Keep it or return it?

[Hondo]

Because of the nature of the cause of the problem, they really can't prove who got what. They can only prove that you used the machine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jan/16/banks

[steve_spackman]

Because of the nature of the cause of the problem, they really can't prove who got what. They can only prove that you used the machine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/jan/16/banks

i say keep it..

[Daniel]

I think that's dishonest personally.

I once went to an ATM and when the person in front of me walked away I spotted a $50 note still in the tray and ran after them and gave it to them. Then when I went back I took my money out and an extra $50 came out. Whether or not the machine was giving out more money than it should have I don't know, I did take the $50 as the person was gone and there was no one around to tell but I didn't go back for more so to speak.

[Hondo]

As an additional choice, being that a good offense is the best defense, would you take the extra then go home and call the company, loudly complaining you were shorted on your withdrawl?

[steve_spackman]

As an additional choice, being that a good offense is the best defense, would you take the extra then go home and call the company, loudly complaining you were shorted on your withdrawl?

of course i would

[Drew]

Well, I would keep it. But I would assume that they would have charged me for it anyway.

[Hazell B]

I'd take it home then call them ASAP and say if they want it back they better send somebody to my home (at their own cost) to collect it. That way I get to keep it with zero guilt :)

After all, banks expect us to go to them if they paid us less than promised :down:

[Dave B]

Basic definition of theft.— (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly.
(2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit.
(3) The five following sections of this Act shall have effect as regards the interpretation and operation of this section (and, except as otherwise provided by this Act, shall apply only for purposes of this section).Annotations:
Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C3 S. 1(1) applied (25.8.2000) by 2000 c. 6, ss. 148(8), 168
2. “Dishonestly”— (1) A person’s appropriation of property belonging to another is not to be regarded as dishonest—
(a)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b)if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c)(except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.


Theft Act 1968 (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1204238)

[Daniel]

Theft Act 1968 (http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1204238)

Would you take it though? ;)

[Dave B]

That's a hypothetical question ;)

[Daniel]

That's a hypothetical question ;)

The answer to which is? :p

[Azumanga Davo]

The answer to which is? :p

Hypothetical... :D

[leopard]

I will keep it, donate it out to save Palestine, I might need it only to cover my delicious lunch. :)

[Azumanga Davo]

Save Palestine. You could probably buy Palestine outright...