Should he have been charged???

read and discuss LOL
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23258937/

yes. Regardless of what the bank told him, he knew it wasnt his money. $5 million doesnt just magically belong to you, no matter what the bank says.

I find it amazing however, that he has already blown $2 million of that, which I guess supports what one rich person said I wish I could remember who, ok but they said something like this

The poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich because poor people do not know how to manage their money, while a rich person can lose all of their money and make it back again a poor person if they come into money will always spend it and end up poor again.


Ok back on topic, I feel bad for him. I dont know if he should be jailed but he definately needs to punished in some way, and the bank has to take the monetary responsibilty after all they are the ones who are suppose to manage the accounts, it was their mistake, their screw up, they need to pay the money back. The guy should be punished for making a bad choice of spending money that wasnt his. Theft?? yeah, grand larceny?? yeah but it wouldnt of happened if the bank hadnt made the mistake first. Sure the guy lacks moral ethics, but if I was a bank I would expect that from all of my clients lol. Hopefully he will get a judge who can think see both sides of the story.

Can you IMAGINE his bank statement $2million dollar statement of Overdraft. sheesh.

Okay, look at the article very carefully - the bank gave the man permission and even though he's being charged with theft for this, it's the bank's fault and this won't hold up in court. It doesn't matter if they thought he was somebody else by the same name, they told him it was HIS money, even after HE told THEM that it wasn't his money. Even though this is all verbal, the bank admitted to their part in the mistake which basically relieves a great part of guilt for Mr. Lovell, because after he told them it wasn't his, they told him it was and that he could spend it, so, he did.

At the same time, the guy DID spend the money knowing it wasn't his but, since the bank TOLD him he could spend it, so he WAS granted permission, even though he knew it wasn't his money...so, he'll probably get community service and be expected to refund the bank.

Moll that is what i said to...I feel the bank is at fault..why?

they GAVE him permission...YES he knew it was not his however the bank did not compare the two said accounts under the same name with a drivers licence and a social security card like mine does. AND account info and so on. had they done that thennnnnn they would have discovered the mistake.

It is like when I was on social security I was informed I would get a back payment...back payment comes in i take it out and one month later I get a letter stating there was a mistake sooooo guess who had to pay it back...ME
fair?? I think not

Sure the bank said Yeah its yours but COME ON! The guy had to have known that the 5 million wasnt his. Santa Claus didnt put it there, the guy lacks moral ethics, he knew it wasnt his and he still spent it. You cant spend money that you know doesnt belong to you and then cry foul.

In the end the judge will ask him, where did you think the money came from to belong to you? Did someone leave it you? did you hit the lotto? Did you think the magical money fairy came and left you the cash?

He spent it knowingly, and that I think will come into play. The bank made a clerical mistake, the bank needs to fire and hire some competent people but I think that the bank will win this case. Even if they had a representative tell Mr. Lovell that the money was his, Mr. Lovell knew that it didnt belong to him.

Just because the bank gave him permission and made it mistake doesnt make him spending the money right, it doesnt absolve him of responsibility of HIS ACTIONS or as my godmother use to say two wrongs dont make a right.

Saying oh but they said it was mine, is an easy cop out, because he knew it wasnt his, he just thought he had hit easy street and could scam it.

true but should the bank be responsible as well? I think so..yes he should be at fault but the bank should be as well

Straw, it's an easy cop out, true, but the reality is that a good defense attorney is going to milk it for all its worth and probably get away with it. This is NYC, the financial capital of our country (believe it or not, rats and all...), the banks there are held to even higher standards than our piddly little financial institutions out here in the middle of nowhere - like Mer said, the bank did not follow proper protocol, which I'm pretty sure WAS something they were supposed to do, it's just common sense, and a good defense attorney will attack that as well.

The reality is that the dude should not have spent the money, even though it was the bank's error, but he DID, BUT while that shows a lack of ethics and morals, he did not actually break the law because the bank gave the man permission, even if inadverdently and THAT will be a focus within the case... So, like I said, he won't get time, he'll end up with community service and reimbursement.

he did not actually break the law because the bank gave the man permission,

The bank could not possibly have given him permission to spend the money as it had no authority to do so - it certainly was not the bank's money, so they could not give him permission to do anything with it. They seem to have informed him that as far as they were aware the money was his property, and then later informed him that they now realised it was not his. Their first statement that they believed the money to be his was not permission to spend it - only the owner of any money could give someone else that. Since he was aware all along that the bank was wrong and the money was not really his, he was clearly spending money which he knew was not his and which he knew he could not repay - a clear case of theft by deception.

His only possible defence would be claiming that he genuinely believed that some unknown person had decided to make him an anonymous gift of the money which had appeared in his account, and therefore he really thought it was his. I doubt a court will be convinced that any mentally competent adult could think such a thing was plausible.

SW

SW, the court systems here are a lot different than they are in the UK. In essence, in the bank's mistake of telling this man that the money was his because they thought he was somebody else, WAS giving him permission to spend said money - the guy knew it wasn't his so he just should have sat tight until the bank discovered its mistake. He's wrong for not waiting but a good defense attorney in this country will get him off - or at least get him an extremely low rate sentence - BECAUSE of that bank error. Don't know how they'd handle it in the UK but on this side of the pond, a good defense attorney will attack any and all weakness in the case and the error by the bank is a decided weakness because even though it was verbal, the reality that they did not doublecheck against account numbers, ss numbers and addresses and the like weighs heavily in the guy's favor. Is he guilty of being stupid and morally unethical? Yes, absolutely. Did he steal? Yes. Did he commit grand larceny? Not exactly.

Just a question out of curiosity...

In my bank statements there is always a note "Check your account balance, we will not accept any corrections after 30 days and the balance will be considered correct".

Do your banks print such a note in your accounts?

That would make it seem that any bank error is final after 30 days. So... where is my million?

I honestly think it depends on the bank...my statements say the same thing. When I was with my exhusband, using a different bank, our statements never said anything like that.

In my experience banks, insurance companies, etc, normally have a clause somewhere in the fine print that protects them against things like this, so if money appears in your account that you know isn't yours then you can't spend it and have to give it back or be liable.

Also, how do we know whether the bank "followed protocol"? The news article doesn't say how the money arrived in his account, just that it did. His going to the bank and being told it was 'his' is completely separate, and it was most probably a completely different person than the one who deposited it in the wrong account so as far as they're concerned it is in HIS account and he can do what he wants with it. Up to him if he wants to break the law/contract by doing so.

The poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich because poor people do not know how to manage their money, while a rich person can lose all of their money and make it back again a poor person if they come into money will always spend it and end up poor again.


That's appalling and goes right against the (supposed) values of americans, doesn't it?

People who come immediately into large amounts of money (winning the lottery for example) often seem to blow it ridiculously with the excitement of it. Doesn't have much to do with whether they're poor or not.

I'd like to see Paris Hilton manage her own money... if she had far less.

I was talking to one of my attorney buddies about this case last night. He says that every bank has a specific protocol that they're supposed to use when something like this happens and like GG said, it usually involves comparing the individual against the information used to start the account. Personal information, as well as employment information, should have been checked when the man went to the bank. It also involves looking at the account previous to that large amount and it's obvious that the bank in question did not do so or it would not have gone as far as it did. (His words, not mine)

If one looks at a bank record within the bank and they see that Mr. Jones has kept an average balance of $4000.00 a month for the past six years and all of a sudden, there's 5 million in his account and there's no evidence of deposit - that should have alerted the bank person looking at the screen immediately. At that point the account should have been frozen and the bank should have looked internally to see what the problem was. (Again, his words, not mine, I'm just paraphrasing) According to our friend, who is an attorney in NY state, not NYC, the bank DOES bear some responsibility here and they're not even the one's pressing charges, the DA is pressing the charges.

Again, the guy should not have done it but the bank DOES bear some of the blame here, it shouldn't all be lumped on the guy stupid enough to spend the money.

So, finders keepers????

I agree with Ruby and Slow Worm.

The guy KNEW it wasn't his money and shouldn't have touched it. He knowingly spent money that he knew wasn't his. It's definitely theft.

I mean, any prosecuting attorney can easily follow the logic...if a clerk tells you it's ok to take something from a store without paying for it and you KNOW that you shouldn't but do it anyhow, not only would the clerk get in trouble - so would you.

It IS grand larceny (from the money's actual owner, not from the bank) because the guy knowingly took something valued over $300 that he KNEW and even told the bank wasn't his and he spent it. But I think misappropriation of funds probably covers his infraction better? But the fact that he spent it makes it grand larceny.

Now, what WOULDN'T be fair is if he hadn't spent it and then was charged with stealing it. But he spent it!

Now, will the bank probably be the one who will have to give the money back to the money's owner? Probably. Because this guy certainly doesn't have this kind of money to pay it back.

But, seriously, it's really simple. If you take something that you KNOW isn't your's - whether given permission by someone else or not - it's theft. ANd "Grand Larceny" in New York is defined as over $300, if I read correctly.

No, not finders keepers, but the bank still bears some responsibility and while grand larceny is any theft over $300.00 in NY, this is a case with some gray areas that a good defense attorney is going to exploit. We can all see the logic of why this guy should not have spent the money, but the reality is the law is not always defined by logic, it's defined by who has the better attorney. This guy is going to end up with a misdemeanor conviction of some sort in the end, just watch...

That's appalling and goes right against the (supposed) values of americans, doesn't it?

People who come immediately into large amounts of money (winning the lottery for example) often seem to blow it ridiculously with the excitement of it. Doesn't have much to do with whether they're poor or not.

I'd like to see Paris Hilton manage her own money... if she had far less.

Appalling but nontheless true. As for the American value it is I believe that Anyone Can have the American Dream of making it rich, but having the dream and keeping it are two different things.

The way this little quote has been explained is that people who work for their money and actually earn large amounts have along the way learned how to manage their funds, learned how to invest it and if not invest it have hired people to invest it. They are usually also educated.

The poor usually do not have any extra money to manage or invest as they are usually working from paycheck to paycheck. When they do come into a large amount, they usually blow it and end up broke again.

Dont let the blonde hair, too much makeup and the little chihuahua fool you. That woman isnt as blonde as she looks. :p That woman has marketed herself into celebrity stardom using a home made porn as her diving board and since then she has made 1 junk movie, 1 junk album and 1 tv series and keeps herself in the paparazzi eye whenever she starts to fade out of media attention.

I believe I once read that Lotto winners are usually broke again in a less than 5 year span. So do I agree with the quote.

As for the guy who stole the money, well, he blew 2 million dollars on stuff, bad investments and giving some of it away and now he is going to pay for it in one form or another.

Im on the banks side on all this.

on top of it paris has never known poor

I watched a family who one 185 million dollars and they bought a home an UPGRADE from 3 bedrooms 1 bath to 6 bedrooms 3 baths ( 5 kids) and 2 cars...went on one vacation and bought stock...rest of the money...sitting in the bank..so not all will blow it.

Remember where ya came from is what my grams always said:yes:

As far as this story I think both parties are at fault..the guy knows it was not his and should have been honest..
bank should have double checked like mine does to make sure...plain and simple

SW, the court systems here are a lot different than they are in the UK. In essence, in the bank's mistake of telling this man that the money was his because they thought he was somebody else, WAS giving him permission to spend said money - the guy knew it wasn't his so he just should have sat tight until the bank discovered its mistake. He's wrong for not waiting but a good defense attorney in this country will get him off - or at least get him an extremely low rate sentence - BECAUSE of that bank error. Don't know how they'd handle it in the UK but on this side of the pond, a good defense attorney will attack any and all weakness in the case and the error by the bank is a decided weakness because even though it was verbal, the reality that they did not doublecheck against account numbers, ss numbers and addresses and the like weighs heavily in the guy's favor. Is he guilty of being stupid and morally unethical? Yes, absolutely. Did he steal? Yes. Did he commit grand larceny? Not exactly.


I wonder if the judge who tries the case will use intent to determine the mans' guilt. After all, he knew it wasn't his money. It's not like spending money you found on the street. This was a bona fide bank error and he knew that all along. It was such an egregious error that there is no way he could have thought that he'd simply miscalculated the balance in his account. I hope he stashed some of that cash somewhere, he's going to need a very good lawyer!

Ali

I wonder if the judge who tries the case will use intent to determine the mans' guilt. After all, he knew it wasn't his money. It's not like spending money you found on the street. This was a bona fide bank error and he knew that all along. It was such an egregious error that there is no way he could have thought that he'd simply miscalculated the balance in his account. I hope he stashed some of that cash somewhere, he's going to need a very good lawyer!

Ali

ALI LOL ..ya i agree witht he stashing the cash part..he will need some good lawyers