct deposit agreement. Doesn't matter to me in regards to charging him with the crime of theft, since regardless if he was given a check or had some kind of direct deposit agreement, none of his ACTIONS involved him TAKING the money. He RECEIVED the money.
.

Did you read the legal definition of theft? He didn't need to take it - receiving it, knowing he received it, and refusing to return it meets the definition.

 

[angelatc]

why didn't he just tell them that he would work it off??

Why didn't he just give it back? Its not like they came after him years after the fact.

And I would think that the working it off scenario would violate labor laws.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

You question my honor in a hypothetical scenario? WTF is that? Why are you trying to be my psychologist?

You seemed to be stating, in all seriousness, and with 100% confidence, exactly what you, personally, would definitely do were you faced with such a situation. If you did not mean to be taken so literally, or are now having second thoughts about what you really truly would do if you were to find your neighbor's expensive car parked in your driveway one day, by all means feel free to take back what you said.

"Yeah, if neighbor leaves his Ferrari up in my property with the keys in it and unlocked, I'm gonna take it for a spin. And yeah, if he left the thing unlocked with the keys in it and an OPEN TITLE, you bet your ass I am claiming the ABANDONED PROPERTY that was ABANDONED on my property."

This action, if done, would be an honor-less action. It would disgrace anyone who did it.

Taking your statement at face value, yes, such an attitude is a disgrace to any man and lacks any sense of honor.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Morally the guy is wrong to keep the money, no doubt about it. However legally he did nothing wrong. In a civil case he will have to pay some or all of it back, but in a criminal case it very well could get thrown out by the judge before a jury even gets a chance to hear it. There is only a very small chance he will get convicted of theft here.

Ahh, now I understand. So you are just providing color commentary for the court case. Pre-game analysis, as it were. Who will win, who will lose?

Well, you may be right, you may be wrong. I am no lawyer, and the law is so out-of-whack you could be right. I would predict that angelatc is more likely to be right, but who is to say? That's one big problem with this statist monopoly legal system: predictability of the law went out the window a long time ago. In a sensible competitive justice system, any layman would be able to predict with confidence the rough outcome of a case, given the facts. (The outcome in this case would be that the overpaid employee must pay back the money to his employer, by the way. It's just that simple.) Predictability has fallen victim to the ridiculous justice monopoly we call the state.

 

[newbitech]

Often wrong, never in doubt.

What he did is indeed legally wrong. There won't be a civil case. It is already a criminal case.

But is legally wrong == criminally wrong? I don't think so. My problem here is that the company called the police and the police actually went through the guy's bank records. Was there a warrant for that?

I'd like to know exactly how the guy was supposed to return this money? Was he supposed to write a check for 50k or whatever?

Was he supposed to go with draw cash and take it to them?

Also, would like to know why the company didn't put a stop payment on the check or attempt to use the FDIC rules for recovering electronic ETF if it was direct deposit. In both cases, the guy's bank account where the money was originally deposited would have overdraft if he moved the money before they tried to take it back.

We know that kind of money doesn't clear the bank immediately, so I'd also like to know how long the company dawdled before they tried to recover that alleged "stolen" property.

We don't really have a time line, and I am not sure of the Texas law, but the Florida law in regards to abandoned property says after 60 days the abandoned property is yours. Of course the way that works is, you have to notify the authorities of the abandoned property. In this case, I am not so sure that the property was even abandoned. I've yet to hear the company explain their mistake. All I have read is that someone from the company actually went to the guys house to try and get the money. That right there seems pretty sketchy to me. Then they got him on the phone, spoke to him for 15 minutes and threatened him with legal action.

Again, what was the guys supposed to do? Write a check? Withdraw the funds? Nothing I have read indicated to me that he has spent the money, only says he moved it around and withdrew the cash. He told folks apparently he needed more time to work it out. Perhaps he was trying to figure out where he stood legally? Perhaps he wanted to make sure that whatever happened to the money it was properly accounted for? Who knows?

But arresting the guy and throwing him in jail and accusing him of stealing doesn't seem to be supported anywhere in anything that I have read, legal or otherwise. Also do note that he posted the 10k bond, so I kind doubt he spent all the money. I wouldn't be surprised if he was taking his time trying to figure out what to do and gain some peace of mind in the situation after being threatened by the company. Perhaps he spent some of the money, but no where do I see any evidence of what he may have bought or done with it.

Best case I think for the company is they get a civil judgement. No way should he be facing criminal charges for keeping something that was given to him. Even if it was given to him by "mistake".

 

[newbitech]

You seemed to be stating, in all seriousness, and with 100% confidence, exactly what you, personally, would definitely do were you faced with such a situation. If you did not mean to be taken so literally, or are now having second thoughts about what you really truly would do if you were to find your neighbor's expensive car parked in your driveway one day, by all means feel free to take back what you said.

"Yeah, if neighbor leaves his Ferrari up in my property with the keys in it and unlocked, I'm gonna take it for a spin. And yeah, if he left the thing unlocked with the keys in it and an OPEN TITLE, you bet your ass I am claiming the ABANDONED PROPERTY that was ABANDONED on my property."

This action, if done, would be an honor-less action. It would disgrace anyone who did it.

Taking your statement at face value, yes, such an attitude is a disgrace to any man and lacks any sense of honor.

don't leave your junk on my land. that simple. if you do, don't accuse me of stealing if I decide to do what I want with crap someone else left on my land. Not sure where there is any honor or disgrace from me minding my own business and doing what I want to do on my property.

But, this analogy doesn't come close to what I see happened in this case. You can't sell a car without a signed title. If you leave a signed title in your car and park it in my yard with the keys in it, all I need to do to make it mine is write $1000 on it, pay my $70 tax and sign my name and its mine. That's Florida, but I suspect the laws are similar everywhere in the US.

Perhaps my willingness to take my neighbors actions at face value rather than being inquisitive as to his motivations is what bothers you? I already stated that if something like this happened to me with people I have business relationships with that I would work with those folks to resolve the matter, because I want to keep the relationship.

Perhaps this man did not value his relationship with his employer? Again that is subjective. Maybe the man thinks the company owed him? Maybe he got hurt on the job and was denied his claim? Maybe the company officers were trying to black ball him in his career? Who knows? Does it matter tho? They gave him that money and he believed it was some kind of payment that he felt was rightfully his. By all accounts he had 100% control of the money and the company had to resort to thug tactics by going to his house in person and threatening him with legal action.

At that point, no way in hell am I giving the money back. Instead, i use it to defend myself since the company apparently already has displayed an ineptitude in dealing with financial matters as well as a willingness to resort to strong arm tactics and blame others for their screw ups.

 

[angelatc]

But is legally wrong == criminally wrong? I don't think so.

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.

 

[RickyJ]

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.

Again you are just plain wrong. He did not refuse to return it, he said that he did not have all the money and needed some time to think about it. They talked to him for only 15 minutes, then called the police.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

don't leave your junk on my land. that simple. if you do, don't accuse me of stealing if I decide to do what I want with crap someone else left on my land. Not sure where there is any honor or disgrace from me minding my own business and doing what I want to do on my property.

Oh, no, perish the thought that anyone might accuse you of stealing! You find an expensive car in your driveway, what do you do? "Hey, Christmas in September! No worries! Let's go rifle through the glove compartment and see if we can find the title. Whee!"

Is that is truly what you would do, newbitech? Yes, you find the title in the glove box, the guy is too trusting I guess, would you truly quick sell his car?

 

[angelatc]

Again you are just plain wrong. He did not refuse to return it, he said that he did not have all the money and needed some time to think about it. They talked to him for only 15 minutes, then called the police.

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.

Investigators say Saldivar withdrew the money from his bank account, and he's refusing to give it back. That's why the 25-year-old is facing criminal charges, even though it was his employer's accounting mistake.


"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.


Police arrested Saldivar Sunday and charged him with felony theft. He was released after posting a $10,000 bond.

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

 

[newbitech]

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.

"the" definition? Not sure which definition we are using TBVH. IRS are thieves right? but legally they are not. We use a completely different definition of theft. She stole my heart, but she isn't going to jail.

I found a couple articles on this case. Both very sparse with details. From the details I read, he is asserting he did nothing wrong. In fact, from the meager details I read, sounds like the company is incompetent in more than just accounting.

 

[newbitech]

Oh, no, perish the thought that anyone might accuse you of stealing! You find an expensive car in your driveway, what do you do? "Hey, Christmas in September! No worries! Let's go rifle through the glove compartment and see if we can find the title. Whee!"

Is that is truly what you would do, newbitech? Yes, you find the title in the glove box, the guy is too trusting I guess, would you truly quick sell his car?

It's more than just an accusation in this case, they rifled through the guys bank account, that was in the article. You good with that? Didn't see where they had a search warrant either.

You still on with the car analogy? Yeah, someone leaves a car on my property first thing I do when I recognize the car is incompetent drunk ass neighbor from down the street is open the door and look for the keys. And yeah if the title is signed by my neighbor and in the car, I'm taking it. If he wants it back, he can first of all begin by explaining what the hell he is doing. Then he can beg me to give it back to him and pay my storage fee of whatever amount I deem appropriate.

If he don't like it, he can feel free to sue me, I will gladly take that to court. But, call the cops and accuse me of stealing? Don't think so. Only an incompetent sheriff would take me to jail over that. Or a sheriff who was a brother of the drunk down the street.

 

[newbitech]

Why didn't he just give it back? Its not like they came after him years after the fact.

And I would think that the working it off scenario would violate labor laws.

Maybe he had no way to give it back? Maybe he didn't have a check? Maybe he didn't want to risk getting arrested for carrying around 20k in cash while the spot light was on him, hell he'd already been threatened? Maybe he believe the money was owed to him? Maybe he didn't know who to make the check out to?

Who knows why he didn't "comply" with the door knock visit or drop everything he was doing to straighten out this incompetent company's financial shenanigans. Why didn't the company reverse the direct deposit? Why didn't the company cancel the check?

All kinds of questions the story didn't answer. Regardless of all that, I don't think a thief is someone who receives his loot from his victims from their own free will.

 

[angelatc]

"the" definition? Not sure which definition we are using TBVH. IRS are thieves right? but legally they are not. We use a completely different definition of theft. She stole my heart, but she isn't going to jail.

I found a couple articles on this case. Both very sparse with details. From the details I read, he is asserting he did nothing wrong. In fact, from the meager details I read, sounds like the company is incompetent in more than just accounting.

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.