Can a couple be charged for spending $120,000 deposited to their bank account in error?
<p><a href="https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/bank-accidentally-puts-dollar120000-in-couples-account-they-were-arrested-after-spending-it-police-say/ar-AAGZtKr?ocid=spartanntp" rel="nofollow noreferrer">A couple is being charged for spending $120,000 which was deposited to their account in error</a> (also see this <a href="https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/09/pa-couple-facing-charges-after-spending-most-of-120000-that-bank-mistakenly-puts-in-their-account.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">PennLive article</a>) This is in Pennsylvania, USA.</p>
<p>The facts are presented as follows: One day, couple wakes up to $120,000 extra dollars due to teller error. The money was intended for a business. They are aware that this must be an error but spend the money anyway. The bank wants the money back. The couple quits talking to the bank. The couple is charged with theft and receiving stolen property.</p>
<p>I am very confused how they can be charged with either of these things. In the case of theft, I think it is fairly plain the couple did nothing to receive the money. No act on their part caused the money to enter their account. I think most reasonable people would agree that at that point, they &quot;have&quot; the money, and what they do with it after that is irrelevant to whether it was stolen. <em>If this is not the case, and the act of spending the money is the theft, then it implies that any money in anyone's account is not theirs, which I seriously doubt a jury would agree with.</em></p>
<p>With regards to receiving stolen property, there are two options.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>My claim above is true, and the couple did not steal the money. If the property then is &quot;stolen,&quot; the uncomfortable implication is that the bank stole the money. (Teller Error, I don't think, counts as theft).</p>
</li>
<li><p>My claim above is untrue, in which case, it's hard to argue they received it at all, since they are the thieves (the reception becomes trivial).</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>It seems to me that the prosecution is doomed if the couple decides to go to trial.</p>
<p><strong>What's going to give the prosecution a chance to succeed? If they are doomed, why bother filing the charges at all?</strong></p>
<p>Note: I am aware of statues in the case of mail where receiving mail which is not yours and failing to make a reasonable attempt to return it is theft. I am unaware of any similar banking statues.</p>
<p>EDIT: The couple did something wrong. I am not disputing that. I simply don't see how either choice in charge by the prosecution results in a conviction.</p>

<p>Broadly speaking, theft offences in common law jurisdictions are defined as the dishonest appropriation of property that belongs to another with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, without proper authority (e.g. permission or legal right to do that). </p>

<p>Appropriation means the assumption of the rights of ownership of the property, i.e. behaving as if you were now its owner, not simply or solely the taking of the property.</p>

<p>Possible defences include absence of intent to deprive the rightful owner of the property and intent to search for the rightful owner of the property and return it to them.</p>

<p>You say:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>The facts are presented as follows: One day, couple wakes up to
  $120,000 extra dollars due to teller error. The money was intended for
  a business. They are aware that this must be an error but spend the
  money anyway. The bank wants the money back. The couple quits talking
  to the bank. The couple is charged with theft and receiving stolen
  property.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>I don't know about the charge of receiving stolen property (unless that relates to how they transferred or spent the money) but on the facts presented it's certainly <em>prima facie</em> theft. Reportedly, by their own admissions they found money in their account that wasn't theirs, they knew it wasn't theirs and they spent it.</p>

<p>You're overthinking the situation; the basis of the prosecution of the people who spent the money that appeared in their account will be violation of the Bank Services Agreement for the bank. The service agreement - a legally binding contract - will say that errors in deposits must be reported to the bank, and any funds transferred in error by the bank cannot be used or withdrawn or transferred by the banking customer. The Banking Service Agreement will comply with state and federal laws that govern the financial industry, which is heavily regulated, in part for situations like the news article describes.</p>

<p>The prosecutor has every chance to prevail in court; all the evidence is there, and the law(s) and service agreement will be clear.</p>

<p>The bank customers knowingly spent the money; they can hardly claim they didn't know the money wasn't theirs.</p>

<p>Finding something - like money - doesn't mean it is yours to keep. Yes, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possession_is_nine-tenths_of_the_law" rel="nofollow noreferrer">possession is nine-tenths of the law (Wikipedia)</a>, but not when there is a clear paper or evidence trail, and a service agreement that says otherwise.</p>

united-states criminal-law finance