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.

Actually, they didn't sue him, they pressed charges--that's why he had something to plead guilty to.

Article fails to say, exactly what did he do wrong?

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?

They should have just hired the Bobs to "fix the problem".

Serve six years in jail for another company's mistake... very fair.

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

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.

@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.

"Corporate accounting is sure as hell going to notice 305, 3 ... 26.13, Michael!"

Perhaps he should pull a Verizon, and offer them a partial credit back -- perhaps the current tax year, as it'd make their job easiest (no changes to prior year's returns).

Hmm, I think you can apply this to another current story on Consumerist. The one about Verizon continuing to bill for canceled service. Yes, the CSRs are crediting every month, but what's to stop the ex-customer from paying one month, then turning around and slapping a theft suit on Verizon? Perhaps the prosecutors can recommend Verizon's CEO spend 6 years in prison.

Avaya isn't a telemarketing company. They sell expensive phone systems.

I think it's sad that people are defending the guy here. If a company did something like this to an individual, you'd all be ready with the pitchforks and torches. The guy kept money that wasn't his. He's a criminal. He deserves the punishment that was recommended.

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.

What kind of job at a telemarketers pays over $100,000 a year AFTER taxes minus the bonus?

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

@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.

My US company reimbursed a Canadian employee for his expense reports over a long period of time .... they didn't figure out that while he was reporting expenses in Canadian Dollars, they were reimbursing him in US Dollars. [It was at an advantage to the employee at the time].

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.

Unfortunately the article doesn't say it, but what the hell was he doing during the time he was getting the money? He had to have noticed he was getting free cash, did he ever bother to find out why?

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

Avaya isn't a telemarketing company, they make telephone systems. They used to be part of AT&T and were spun off when they also spun off Lucent.

It seems to me that there is a fairly clear difference between this and the situation in which you get a free toaster, magazine, etc. in the mail. For one, FTC regulations explicitly allow you to keep these "gifts" that are mailed to you. Here, the issue isn't a "gift" that you'll later be billed for, but a payroll check that he filled out paperwork to receive. Essentially, he had an active part in initiating the disbursements of the checks, and he had every reason to know they were being sent in error. Further, it's not clear but it seems they might have been direct deposited directly into his account. I suspect, though I can't say for sure, that this definitively removes it from the scope of the FTC rules. I also suspect that the fact there was at least a short prior relationship before the deposits began may have some significance.

@acasto:

@shepd: Avaya is a telecommunications company not a telemarketing company.

In a related note, you don't have to actually break anything to be charged with "breaking and entering".

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.

@exploded:
While we don't know what he was initially charged with, he pleaded guilty to theft, not fraud.

@YouDidWhatNow?: I don't think it was ethical for him to keep the money. I'm wondering how it was theft? I think they are entitled to their money back but I would assume this would be handled through civil law not criminal law.

Did he by any chance look like this?

@eddieck: That was my first thought. Also, where the hell was this company that pays the big bucks when I was stuck doing crummy telemarketing work to pay the bills during my job hunt after school?

$470,000 over five years would be 94 grand a year. Is my math right? That job paid $94K a year? For telemarketing? Someone tell me that I've overestimated.

@usa_gatekeeper: Was their accounting department run by the guys in charge of metric conversion at NASA?

(What, is that joke old now?)

@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?

@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.

@exploded:

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

@acasto: "Well, just a second there, professor. We, uh, we fixed the *glitch*." One of my favorite movies.

@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.

I cant believe people are siding with the guy. Just because a company make a mistake doesnt entitle you to say nothing. Hows this any different than accidentally taking someone's bag at the grocery store, realizing it and doing nothing about it? He did nothing wrong? wow, thats *really* stretching it.

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

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.

@shepd: I guess they never got any complaints about him and nobody that signed up under him ever canceled!

@GTI2.0: Actually they stayed part of Lucent in that spin off, and then spun off from Lucent later.

@Nogard13:

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.

@savvy999:

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.

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?

@eddieck: The actual article calls them a telecommunications company, which is much more accurate.

@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?

@thezone:

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.

@Nogard13: After reading multiple articles I figured it out. He took money out of the retirement fund. When he called Fidelity he claimed to be an employee. That's how he was charged.

Wow -- whatever Avaya does, I'm assuming they do it as well as they do their payroll.

@JohnQPublic:

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

@mythago:
I agree. I just didn't want to make a definitive statement without pulling and reading the FTC rule. I do find it interesting that some people think that a "free" toaster and $400k+ in checks/direct deposits are analogous.