somebody is giving my parents money....
Discussion
Hi financiallly minded PHers!
My parents have recently noticed that £100 is being paid into their account on the same date every month. They have no idea what it is or who owns the account it has came from.
They contacted their bank (natwest) who, at first couldn't have been less interested (the call centre guy advised them to have a meal on the proceeds!)
Next month the same thing again happened, rang back again natwest wouldn't tell them anything about where the money has come from (data protection act you see)
On the third month the same payment came again, same call to natwest this time they said the fraud department know about
Payment number four arrived Friday.
Are they just lucky or has this happened to anyone else? Is it some dodgy Nigerian prince hiding his money? If it's the banks cock up (which it surely must be) are my parents protected against any nasty consequences?
My parents have recently noticed that £100 is being paid into their account on the same date every month. They have no idea what it is or who owns the account it has came from.
They contacted their bank (natwest) who, at first couldn't have been less interested (the call centre guy advised them to have a meal on the proceeds!)
Next month the same thing again happened, rang back again natwest wouldn't tell them anything about where the money has come from (data protection act you see)
On the third month the same payment came again, same call to natwest this time they said the fraud department know about
Payment number four arrived Friday.
Are they just lucky or has this happened to anyone else? Is it some dodgy Nigerian prince hiding his money? If it's the banks cock up (which it surely must be) are my parents protected against any nasty consequences?
Sarnie said:
Sounds like someone set up a standing order to the wrong account.........
Quite probably. Tell your parents not to spend it, but put it in the highest interest savings account they can find. Obviously the money will stop at some point, and they'll possibly have to pay it back, but the interest will be theirs to keep. davepoth said:
Sarnie said:
Sounds like someone set up a standing order to the wrong account.........
Quite probably. Tell your parents not to spend it, but put it in the highest interest savings account they can find. Obviously the money will stop at some point, and they'll possibly have to pay it back, but the interest will be theirs to keep. When it comes to bank transfers/credits it is the senders sole responsibility to check the account details they are sending to. It's harsh but that's the system.
The bank wouldn't take the money back off your parents but your parents could send it back once it all comes to light.
Butter Face said:
Highly unlikely they would (legally rather than morally) have to pay it back.
When it comes to bank transfers/credits it is the senders sole responsibility to check the account details they are sending to. It's harsh but that's the system.
The bank wouldn't take the money back off your parents but your parents could send it back once it all comes to light.
Could the person sending the money sue them if they found out who they were though? I know the system makes that virtually impossible but I wouldn't like the idea of them splashing the cash on a holiday or something and then getting a county court claim. When it comes to bank transfers/credits it is the senders sole responsibility to check the account details they are sending to. It's harsh but that's the system.
The bank wouldn't take the money back off your parents but your parents could send it back once it all comes to light.
davepoth said:
Butter Face said:
Highly unlikely they would (legally rather than morally) have to pay it back.
When it comes to bank transfers/credits it is the senders sole responsibility to check the account details they are sending to. It's harsh but that's the system.
The bank wouldn't take the money back off your parents but your parents could send it back once it all comes to light.
Could the person sending the money sue them if they found out who they were though? I know the system makes that virtually impossible but I wouldn't like the idea of them splashing the cash on a holiday or something and then getting a county court claim. When it comes to bank transfers/credits it is the senders sole responsibility to check the account details they are sending to. It's harsh but that's the system.
The bank wouldn't take the money back off your parents but your parents could send it back once it all comes to light.
If they give it back to whoever's it is, then what on EARTH can they sue for?
Put it in a savings account, and keep it until someone asks for it back. They can keep the interest and have a nice bottle of wine on it! They should NOT spend it though - that's effectively theft.
Butter Face said:
I shouldn't think they could sue them.
Personally I would be putting the money to one side in case it ever does come to light so I could just give it back. They wouldn't be obligated to, but morally that would be my decision.
It would be great if people posted stuff that was true sometimes.Personally I would be putting the money to one side in case it ever does come to light so I could just give it back. They wouldn't be obligated to, but morally that would be my decision.
TooLateForAName said:
Butter Face said:
I shouldn't think they could sue them.
Personally I would be putting the money to one side in case it ever does come to light so I could just give it back. They wouldn't be obligated to, but morally that would be my decision.
It would be great if people posted stuff that was true sometimes.Personally I would be putting the money to one side in case it ever does come to light so I could just give it back. They wouldn't be obligated to, but morally that would be my decision.
And let me explain my reasons.
The person receiving the credit must, by law, take reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the bank or they can be prosecuted for unlawfully receiving credits (I forget what the law is called)
In this case they have taken reasonable steps and as long as the money is segregated then they are doing their best.
I could be wrong that they couldn't be forced to give the money back, but there would need to be proof by the person sending the payments that they were sent in error.
Edited by Butter Face on Monday 17th September 16:11
Butter Face said:
TooLateForAName said:
Butter Face said:
I shouldn't think they could sue them.
Personally I would be putting the money to one side in case it ever does come to light so I could just give it back. They wouldn't be obligated to, but morally that would be my decision.
It would be great if people posted stuff that was true sometimes.Personally I would be putting the money to one side in case it ever does come to light so I could just give it back. They wouldn't be obligated to, but morally that would be my decision.
And let me explain my reasons.
The person receiving the credit must, by law, take reasonable steps to bring it to the attention of the bank or they can be prosecuted for unlawfully receiving credits (I forget what the law is called)
In this case they have taken reasonable steps and as long as the money is segregated then they are doing their best.
I could be wrong that they couldn't be forced to give the money back, but there would need to be proof by the person sending the payments that they were sent in error.
Edited by Butter Face on Monday 17th September 16:11
They'd have a more coherant defence to a charge of theft if they had just not said anything a claimed ignorrance.
Do not spend this money unless you can afford to replace it, there is a very real chance the bank will be requested to recover it by the orignall payee and they will and can recover it without your permission. It happens more regularly than you'd believe, this is the highest profile account I can remember in recent years....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6966683.stm
I'm not totally wrong.
They have not committed a crime, they have informed the bank that they believe the credits to be wrong and I didn't say to spend the money, I said to segregate it in case it is asked for.
As it goes, there are many cases where people have transferred money to the wrong account and been told 'tough' by the banks (it happened a few times when I worked for Lloyds)
When it is a large amount (like in your example) it is impossible to say that it is an expected credit (unless it is, or you're really dishonest) but £100 is completely the other end of the scale.
As long as you have contacted the bank, explained that you don't believe the money is yours and they have noted so, you have covered your ass. If you put it aside and in 2 years time no-one has asked for it, it's fair game.
They have not committed a crime, they have informed the bank that they believe the credits to be wrong and I didn't say to spend the money, I said to segregate it in case it is asked for.
As it goes, there are many cases where people have transferred money to the wrong account and been told 'tough' by the banks (it happened a few times when I worked for Lloyds)
When it is a large amount (like in your example) it is impossible to say that it is an expected credit (unless it is, or you're really dishonest) but £100 is completely the other end of the scale.
As long as you have contacted the bank, explained that you don't believe the money is yours and they have noted so, you have covered your ass. If you put it aside and in 2 years time no-one has asked for it, it's fair game.
What about the tax implications? It's unlikely but what if HRMC notice that £1200 a year going in to their account and would like their cut of it? They could end up paying tax on it and then having to give the money back....good luck explaining that one to HMRC and getting the tax back.
Butter Face said:
I'm not totally wrong.
Butter Face said:
I shouldn't think they could sue them.
Personally I would be putting the money to one side in case it ever does come to light so I could just give it back. They wouldn't be obligated to, but morally that would be my decision.
Well that bit certainly was!Personally I would be putting the money to one side in case it ever does come to light so I could just give it back. They wouldn't be obligated to, but morally that would be my decision.
Lurking Lawyer said:
Butter Face said:
I'm not totally wrong.
Butter Face said:
I shouldn't think they could sue them.
Personally I would be putting the money to one side in case it ever does come to light so I could just give it back. They wouldn't be obligated to, but morally that would be my decision.
Well that bit certainly was!Personally I would be putting the money to one side in case it ever does come to light so I could just give it back. They wouldn't be obligated to, but morally that would be my decision.
mattnunn said:
Sorry you're totally wrong, the money's not theirs, they know it's not theirs, it's not the banks money to give them and tell them to spend it either, taking and spending money you know doesn't belong to you is theft.
They'd have a more coherant defence to a charge of theft if they had just not said anything a claimed ignorrance.
Do not spend this money unless you can afford to replace it, there is a very real chance the bank will be requested to recover it by the orignall payee and they will and can recover it without your permission. It happens more regularly than you'd believe, this is the highest profile account I can remember in recent years....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6966683.stm
Its not theft in the slightest - Theft act section 1 1968 statesThey'd have a more coherant defence to a charge of theft if they had just not said anything a claimed ignorrance.
Do not spend this money unless you can afford to replace it, there is a very real chance the bank will be requested to recover it by the orignall payee and they will and can recover it without your permission. It happens more regularly than you'd believe, this is the highest profile account I can remember in recent years....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6966683.stm
'A person that dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permenantly depriving the other of it is guilty of theft'
(not bad from memory)
For the offence of theft all five parts of the act have to have been committed -
Dishonest - Appropriating - Property - belonging to another - intention to permenantly deprive.
As you can clearly see there has been no dishonesty in the very first instance so there is no offence of theft.
Morally its wrong to keep it but not legally - the worst that can happen in civil action but they need your details for that which the bank cannot give them.
Edited by james280779 on Thursday 20th September 00:59
james280779 said:
Its not theft in the slightest - Theft act section 1 1968 states
Theft Act 1968 Section 24A states:Theft Act said:
Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a)a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest;
(b)he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and
(c)he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.
(2)References to a credit are to a credit of an amount of money.
[F2(2A)A credit to an account is wrongful to the extent that it derives from—
(a)theft;
(b)blackmail;
(c)fraud (contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006); or
(d)stolen goods.]
(3)F3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(5)In determining whether a credit to an account is wrongful, it is immaterial (in particular) whether the account is overdrawn before or after the credit is made.
(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
(7)Subsection (8) below applies for purposes of provisions of this Act relating to stolen goods (including [F4subsection (2A)] above).
(8)References to stolen goods include money which is dishonestly withdrawn from an account to which a wrongful credit has been made, but only to the extent that the money derives from the credit.
[F5(9)“Account” means an account kept with—
(a)a bank;
(b)a person carrying on a business which falls within subsection (10) below; or
(c)an issuer of electronic money (as defined for the purposes of Part 2 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000).
(10)A business falls within this subsection if—
(a)in the course of the business money received by way of deposit is lent to others; or
(b)any other activity of the business is financed, wholly or to any material extent, out of the capital of or the interest on money received by way of deposit.
(11)References in subsection (10) above to a deposit must be read with—
(a)section 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;
(b)any relevant order under that section; and
(c)Schedule 2 to that Act;but any restriction on the meaning of deposit which arises from the identity of the person making it is to be disregarded.
(12)For the purposes of subsection (10) above—
(a)all the activities which a person carries on by way of business shall be regarded as a single business carried on by him; and
(b)“money” includes money expressed in a currency other than sterling.]]
Elements of the above may now be covered by the Fraud Act 2006.(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a)a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest;
(b)he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and
(c)he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.
(2)References to a credit are to a credit of an amount of money.
[F2(2A)A credit to an account is wrongful to the extent that it derives from—
(a)theft;
(b)blackmail;
(c)fraud (contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006); or
(d)stolen goods.]
(3)F3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(5)In determining whether a credit to an account is wrongful, it is immaterial (in particular) whether the account is overdrawn before or after the credit is made.
(6)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
(7)Subsection (8) below applies for purposes of provisions of this Act relating to stolen goods (including [F4subsection (2A)] above).
(8)References to stolen goods include money which is dishonestly withdrawn from an account to which a wrongful credit has been made, but only to the extent that the money derives from the credit.
[F5(9)“Account” means an account kept with—
(a)a bank;
(b)a person carrying on a business which falls within subsection (10) below; or
(c)an issuer of electronic money (as defined for the purposes of Part 2 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000).
(10)A business falls within this subsection if—
(a)in the course of the business money received by way of deposit is lent to others; or
(b)any other activity of the business is financed, wholly or to any material extent, out of the capital of or the interest on money received by way of deposit.
(11)References in subsection (10) above to a deposit must be read with—
(a)section 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000;
(b)any relevant order under that section; and
(c)Schedule 2 to that Act;but any restriction on the meaning of deposit which arises from the identity of the person making it is to be disregarded.
(12)For the purposes of subsection (10) above—
(a)all the activities which a person carries on by way of business shall be regarded as a single business carried on by him; and
(b)“money” includes money expressed in a currency other than sterling.]]
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff