/ wrote:Haggis_McMutton wrote:2dimes wrote:I specifically mentioned finding it would be different. Scroll up and look.
There is also a difference between finding something clearly marked as property of something/someone versus finding something that does not belong to anyone.
Again, you did not find it if you withdraw it from the bank just because you are using your account. Also they kind of know and have records of you doing it even if it takes them a while to figure it out.
Yeah, getting the money in your account is more like opening your wallet and finding some extra cash in there than it is like seeing it on the street. You don't even have to pick it up, it already is in a place supposedly containing your money.
So, if it is illegal to do this, where is the line drawn? If the checkout lady accidentally gives me an extra 20 in change, am I doing something illegal if I don't point this out to her?
So if you found a giant sack of money in your living room you would just assume it's a gift from the gold tooth fairy?
This is over a million dollars we are talking about, some common sense should be used.
An ATM doesn't contain "your money" any more than a bank does; it's equivalent, in my personal opinion to walking through an unlocked vault and grabbing what you want.
So my account at the bank where my salary goes in and where I pay my groceries from is not my money, right?
It's more like money the bank is gracious enough to take from me and let me make use of if they feel like it.
It's irrelevant wether the guy knew or not that the money "wasn't his". I'm not talking about what's fair, or what'll guarantee that he goes to heaven, I'm talking about legality.
It makes 0 sense to me that a bank can screw up and give me money and if I use said money I'm a criminal.
Perhaps, when housing prices were booming banks should just have "accidentally" put 100k in the accounts of people deemed to both have a valuable enough house and be reckless enough to spend the money (pretty sure this can be determined to a high degree of confidence based on all the info banks have on us anyway). Then when said targeted people spend the money the bank goes "Hey, no fair, that was mine. Now I get your house. Pay off the debt for my mistake for the rest of your life sucker"
Probably yes for formal rules, but with informal rules probably not (e.g. finder's keepers).
For $5? Not illegal. For $100,000 in a briefcase? Probably illegal, but if you take it to the cops, they're likely to keep it (assuming the owner couldn't be found, lolol). So, if the law enforcers are likely to steal it, then it makes sense to disregard some of the formal rules which they enforce.
Sounds about right?
Pretty much. It just seems ridiculous that there would even be formal rules trying to control something like this.
Again, let's take this to it's logical conclusion. Huge busts where police officers place wallets with cash + id in them, also with a hidden gps device. You pick up the wallet and don't report it within a week. Jail motherfucker.
Doesn't sound too reasonable to me.
Yeah, probably, because there's implied consent. It's understood between both parties that you exchange the dollars for the amount shown. I think the business simply gives the cashier a pass or two, but afterward deducts the extra change you receive from her paycheck. That seems to be the most efficient way.
However, let's assume they don't deduct the amount from her paycheck. If the company is unwilling to enforce this imbalance, then legally--(I guess)--you're A-okay because it's implied that they don't care if a few customers occasionally get more than required.
It seems absolutely fine for the business to charge the cashier, cause he actually made a mistake. You screw up, you face repercussions. It doesn't seem ok to make it illegal for people to profit from serendipity though.
