Again, this isn't a law. These are guidelines for employers, giving the employers guidance on what is and isn't allowed. This doesn't set the collection procedures in stone.
And government employees have their own set of rules, which wouldn't apply here regardless.
http://www.twc.state.tx.us/laws/tuca/enabling-state-statutes.html#texasLaborCode - That's the link to the Texas Labor Law. The cold hard statutes, not the fluffy little guide for employers that you're citing. Go ahead and show me the part that says the only way to collect the money is through payroll deduction. I read through it, and couldn't find it.
I hate trying to quote quotes, but I see the word "may." I do not see to words "must" "shall" and in the context of the pamphlet, the subsection is dealing with reasons that you as an employer might be allowed to dock a paycheck. Nowhere in the statutes does the law say that the employer MUST treat them as such.
It also clearly say that the employee must agree to the arrangement, which means that that it isn't a slam dunk for the employer.
Also, as noted in the Texas Wage Commissions recommended policy guide for Wage Overpayment,
General information about wage overpayments: as noted in the article "The Texas Payday Law - Basic Issues", the U.S. Department of Labor considers wage overpayments to be in the same category as wage advances or loans, and thus finds no minimum wage problem with deductions from future wages to recoup such overpayments
Dude, I do payroll. This is out of context. This relates to garnishments that could effectively leaving the employee bringing home an amount less than the federal minimum wage. The DOL says that employers are allowed to lend money to an employee with the agreement the agreement that the employer will take payments directly from the paycheck even if that means the net take home will be less than he would have earned if he only made minimum wage. That's not true with all garnishments. And it has zero to do wit the circumstance we're talking about here.
In fact there is no law that I can find anywhere that makes me a thief if anyone at anytime deposits money in my account then asks for it back and I refuse. I'd like to see those laws.
Except for the statutes that define what he did as theft, you mean.
I understand that the law probably wasn't written with this exact scenario in mind, but the fact that this scenario fits the definition is why they write the laws the way they do.
You got anything besides the misappropriations that I think really don't apply since its pretty clear the guy here wasn't the one doing the misappropriating. Another case would be nice too since I really think common law is pointing to this mistake being the responsibility of the employer not the employee. Clearly not criminal from where I sit.
I gave you the definition of appropriation that the statute uses, which means that appropriation in this instance means gaining control. He has control of the money, so the law considers that he has appropriated it. Again, apparently a district attorney somewhere agrees with me, or else they would not have filed charges.
What would it take to convince you?
And you're quite mistaken about common law. As far a banking goes, it generally holds that you can't profit from someone else's mistake. Show me the law that says if someone accidentally deposits money into your account that you're entitled to keep it. You can't, because it doesn't exist. On the other hand, I can show you a bunch of laws and regulations that entitle people to reverse deposits that were made in error.
The way the world works and the way you think it should work are two different matters. In the example of your Ferrari, suppose I bought it, and it was accidentally delivered to your house. You might think that the mistake somehow entitles you to the property, but I can assure you that it absolutely does not. There is no Finders Keepers law. Keeping money you find on the street isn't even generally legal until after you've made an effort to find the owner. Possession does not simply equate to ownership.
All the HR material that I have come across including links from ADP payroll company are saying the legal recourse is to file a civil suit and seek judgement and lien.
So you just spent 4 paragraphs telling me that the law dictates that the only method to recover the money is through payroll deduction, then trumped your own hand with a statement saying that ADP advises a civil suit?
Well, that's why the lawyers are a always better place to get legal advice than HR and payroll companies. Apparently the police and the prosecutor felt that a different recourse was appropriate in this case, probably because the amount of money was so significant. Again, let me point this out: if the guy owed $50 million instead of $50 thousand, it would be ridiculous to assert that he should work it off via payroll deduction. Ignoring the ADP position, and using your first assertion that they're bound to use only payroll deductions ...there is no possible way the guy would ever be able to work off that much.
And even at $50,000...that's roughly his salary for a year. If the employer decided to take the money back over the next 4 years, charging him no interest, you think a guy who makes $50k would be willing to live on a 25% paycut for the next four years?
So of course that's not true, and there is no law that states that is the only method an employer can use. You eve already know that ADP advises civil suits.
The Texas law says only the employer could do that if the employee and the employer agreed, but no place does it say that is the only recourse.
This may set a precedent, and I have no problem with prosecuting thieves. But a quick Google search found another example of a guy who was sent to jail for essentially same thing:
http://947thewave.cbslocal.com/2011...nk-account-does-the-punishment-fit-the-crime/ His family ended up loaning him the money to make restitution to keep him out of prison.
It might be a Texas precedent, but it isn't a national precedent.
. But they did it without even contacting me, the thieves.
