N.J. man jailed after bank teller accidentally gives him an extra $2,700


petros
+1
#31
Hell no I didn't turn it in. I bought tthree pixie sticks. I paid GST on the three pixie sticks so I guess the Feds are accomplices.
 
IdRatherBeSkiing
+1
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I think it's Interesting that if a bank gives you money by mistake, you are a thief.

I think it was when he refused to give it back that he became a thief.
 
taxslave
+2
#33
My wife had a better spin on it. Play the religious card. Since he was not able to work which usually translates into broke tell the judge you prayed to god for some money and there it was. After all they claim that the lord works in mysterious ways.
 
Kreskin
#34
The bank teller made a mistake and he got too much money. Whether he knows it or not he's responsible for returning what he got. However, getting the police involved is a little overboard. Overdraw his account and let collections chase him. That wrath is usually much worse than the police anyway.
 
JLM
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

My wife had a better spin on it. Play the religious card. Since he was not able to work which usually translates into broke tell the judge you prayed to god for some money and there it was. After all they claim that the lord works in mysterious ways.

One problem.............it might be difficult to get a religious judge!
 
taxslave
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

One problem.............it might be difficult to get a religious judge!

Not in the US.
 
PoliticalNick
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

The bank teller made a mistake and he got too much money. Whether he knows it or not he's responsible for returning what he got. However, getting the police involved is a little overboard. Overdraw his account and let collections chase him. That wrath is usually much worse than the police anyway.

Actually he is NOT responsible for anything. He is not a thief or a crook like some are saying. I have no idea where the idea of the police and arrest came into this but it is indicative of how the banks hold sway over everything in this society. The actual culprit in this event is the teller and that is who should be held responsible. Any half-decent lawyer will get this guy off and I hope he then sues for wrongful imprisonment and slander. I can't believe the unmitigated gall of this bank to have him arrested and humiliated and possibly ruin his life over a mistake by their own employee to the tune of $2700.

Quote:

Definition of THEFT

1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it

b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

2 obsolete : something stolen

 
JLM
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Actually he is NOT responsible for anything. He is not a thief or a crook like some are saying. I have no idea where the idea of the police and arrest came into this but it is indicative of how the banks hold sway over everything in this society. The actual culprit in this event is the teller and that is who should be held responsible. Any half-decent lawyer will get this guy off and I hope he then sues for wrongful imprisonment and slander. I can't believe the unmitigated gall of this bank to have him arrested and humiliated and possibly ruin his life over a mistake by their own employee to the tune of $2700.

So your contention is the guy had no idea he was being over paid by $2700? If there is no expectation for the guy to speak up when being over paid by $2700, then he would have no business speaking up if he was underpaid the same. There is an old adage - "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". How do you know the bank didn't politely ask for their money back before calling the cops?
 
Ron in Regina
+3
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Yep, draws a pretty distinct line between who is honest and who is a crook.


Maybe....& maybe not. This might show the line between being truely
desperate and not. Someone truely desperate might do something that
they might otherwise never do.

Dude was cashing a $300 paycheque and this story isn't from 1975, &
who knows how long he's been try'n to live on $300 paycheques? It's
sad, in that if the numbers where larger (a $3000 paycheque and the
Teller tried to give him $30,000), the guy most likely would have stopped
the Teller at the wicket, 'cuz he wouldn't need the difference.

Maybe I'm misguided in my opinion, but desperate people tend to do
desperate things from what I've seen.
 
PoliticalNick
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

So your contention is the guy had no idea he was being over paid by $2700? If there is no expectation for the guy to speak up when being over paid by $2700, then he would have no business speaking up if he was underpaid the same. There is an old adage - "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". How do you know the bank didn't politely ask for their money back before calling the cops?

Whether he knew or not is irrelevant in this case. The mistake was made by an employee of the bank, not the man in question. He did not force or coerce the teller into overpaying him therefore there is no theft. The bank can ask for their money back all they want but in the end they should be asking the teller who has the responsibility to ensure the transaction is correct. This poor schmuk is now being prosecuted for the actions of another person and unless there is proof they were working together as accomplices he should, under the law, get off scott free.
 
Ron in Regina
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

So your contention is the guy had no idea he was being over paid by $2700? If there is no expectation for the guy to speak up when being over paid by $2700, then he would have no business speaking up if he was underpaid the same. There is an old adage - "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". How do you know the bank didn't politely ask for their money back before calling the cops?


Here's a weird one for you. I had something like this happen to me years
ago, on a much smaller scale.

This was about 1985 or so, and I pulled into a convenience store/gas
station to put $15 into the tank of my 1969 Ford 1/2-ton. I give the clerk
a $20 bill, and she gives me back $35 change.

I slide $30 back to her and tell her that she gave me too much change.
She takes offence, argues with me, and her husband comes out'a the
back with a broom, and it gets really ugly at that point. Now I'm sure
that a language barrier played into the situation, but I was told to get out
and never come back....& I left with the $35 in change from my $20
bill, & the $15 bucks in fuel already in my tank.

That convenience store/gas station is long gone & is now a Taco-Time
I believe, & I'm not surprised, but that's a different story.

Do we know that dude didn't try to correct his mistake at the wicket?
Who keeps their pay from a paycheque in an envelop anyway? That's
a recipe for losing it, like the guy claims, though like the bank I too have
an issue believing it.

The bank should have just writen this one off and kept it quiet, as it is
going to be just horrible PR no matter how this plays out in the end.
Last edited by Ron in Regina; May 19th, 2012 at 01:23 PM..Reason: typos
 
JLM
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Whether he knew or not is irrelevant in this case. The mistake was made by an employee of the bank, not the man in question. He did not force or coerce the teller into overpaying him therefore there is no theft. The bank can ask for their money back all they want but in the end they should be asking the teller who has the responsibility to ensure the transaction is correct. This poor schmuk is now being prosecuted for the actions of another person and unless there is proof they were working together as accomplices he should, under the law, get off scott free.

Wrong- he is being prosecuted for refusing to return money that didn't belong to him after he was asked. It's not a matter of just one person or the other being wrong, the teller made an honest mistake, he made a deliberate mistake.
 
Ron in Regina
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

Wrong- he is being prosecuted for refusing to return money that didn't belong to him after he was asked. It's not a matter of just one person or the other being wrong, the teller made an honest mistake, he made a deliberate mistake.

In a perfect world, he would have returned to the bank a receit for
the banks tax deductable (and inadvertant) donation to the M.S.
society for $2700.00....or something along those lines.

I wonder what the PR value of that would be?
 
JLM
+1
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by Ron in ReginaView Post

Here's a weird one for you. I had something like this happen to me years
ago, on a much smaller scale.

This was about 1985 or so, and I pulled into a convenience store/gas
station to put $15 into the tank of my 1969 Ford 1/2-ton. I give the clerk
a $20 bill, and she gives me back $35 change.

I slide $30 back to her and tell her that she gave me too much change.
She takes offence, argues with me, and her husband comes out'a the
back with a broom, and it gets really ugly at that point. Now I'm sure
that a language barrier played into the situation, but I was told to get out
and never come back....& I left with the $35 in change from my $20
bill, & the $15 bucks in fuel already in my tank.

That convenience store/gas station is long gone & is now a Taco-Time
I believe, & I'm not surprised, but that's a different story.

Do we know that dude didn't try to correct his mistake at the wicket?
Who keeps their pay from a paycheque in an envelop anyway? That's
a recipe for losing it, like the guy claims, though like the bank I too have
an issue believing it.

The bank should have just writen this one off and kept it quiet, as it is
going to be just horrible PR no matter how this plays out in the end.

I can believe that, as I've said before "there is an exception to every rule", but in this debate we can only judge it from a common sense viewpoint. If the guy was overpaid $20 or even $40 I'd buy his story, but $2700 and he's trying to justify it. As you said in a earlier post you might give a guy some slack for the original act if he was desperate, but once he was asked for the money back, he's totally 110% wrong..................in my view. Of course the teller screwed up but a "human being" doesn't take advantage of others screw ups. Once that starts happening then we have no trust in our fellow man.
 
L Gilbert
#45
"A Burlington County man was put in jail after he didn't return money mistakenly given to him by a teller while cashing a check at a bank,"

huh? the idiot can't tell the diff between $300 in cash and $3000 in cash?
I'd more likely to have teased the teller about it and given the cash back even though I have absolutely no love for banks.
 
PoliticalNick
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by JLMView Post

I can believe that, as I've said before "there is an exception to every rule", but in this debate we can only judge it from a common sense viewpoint. If the guy was overpaid $20 or even $40 I'd buy his story, but $2700 and he's trying to justify it. As you said in a earlier post you might give a guy some slack for the original act if he was desperate, but once he was asked for the money back, he's totally 110% wrong..................in my view. Of course the teller screwed up but a "human being" doesn't take advantage of others screw ups. Once that starts happening then we have no trust in our fellow man.

You may be right in he has taken advantage of somebody else's mistake but last time I checked that was not a crime. If taking advantage was an actual crime every, and I mean EVERY, corporation would be in court. You have to remember that a corporation (like the bank) has a charter where it is clearly expressed they must take advantage of any situation to increase the bottom line.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

You may be right in he has taken advantage of somebody else's mistake but last time I checked that was not a crime. If taking advantage was an actual crime every, and I mean EVERY, corporation would be in court. You have to remember that a corporation (like the bank) has a charter where it is clearly expressed they must take advantage of any situation to increase the bottom line.

Unless the guy is a complete idiot and hasn't a clue about how much diff there is between $300 and $3000, he's being dishonest in taking the money. $2700 of it wasn't his money to take.
 
PoliticalNick
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

"A Burlington County man was put in jail after he didn't return money mistakenly given to him by a teller while cashing a check at a bank,"

huh? the idiot can't tell the diff between $300 in cash and $3000 in cash?
I'd more likely to have teased the teller about it and given the cash back even though I have absolutely no love for banks.

Depends on which bank. If it was my Credit Union which is very small and responds to its members they would definitely get the cash back. If it was RBC who are not responsive to the customer and brag about avoiding a couple of billion bucks a year in taxes in their annual report while selling off billions in high-risk mortgages to the govt I would keep the cash and deny any knowledge of the event.

After all the events of the last 4 years where the average Joe has paid the price for banks to be bankrupt 1 day and worth billions because of govt gifts the next day I say F*CK EM!!!!
 
Goober
+2
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

You may be right in he has taken advantage of somebody else's mistake but last time I checked that was not a crime. If taking advantage was an actual crime every, and I mean EVERY, corporation would be in court. You have to remember that a corporation (like the bank) has a charter where it is clearly expressed they must take advantage of any situation to increase the bottom line.

Let me see now - So it all depends upon who you steal from. Yeah - That makes sense.
 
L Gilbert
+2
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Depends on which bank. If it was my Credit Union which is very small and responds to its members they would definitely get the cash back. If it was RBC who are not responsive to the customer and brag about avoiding a couple of billion bucks a year in taxes in their annual report while selling off billions in high-risk mortgages to the govt I would keep the cash and deny any knowledge of the event.

After all the events of the last 4 years where the average Joe has paid the price for banks to be bankrupt 1 day and worth billions because of govt gifts the next day I say F*CK EM!!!!

And I say principles are principles (in this case, honesty) and if you don't stick to them they aren't worth anything.
 
Kreskin
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

Actually he is NOT responsible for anything. He is not a thief or a crook like some are saying. I have no idea where the idea of the police and arrest came into this but it is indicative of how the banks hold sway over everything in this society. The actual culprit in this event is the teller and that is who should be held responsible. Any half-decent lawyer will get this guy off and I hope he then sues for wrongful imprisonment and slander. I can't believe the unmitigated gall of this bank to have him arrested and humiliated and possibly ruin his life over a mistake by their own employee to the tune of $2700.

Getting the police involved for that amount is ridiculous.

On the other hand, a bank teller error doesn't give the recipient the right to become an irresponsible moron either. Just like if she had given him $30 it doesn't give the bank the right to say 'ah shucks, too bad so sad.'

Most people have no idea how difficult it is to be a bank teller these days. It takes very special and talented people to know as much as they need to know and to put up with Shmucks like him.
 
JLM
#52
Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

You may be right in he has taken advantage of somebody else's mistake but last time I checked that was not a crime. If taking advantage was an actual crime every, and I mean EVERY, corporation would be in court. You have to remember that a corporation (like the bank) has a charter where it is clearly expressed they must take advantage of any situation to increase the bottom line.

I guess what it all boils down to in the big picture is what standard you want to abide by, my standard is I don't want people doing things to me I wouldn't do them. When I hear a person justifying how he/she screwed someone, I know that same person would have no qualms about doing it to me.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Getting the police involved for that amount is ridiculous.

Yeah, $2700 is nothing ...... as long as it is someone else's money.

Quote:

On the other hand, a bank teller error doesn't give the recipient the right to become an irresponsible moron either. Just like if she had given him $30 it doesn't give the bank the right to say 'ah shucks, too bad so sad.'

Yep. I'm sure if the guy had realized a teller had shortchanged him, he wouldn't just say "Ah, it's nothing. Keep it".

Quote:

Most people have no idea how difficult it is to be a bank teller these days. It takes very special and talented people to know as much as they need to know and to put up with Shmucks like him.

That's pretty much true in any job that requires interaction with the public.
 
JLM
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by KreskinView Post

Getting the police involved for that amount is ridiculous.

.

Steal something worth 27 cents from Walmart and see if the police don't get involved!
 
TenPenny
#55
But what if the cashier gives it to you, and later decides she shouldn't have? Should you be arrested for that?
 
JLM
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

But what if the cashier gives it to you, and later decides she shouldn't have? Should you be arrested for that?

Depends entirely on the circumstances. That wasn't the case here. It was an oversight, there was no decision involved. Decision necessitates contemplation.
 
TenPenny
#57
An 'oversight'? A bank teller gives away $2700 due to an 'oversight'? And the customer is charged with theft as a result?

Makes perfect sense to me.
 
JLM
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

An 'oversight'? A bank teller gives away $2700 due to an 'oversight'? And the customer is charged with theft as a result?

Makes perfect sense to me.

Little slow today are we? I'm not sure how many times it's been said. He was charged because he refused to give the money back when asked.
If I mistakenly gave you $2700 and you refused to return it I'd lay a charge too.
 
Goober
+1
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

An 'oversight'? A bank teller gives away $2700 due to an 'oversight'? And the customer is charged with theft as a result?

Makes perfect sense to me.

The teller counts of three hundred dollars - or 3 thousand- big difference- The man knew it was an error - He should have told the teller then and there- Cut it left, right, spin it top to bottom or bottom to top- It is still theft. The money was not his - he knew who the rightful owner was. He stole it.
 
JLM
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

The teller counts of three hundred dollars - or 3 thousand- big difference- The man knew it was an error - He should have told the teller then and there- Cut it left, right, spin it top to bottom or bottom to top- It is still theft. The money was not his - he knew who the rightful owner was. He stole it.

BINGO- But I'm thinking you may have an audience who is a little slow on the uptake.
 
no new posts