Receiving money not mine

Raymond Lin said:
It's more like the other way round, 90% on Dishonesty and 10% on Appropriation. Being dishonest is the most important aspect in theft, there are cases where the owner actually helped the theives to move £30,000 of TV into their van and still theft. Some argues that how can it be theft if the owner helped them move it? Well, the point comes down to dishonesty.

Would the OP be honest or dishonest in keeping the money that does not belong to him? What do you think? And what do you think now the law think on this?
Click to expand...

If you put in black and while like that then it looks like he's being dishonest.

But ask any successfull business person if they've ever been dishonest. I suspect the answer might lie in their wry smile, the phrase, 'no comment', or in the door being slammed in your face of course.
For me this is a simple case of money going around..and not very much at that. The OP has done nothing wrong in law. He did not dishonestly optain the money. For me it's the same as if he pickled it up from the street. A case of someone elses loss is somone elses gain...and nothing to write home about.

If it happened to me I doubt I'd even know it was ever in there! Sad but true. It would get spent in due course without me knowing about it. But if they ever came back to me about it I'd fight them all the way - if possible within the law. I'd see it as there fault for putting the money in there in the first place whether I still had the money or not or knew about the money or not would not make a jot of difference.
 
Hostile17 said:
I bet half the people saying return it would have second thoughts if they were in the thread starters shoes! :)
Click to expand...

exactly. keep it like most people would. i bloody would. not very often you get luck like that today, keep it.
 
Mr Blonde said:
The OP has done nothing wrong in law. He did not dishonestly optain the money. For me it's the same as if he pickled it up from the street.
Click to expand...
Unless I've missed something he hasn't decided on a course of action yet so no, he hasn't done anything wrong - yet. But if he decides to keep quiet, knowing full well that the money isn't his, then that's breaking the law. He might not have dishonestly obtained it, but he'd be dishonestly keeping it.

And it's not the same as picking it up from the street, not at all....
 
SidewinderINC said:
i got a new phone through the post, and i still have the one with a broken camera here. that was at the beginning of october last year, and havent heard anything about it since.
Click to expand...

When I had to return my router, I had to send it back and wait for it to get to them and then to send me a replacement, its because of people like you that this happened, maybe if it wasn't abused so much more companies would do this :(

Give the money back, I don't care what the law says your doing wrong and you know it (and for people who say if I had the money I wouln't return it, I would and have before, for larger amounts)
 
Burned_Alive said:
But is it? Is it really?
Id like to see someone relate this to actual law, rather than just saying "Its theft because it is". You cant expect people to just accept that, id like some facts before i make up my mind...
Click to expand...
Read section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. It is, of course, somewhat clarified by subsequent case law, but even the basic statute is very specific .... 'dishonestly appropriating the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive' is theft. That applies even if the property was originally acquired honestly and innocently, because the theft isn't based on how you originally acquired the property (the company made a mistake), but how you appropriated it (not returning it when you realised).

There are some complications to this, of course. Theft requires intent, so if ther OP genuinely believed the money was his, keeping it wouldn't be theft. However, he's now been told (including by this post) that keeping it knowing it isn't his IS theft that he can't use thast excuse any more. :)

The other major problem might be proving it. But .... while it may never go to court and the case may not be lost if it was, the fact remains that the actual circumsatances fit the definition of theft perfectly, and it IS theft per the Theft Act.

As Raymond Lin referred to, you can even commit theft if you FIND property. It's called theft by finding, and finding property you either know or should know belongs to another places on you an obligation to take reasonable steps to return that property to the owner. That might consist of simply handing it over at a police station (where you'll get it returned to you if it isn't claimed), or it might consist of contacting a credit card company if you find a wallet, etc. If, however, you could reasonably believe the property was abandoned, then finding it and doing nothing wouldn't be theft. A coin laying in the street might well be abandoned by it's rightful owner, but a wallet or a £50 note is most unlikely to be.

So anyway, if you want the actual law, check out s1 of the Theft Act, where it will define ‘Dishonestly’, ‘Appropriates’, ‘Property’, ‘Belonging to another’ and ‘With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’, together with some of the exceptions.
 
Mr Blonde said:
...... The OP has done nothing wrong in law. He did not dishonestly optain the money. For me it's the same as if he pickled it up from the street.
Click to expand...
Beg to differ about both points. He knows it's somebody else's property and not attempting to return it knowing that constitutes the "appropriation" required by the Theft Act, because "appropriating" and obtaining are not the same thing at all. And, finding and keeping something you find in the street CAN, depending on circumstances, be theft. See above post.
 
Sequoia said:
Read section 1 of the Theft Act 1968. It is, of course, somewhat clarified by subsequent case law, but even the basic statute is very specific .... 'dishonestly appropriating the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive' is theft. That applies even if the property was originally acquired honestly and innocently, because the theft isn't based on how you originally acquired the property (the company made a mistake), but how you appropriated it (not returning it when you realised).

There are some complications to this, of course. Theft requires intent, so if ther OP genuinely believed the money was his, keeping it wouldn't be theft. However, he's now been told (including by this post) that keeping it knowing it isn't his IS theft that he can't use thast excuse any more. :)

The other major problem might be proving it. But .... while it may never go to court and the case may not be lost if it was, the fact remains that the actual circumsatances fit the definition of theft perfectly, and it IS theft per the Theft Act.

As Raymond Lin referred to, you can even commit theft if you FIND property. It's called theft by finding, and finding property you either know or should know belongs to another places on you an obligation to take reasonable steps to return that property to the owner. That might consist of simply handing it over at a police station (where you'll get it returned to you if it isn't claimed), or it might consist of contacting a credit card company if you find a wallet, etc. If, however, you could reasonably believe the property was abandoned, then finding it and doing nothing wouldn't be theft. A coin laying in the street might well be abandoned by it's rightful owner, but a wallet or a £50 note is most unlikely to be.

So anyway, if you want the actual law, check out s1 of the Theft Act, where it will define ‘Dishonestly’, ‘Appropriates’, ‘Property’, ‘Belonging to another’ and ‘With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it’, together with some of the exceptions.
Click to expand...

Nah, ill take your word for it. Its just nice to read some facts for once. :)
 
Last edited:
Burned_Alive said:
Nah, ill take your word for it. Its just nice to read some facts for once. :)
Click to expand...
Well, the argument could be made that I've just said that this is the case, which is what others have said. I've perhaps just said it a bit more comprehensively. I could, however, either be talking a load of bull, be genuine but mistaken, or simply making it up but doing it credibly. :D

It's nice to have your word taken for it, though, Burned. Suprisingly though, for a bit of legislation, s.1 of the Theft Act is actually remarkably clear, pretty unambiguous and easy to understand. Must've been an off day in Parliament for them to come up with something that's actually comprehensible to a layman. :D
 
Beansprout said:
But if he decides to keep quiet, knowing full well that the money isn't his, then that's breaking the law. He might not have dishonestly obtained it, but he'd be dishonestly keeping it.
Click to expand...

Regardless of wether it's the law or not, is this sort of dishonesty not the same as the thousands of motorists breaking the speed limit every day. They know they're done it but they don't hand themselves in to the police. They just wait on the possibility of getting a fine if they were spotted doing it. That's dishonesty as well is it not?
 
Mr Blonde said:
Regardless of wether it's the law or not, is this sort of dishonesty not the same as the thousands of motorists breaking the speed limit every day. They know they're done it but they don't hand themselves in to the police. They just wait on the possibility of getting a fine if they were spotted doing it. That's dishonesty as well is it not?
Click to expand...
Well, no, not in my opinion.

If you have money you shouldn't have, you can do something about it by handing it back. It is, however, kind of difficult to unspeed, having done it in the first place. ;) :D

Keeping the money is an ongoing dishonesty, speeding is something someone may (or may not) regret, but can't undo.
 
Sequoia said:
Well, no, not in my opinion.

If you have money you shouldn't have, you can do something about it by handing it back. It is, however, kind of difficult to unspeed, having done it in the first place. ;) :D

Keeping the money is an ongoing dishonesty, speeding is something someone may (or may not) regret, but can't undo.
Click to expand...

Aye, but to keep speeding is also dishonest is it not and you don't see anyone owning up to previously speeding either.
The point I guess I'm trying to make is just that it's not exactly the crime of the centuary that some here are trying to make it out to be. Speeding once has about the same 'value' attached to it as holding on to someone else's money im my eyes, ie sod all these days.
 
Last edited:
Mr Blonde said:
Aye, but to keep speeding is also dishonest is it not and you don't see anyone owning up to previously speeding either.
Click to expand...
Illegal, yes. Dishonest? Not necessarily.

Speeding is an absolute offence, and you commit it just by doing it, whether you realise you are doing it or not. It could be entirely accidental, but it is still an offence. Dishonesty, on the other hand, requires actual intent. You can't do it accidentally. The difference, in legal speak, is that one requires the actus reas, and the other requires both the actus reas and the mens rea. That first term refers to the doing of the act, and the second to the state of mind (literally, 'guilty mind').
 
Mr Blonde said:
Regardless of wether it's the law or not, is this sort of dishonesty not the same as the thousands of motorists breaking the speed limit every day.
Click to expand...
Um, no? Once you've stopped speeding you're not still depriving someone of what is theirs?
 
Raymond Lin said:
Doesn't make speeding legal either, it's just the police didn't catch you that time.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But people don't seem to consider it as a crime. Most I'd guess percieve it as just one of those things and not a real crime, just because many people do it. So why are people judging the OP - not you, but others here!?
 
Mr Blonde said:
Absolutely. But people don't seem to consider it as a crime. Most I'd guess percieve it as just one of those things and not a real crime, just because many people do it. So why are people judging the OP - not you, but others here!?
Click to expand...

It's what this thread is about, we are not juding anyone but debating the merit of one's possible action.
 
It's only the word 'dishonest' I have a problem with. I was attempting to point out that many people are dishonest every single day and many times a day as well, yet we don't bat an eye to it - it's accepted as the norm seemingly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom