not my money

They ring me all the time and I just put the phone down.

I bet it's not where they have already put the money in your bank account first though!

"Dave N" wrote

As an aside - from where does this specific obligation arise?

"Dave N" wrote

Fair enough (of course)...

"Dave N" wrote

Fair enough. But note that "not intending to make restoration", and "intending not to make restoration" are two entirely different things. Under the first you might just not have time to get around to it (although you would gladly allow the owner to take back the property when they came to collect it). Under the second you would actively try to stop the restoration when the owner arrived.

The Act appears to use the second form.

"Dave N" wrote

In my suggestion, the person hasn't "appropriated" anything! [See below.]

"Dave N" wrote

... note carefully the word "permanently"! ... [If you leave something for the owner to take back, then you can hardly be considered to be *permanently* depriving them of it.]

"Dave N" wrote

There you go. **Not doing anything** is an "inaction". "Keeping or dealing with it as owner" are *actions*.

I agree that the person should not actively "keep or deal with it as owner".

But, **not doing anything** does NOT mean that you have appropriated the property!

"Dave N" wrote

Yes it does (see above).

If you "sign up that scam", that's exactly what they'll do!

There is a big difference between you first agreeing to someone putting money in your account, and it just arriving.

In message , Tim writes [...]

See Theft Act 1968, Section 6 sub-section 1;

1. 'With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it' (1) A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other's rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal.

I am confident that you are capable of looking up other relevant sections of the Theft Act 1968 for yourself. If you are having difficulty with understanding the significance of some of the wording used in the legislation, and if it is important to you, I suggest that you seek professional advice. I shall make no further comment.

Exactly.

Just because you react to a certain scam in a particular way, doesn't prove that everybody will act that way.

(what do you do to get these calls. I've never got one!)

tim

In message , Dave N writes

But that doesnt mean you must tell the bank. It just means you must give it back at some time and never say or do anything that could be interpreted as meaning that you may not give it back.

"Dave N" wrote

We've already decided that the person *wasn't* "appropriating" the property, in a previous post - see after your post giving the definition of "appropriate". So this section again isn't relevant anyway...

"Dave N" wrote

The person who just doesn't tell the other of their mistake, does *not* "have the intention to treat the thing as his own..." - s/he's leaving it for the owner to come and retrieve.

"Dave N" wrote

Again, irrelevant because the person is

"Dave N" wrote

So, again no confirmation of your suggestion.

"Dave N" wrote

That's a shame...

You still haven't shown anywhere that the Theft Act requires someone to tell the other of their mistake. Would you like to try again, or concede the point?

I notice that you also didn't reply to any of my other comments either. No refute to them?

Not relevant. As it says: "**IF** his intention is to treat the thing as his own". Not drawing the bank's attention to it is hardly conclusive evidence of intention to treat it as his own. You'd need more than that. He would need to actually spend it.

In any case, we haven't even determined that appropriation has occurred.

I don't think everybody will act that way but they would have to be pretty stupid not to.

I ring them up and ask to be put on their list to be called!

Seriously, I think they would look at directories of small businesses and assume that people are more likely to invest in shares.

How much money do they lose by putting money in people's bank accounts without getting it refunded because the sting is reversed?

I think Dave doesn't want to get into an endless argument.

Actually, I fit the profile. I still don't get any calls.

Probably being ex directory helps a lot :-)

tim

You're in business directories?

Don't they call you using the number in the directory?

I wouldn't have thought they ring everybody in the telephone directory

- they save that for double glazing calls.

We have a phone number for business and personal calls and another phone number for our tenants. The tenants phone number gets a lot more personal type sales calls than our own number.

"Peter Saxton" wrote

Then Dave should refrain from making irrelevant replies! [JB & RR have both agreed they were irrelevant.]

PETER, it was you who first quoted the Theft Act - where do *you* think that Act says that the person has to tell the other of the mistake?

No, I have a company but I don't advertise it.

I understood that they looked through PLC's shareholder lists and then collated the names against other lists to guage wealth.

I have a unique name. They will find my name on shareholder lists and on the Companies' register.

I haven't had a random UK sales call since I registered with TPS, but I still get the foreign ones (selling me a cruise). I think that they dial these randomly.

tim

Hmm...

Unsolicited goods and services?

Withdraw the cash, stash it under the mattress, then write to the bank explaining that it's available for collection from 19:00 to 20:00hrs on the first Tuesday of each month - after six months it's yours.... ;-)

rgds, Alan

Nothing, the money they put into your account is from someone else's account which they have phished.