2C:20-6. Theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake
A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of theft if, knowing the identity of the owner and with purpose to deprive said owner thereof, he converts the property to his own use.

I never converted it to my own use.

It's quite a bit different than a person actively breaking into a car on someone else's property, hot wiring it to get it started, and then driving away with it.

@strathmeyer:

Here's an excerpt from a New Jersey criminal code (I believe this is where this man lives):

"A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been ... delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of theft if, knowing the identity of the owner and with purpose to deprive said owner thereof, he converts the property to his own use.

Section: 2C:20-6. Theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake

[lis.njleg.state.nj.us]

Question: If, prior to the investigation, this guy had sent a notice informing the company that he had quit and separated from the company would have they ever figured the problem out?

It looked like he got greedy by trying to access his retirement account for an early withdrawl which triggered the investigation.

With a documented letter to HR that he was separating from them he could have probably cashed out his retirement account with no problem though the free money train would have ended...

@Carlee: If you have a stolen item you can be charged with its possession unless you can prove that it was frauduently sold to you. Even if you can prove that you did not know the item was stolen you still lose it to the original owner.

Case in point people who purchase VIN cloned vehicles which are found out. Typically these people purchase the vehicles fair and square, the titles are legit but the vehicle has fake VIN's made up and applied on it. The people lose the money they gave to the seller (even if that seller didn't know it was cloned which is sometimes what happens when a dealer sells a clone VIN car) and lose the vehicle in lue of being prosecuted for posession of a stolen vehicle.

This has even happened in the case of vehicles stolen decades before - several cases involving 1960's to early 1970's Corvettes and at least one 1960's Mustang ended up this way. Even though these vehicles passed through multple owners the terminal final owner loses the vehicle to the original owner from whom it was stolen.

@Ronin-Democrat: He probably was paying taxes on the money if he had filled out all of the paperwork enough to have 401k IRA type deductions.

@pinkbunnyslippers: Probably have reshuffled their accounting department already...

It's still very counterintuitive to think it's stealing when you don't give back something that was given to you by mistake (and they don't ask for it back). Which isn't to say it's morally acceptable in any way, but just that it makes sense to me that people wouldn't think of it as theft.

Conversion in NJ (and most other places) is defined pretty broadly.

A bunch of comments ago, there was a discussion about whether keeping a book on your shelf without reading it would count as theft, as opposed to reading the book. I guess there may be a distinction, because what if you find an item and hold on to it, waiting for someone to claim it? Like a lost-and-found? You shouldn't be charged with being in possession of a stolen item, even if the item was stolen from the original owner. So "intent" is probably part of the definition - if you pretend to be an employee (as this guy did, when he tried to cash in retirement or whatnot), then it would be a crime.

But if the money was direct deposited, and he never touched any of it, he could claim that he didn't know. Sure, might sound dumb that you didn't notice that much extra money, but at least it would be a possible (though not probable) defense.

Also he tried to take money from some retirement account

My question is, did he pay taxes on the income.

He should have gotten a better lawyer and had it knocked down to a civil case with a confidentiality agreement and give them 50% of the money back.....

@floraposte: I'm basing it on the applicable NJ statute. Storing a book is not converting the property for one's own use. Do you have any reasoning that is supported by NJ law?

@ecwis: Um, yeah. What floraposte said. I don't think you want to understand what the law means.

@Skaperen: Yes. It is a CRIME to take something given to you when you know it was given to you by mistake, isn't yours, and you keep it.

@coren: No, it as in no way legally given to him. it was misplaced in his account. Your workplace knowingly and intentionally allows you to have a paycheque. had this company known, they wouldn't have been depositing. they were unknowingly continuing to place money into that man's bank account and the man knew exactly that he was never entitled to the cash.

It's really *not* easy to confuse the issue if you think.

But like I said, it's not morally/ethically right what he did, just that it's easy to see why people have difficulty seeing it as theft.

@coren: That's the thing. it wasn't given to him. it was misplaced money that should have never been there. A gift's a gift--this wasn't a gift in any way. The man knew damn well it wasn't legitimately his money.

Meaning, if:
1) I send you $500 by accident
2) You put it under your mattress
3) I come by afterwards and ask for it back
4) You say "I won't give it back to you because of you and not because of me because your company was a shitty company to work for and you made my girlfriend leave me and you sell weapons to terrorists..."

Then that's theft. But if in 4) the guy says "sorry, I thought it was a gift so I spent it, if I had any left I'd give it back to you" then that's not theft because he didn't mean any harm to the person who gave it to him by mistake.

@pittpanther: Or he should have called them and said "Hey, you guys are still sending me money."

@ecwis: Yes, it would be. You don't think those books look nice on my bookshelf? And that Loeb Library edition you paid for sure does impress my friends.

The point of the law is to distinguish between people who get things misdelivered to them and don't try to keep or benefit from the items, and thieves. I'm not a thief just because your package touches my doorstep. I'm also not a thief if I leave it there while I try to get Amazon to pay for the return shipping. I am if I know that the stuff should have gone to "ecwis, One Libertarian Plaza", isn't mine and I decide I'm going to keep it.

@Naame: "There are some states that cannot charge you for a crime if property is delivered by mistake" - the law in New Jersey also does not say that you can be charged with a crime if property is delivered by mistake. The crime is in property being delivered by mistake, your knowing that it was delivered by mistake, and nonetheless keeping it for your own purposes.

If the UPS guy delivers your Amazon package to me, and I call Amazon and say "hey, please send me a return label so I can get this guy his books," or I leave the box on your doorstep, I'm not a thief. If I keep your books, I am.

So if this guy had given them direct-deposit information for a savings account he never used and didn't even know about the mis-deposited checks, he would NOT have committed theft. He knew and he apparently arranged to get and keep the pay he wasn't entitled to. Big difference.

[www.newjerseycriminallawattorney.com]

One thing to note here guys is that this is NJ law. There are some states that cannot charge you for a crime if property is delivered by mistake. Not sure if that makes a difference for anyone involved with this story, but I thought you should know.

Besides, I'm not sure this fits into lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake.
By conventional use I agree that keeping your neighbor's package that the post officer (or fedex/ups etc) delivered to your place by mistake is theft, but in this case it's technically not a mis-delivery.
The money was delivered to it's intended recipient.
The issue only arose (LONG after it's successful delivery) when the sender realized they didn't want to (shouldn't have) sent it in the first place.
So it seems to me that the sender was at fault, and should be SOL (rather than having grounds to charge the recipient).

Look at it this way.
A police officer can't absolve himself of shooting a by-standard (let-alone charge said by-standard with THEFT of a bullet) by just saying "I actually intended to point my gun at that other guy" after he pulls the trigger.

$470,000/55 months = $8,575 net pay per month.

Anyone know if Avaya is hiring?

I mean, any unsolicited items sent to you are by law yours to keep. And being that electronic deposits are merely an extension of mailed checks, why unsolicited deposits are considered THEFT is beyond me.
I mean, if that's the case then anyone that uses PayPal or ING or another service that deposits <$1 as a verification method would be liable, right?

First thing the next morning, I was on the phone with payroll telling them to cancel the check and I actually had to explain to them why $36,000 was wrong.

i knew that taking the money would have been WRONG. This guy clearly knew he was receiving the money and shouldn't have taken it. he knew he was wrong or he wouldn't have plead guilty. After all, pleading guilty is an admission of guilt. funny how that works.

Which doesn't make it ok, or morally acceptable, but I can understand why some are finding it hard to see it as theft.

I've been waiting for an article like this to pop up. Anyone remember the Verizon story from the other day, where Verizon falsely charged a couple an extra $20 a month because Verizon had not, as it was obligated to do by a cancellation notice, cancelled their dialup internet line?

Why is it that this man has to pay the company back, but Verizon doesn't have to pay their victims back? Seems to me (and yes I know this is bleedingly obvious to all but the most blinded out there) that the justice system is weighted rather heavily in favor of corporations, and not the people that the government is supposed to serve.

@Skaperen: nearly a half of a million dollars. I can't fathom how you're not getting this.

@Skaperen: it wasn't free money. it wa s apayroll error. And yeah, it IS a crime to knowingly take money not meant for you.

@TCama:

"What am I going to do with 40 subscriptions to 'Vibe'?"

"Verizon Won't Give Elderly Couple Their $600 Back": [consumerist.com]

@treimel: Oh, I agree. Just that if you're going to do both, it makes sense do to criminal first.

@samurailynn: Not following the analogy. You don't "see" an individual receive money from a paycheck or direct deposit into their bank account.

Anyhow, someone mentioned in one of the other threads that the linked article says that he tried to take cash out of the company retirement fund claiming to be an employee, when he wasn't.

@gStein_has joined the star bandwagon: "Sir, I don't understand why you want to press charges against this man for stealing your car and joyriding it around for a month. He didn't damage it, and he's willing to reimburse you for the mileage."

@rpm773: Objection!

Er..sorry. Reflex.

@rworne: Right. Or maybe he thought that the Little Green Men were beaming money into his account as a goodwill gesture toward Earthlings.

"Police Station"
"Hello - I wanted to report a theft. My next door neighbor stole my baseball and my frisbee."
"Did you see them take the items?"
"Well, I didn't see the individual, but the items went into their fenced backyard after I tossed them in the air."
"Have you tried asking your neighbor to give them back?"
"Well no, my neighbor is a thief, why would I do that?"

@Blueskylaw:
Now that's just silly. We all know that companies don't have to abide by the same laws that plebes do.

What an idiot. If he didn't want to return the money, he should have placed every extra penny into a separate account - if Avaya ever came a'calling, he could easily say "Here's all your money."

He never should have touched the retirement account. He should have considered that to be "lost money" - a cost of doing business...

@rpm773:
Yes.

@[DFX] Deimos:
which you would have had to disgorge either 1) as part of the restitution that he was ordered to pay in this case, or 2) sued for unjust enrichment. Honestly, courts take a very, very dim view of both the direct and indirect proceeds of crime.

@mythago:
No need here:
restitution was part of the plea deal--having the money paid back as part of a criminal sentence is about a million times better than a lawsuit.

@[DFX] Deimos: And then you would have been guilty of theft too!

@billy: Plus, if you file the civil suit AFTER you have a criminal conviction, it's much easier to win.

@Esquire99: There are actually places where a 911 call probably goes like that.

@rpm773: Check under the "Grade School" section.

@acasto: "Big problem in accounting."

@mythago:

Dunno. Maybe he thought it was a severance package. Lots of execs get payouts better than this, even if they work for a ridiculously short period of time.

How do you figure? In my experience, the threat of jail time makes it MUCH easier to get the money back. Nobody wants to go to jail. People will gladly pay back their ill-gotten gains to avoid it.

The charge was theft by deception.

@mythago: The IRS.

I would have put the money in an interest bearing account and then kept the interest!

Everyday expenses? Did this guy eat fois gras and get limo rides everywhere?

@DD_838: I'm unaware of a law that says if you keep stealing from somebody long enough, you get to keep everything you stole and it's not a crime. Citation please?

@JGKojak: No, he is guilty of theft. "Your victim was an idiot" is not a defense to theft.

2C:20-6. Theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake
A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of theft if, knowing the identity of the owner and with purpose to deprive said owner thereof, he converts the property to his own use.

@zerj: Your guess would be wrong on all counts.

@mythago: It's perfectly fine to keep the books until Amazon realizes their mistake and asks for the books back. It's not your responsibility to return them especially since it may cost more money than the value of the books. Jaguar incident is fraud.

@exploded: I wouldn't consider it theft, I'd consider that fraud.

@Cant_stop_the_rock:

Where things could get tricky is if he had direct deposit setup and never touched any of the cash. I'd guess at that point the bank interest would be his but there's nothing criminal.

Hmm, I know they made phones, I just assumed they telemarketed them as well due to the editor's statement:

Anthony accepted a job at New Jersey telemarketing company Avaya Inc.

@bloggerX: He just wants his stapler back, don't take his stapler.

Theft applies whether it be money mistakenly deposited into your bank account or a diamond ring mistakenly shipped to you.

@ecwis: If I called the bank, claiming that you had authorized me to withdraw funds from your account, and the bank sent me your money, would you consider it theft, even if I never spent a penny of it?

I definitely would.

He is guilty of fraud, not "theft".

I would argue:
1) There is SOME mutual responsibility here. The company are a bunch of nitwits for employing/paying a guy they didn't have working for them. The guy is certainly at fault for not bringing attention to the issue.

2) The company should have filed a civil claim. Sending the guy to jail seems like it will make it HARDER for him to pay the money back.

3) He should only be responsible for half the money. The company should take the loss as having some responsibility for being idiots in the first place.

@Esquire99: Yeah, but this is the Internet. Some people think it's OK to pirate software as long as you click on the file three times chanting "Cory Doctorow, Cory Doctorow, Cory Doctorow".

@gparlett:

but who actually clicks on the link? I mean, besides you? :-)

@ecwis: Really? So if the UPS guy accidentally delivers me your Amazon order by mistake, it's perfectly OK for me to keep the books on my shelf and it's not theft if I haven't gotten around to reading them?

If I convince the valet that your nice Jaguar is actually my car, that's perfectly legal as long as I don't drive it anywhere?

You don't actually have to be a lawyer to get that this is illegal, y'know.

@thezone:
It's worse than that-he speciofically callefd them and asked for a transfer of "his" money. He's a plain old thief.

@Esquire99: The difference there is, no one demands the money back.

@eddieck: And they must be a fine communications company at that. Budgeting accountablility? Hell no, just take last year's amounts and run them forward -- no sense wasting time listing people. Bob and accounting will take care of it

@DD_838:
The "mistake" was keeping money which belonged to someone else. He's a thief, and belongs in jail.

@savvy999:

If you are receiving paychecks into your account that you know you are not entitled to, and keep them anyway--that's a crime. I guarantee you that in every state in the union, you can be chargesd with some species of theft or fraud; the statute's wording would change, but this is prosecutable anywhere.

This is like a reverse Milton Waddams scheme, I LOVE IT!

@TCama:

"Ok! Ok! I must have, I must have put a decimal point in the wrong place or something. Shit. I always do that. I always mess up some mundane detail."

@diasdiem:

No, that guy has a beard.

Not telemarketing; Avaya is a telecomm company. His salary was $107k.

[www.nj.com]

Yes I'm serious. I don't condone it when companies take money they're not entitled to. It usually doesn't fit the legal definition of theft, but it still isn't right. This guy's actions did fit the legal definition of theft, and it's appalling that people would defend him.

@ecwis:
He spent it

[www.nj.com]

@Esquire99: That seems to work in most school playgrounds, maybe we should have cops be more like teachers stuck on recess duty

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Haha I like this logic

Yeah, we'd be up in arms if the company did this to an individual, and the company would totally get away with it. While two wrongs don't make a right, it's a little hard to get worked up about the injustice against the corporation, since, well, justice is being served.

Six years is ridiculous. Why should he serve time for a MISTAKE made by somebody else? I can see having to pay the money back, but not a prison sentence.

Also, why did it take 6 years for the company to notice such a large error? If this company is that negligent they deserve to lose the money.

@Betsumei: That guy looks like he used that stapler for other reasons besides stapling papers...

If you're going to be charged with it, I guess you might as well break some stuff, right?

2C:20-6. Theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake
A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of theft if, knowing the identity of the owner and with purpose to deprive said owner thereof, he converts the property to his own use.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Are you serious? There are stories like this posted everyday where companies keep their customer's money. How often are the CEO's of those companies convicted of theft and sent to jail for 6 years?

Did they try to ask for the money back or did they just go straight to the lawsuit? Can't the SFC get at least that much before reporting this?

2C:20-6. Theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake
A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of theft if, knowing the identity of the owner and with purpose to deprive said owner thereof, he converts the property to his own use.

2C:20-6. Theft of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake
A person who comes into control of property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake as to the nature or amount of the property or the identity of the recipient is guilty of theft if, knowing the identity of the owner and with purpose to deprive said owner thereof, he converts the property to his own use.

Remember kids...if a company you don't work for gives you half a million over a coulpe of years, you should probably call someone.

@ilves: If I steal your car, you don't have to ask me to give it back before you call the police.

@Esquire99: I can't see how FTC rules would apply at all. The FTC rules are to prevent people from sending you things you didn't want and then demanding payment.

@exploded:

Isn't that what a politically connected "consultant" does?

@Bearded Rapper: considering it'll cost taxpayers around $20,000 a year to incarcerate the guy, it's a pretty raw deal.

I agree with your second point, though. No such thing as free money.

@Nogard13: C'mon. This was not "accepting money for not doing anything". This was clearly an error where the people sending payroll checks were not told (or their computers were not told) that the guy had quit. He knew he didn't work for them, he obviously knew he wasn't entitled to the money, but he kept it.

If he didn't do anything wrong then why do you think there should be a civil case?

(What, is that joke old now?)

Well, he definitely owes them the money back. I'm not sure about filing charges against him UNLESS they asked for it back first and he did not return it. If the company did that I think they're free and clear to file charges. He knowingly accepted money that he knew he was not supposed to receive.

I am guessing he didn't bother or he did and decided to take the money anyway, so yeah, it's fraud.

The employee never said anything so this went on for several years until he changed jobs. The company later figured it out and tried to get money back from him, but failed. I still laugh about it.

@Blueskylaw: Haha soo true!

I love how these things only work in a company's favor. We should start making THEM sign contracts with US before we agree to do business.

That's ridiculous. Telemarketers in my city pay about $20k a year, sometimes $30k if you're good at selling.

There's plenty of reasons why it's not legal for him to keep the money...while IANAL, I would think at least there's a breach of contract or something like that.

Employers pay employees for their labor. If you don't provide any labor, you aren't entitled to any pay. So if you receive pay without having provided any labor, you're not entitled to keep it.

@Nogard13: I would think that the argument would be that he was hired and signed a contract with the company. He never performed any of the services in the contract, but was still paid for them, hence the fraud.

Let's take a credit card companies view on this:

I'm sorry, I can only credit you 3 months employment because you should have caught the mistake earlier.
Don't take that 3 months credit as an admission of something we did wrong, it's we who are doing you a one time favor.

Then again, he should have dealt with this as soon as he saw the first check.

Ethically there is much to discuss here, but unless he purposefully deceived the company I'm not sure "theft" applies here.

Is this any different than the proverbial, "someone sent me a toaster in error and I kept it" situation. Someone sent him $470k in checks in error, and he kept it.

This has come up in other posts, where bank funds get mistakenly put in someone else's account, and then they are held liable.

As a teaching moment, what does the law say here?

WTF?

How is this a crime? Since when is accepting money for not doing anything illegal? Don't Congressmen do it every day?

This should've been a civil case where they sue him for the money back.