Creating money out of thin air Let's say a robber breaks into a bank and accesses a computer. Except that they don't actually rob the bank: they hit a button, create money and put it somewhere obscure. What crime was committed? If the bank doesn't care- ie, the money was imaginary and was created on a computer, why should the bank make any effort to correct it? Since the obvious crime is fraud, but there's no victim here (nothing was stolen just created out of thin air) what crime if any was commited? There is some mumbling about resevre requirements but what specific federal law requires the bank to care? Reserve requirements are just administrative guidelines and don't put any burden on the bank.
This would be wire fraud, which is any type of fraud committed using electronic communications (the term originally comes from the use of telegrams to commit fraud... just like how &quot;wiring&quot; money devised from paying the bill at one telegram station and having the bill collector take an equal amount of money from a different station.). Wire Fraud is basically a fraud crime over electronic communications, so it doesn't matter how you defraud someone, the fact that you did it in this manner is guilty... using a bank system to fraudulently create more money in your digit account would qualify. The bank would be the victim since it does have a set amount of money in assets that it owes to its customers (account holders) and Federal Insurance (which prevents the Bank Run scene in &quot;It's a Wonderful Life&quot; from happening) requires the bank to carefully keep books. Additionally, Wire Fraud comes with a $100,000 fine against the perpetrator for committing the crime where a financial institution is a victim, so it's in the Bank's interest to report a sudden income surge of fake dollars to the authorities lest they have to pay the fine out of their own pocket, risk their federal insurance, or lose their consumer confidence with account holders (who will pull their money and go to a more honest bank).
I assume you are talking about this case: FORIS GFS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD vs THEVAMANOGARI MANIVEL. For that amount, most people would be willing to break the law to keep it, and good advice what to do would be “ask a lawyer”. Needs citation. I certainly wouldn't: a) I think taking money that I know doesn't belong to me is wrong, b) even if I didn't believe that, the amount is so large the bank will certainly eventually come after it. The amount is so large I won't credibly be able to claim an innocent mistake. Simply hiding the money won't work, since the bank will be able to demonstrate that the money was deposited in my account, and I did withdraw it. I would be required to make restitution. This is exactly what happened to the defendant in the above case: they split up the money among friends and bought a house. The house is now being sold by the court, with the proceeds used to reimburse the plaintiffs. Would a lawyer be allowed to give me legal advice to help me keeping this money, for example by giving 500,000 each to twenty reliable friends, moving to Panama, or whatever would allow me to keep and spend the money? (Not asking whether two strategies that I came up with in ten seconds would actually work). Especially if it is advice if the form “X is illegal, but you can get away with it”. No. For example, the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation &amp; Allocation of Authority Between Client &amp; Lawyer states: (d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law. That's just a suggested ethical standard, but most countries will have something along those lines. Note also that in the US there is also a &quot;Crime-Fraud&quot; exception to attorney-client confidentiality. If a lawyer assists a client in carrying out a criminal or fraudulent scheme then their communications are no longer privileged and can be subpoenaed and introduced as evidence in court.
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). 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. 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. You say: 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. 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 prima facie 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.
Note that what is being bought or sold here is actually information about the exploit. Attempting to criminally penalize the transmission of information in the US often runs into First Amendment issues. If a person has good reason to know that information is going to be used to commit a crime, or is likely to be so used, and there is no plausible legitimate use for the information, that person might be charged with complicity or conspiracy for distributing the information. But where there are legitimate uses, that is much less likely. Here the information could be used to defend against the exploit, or to identify and remove software subject to the exploit, or for research into such exploits generally. There may be other legit uses as well. Some years ago the Federal government attempted to prosecute a person for exporting a book describing how to create an encryption program. The courts eventually ruled that this was protected speech. I suspect a similar ruling would be made in the sort of case described in the question, but the details would matter.
Money Laundering The primary crime that you have described is called money laundering. Note that money laundering includes: &quot;structuring financial transactions in order to evade reporting requirements.&quot; Unlike some other forms of money laundering, this does not require that the source of the funds be criminal, or that the actual transfer be criminal, so long as it is intended to avoid reporting requirements. Along the same lines is the even less obvious offense of smurfing. So, this does not cease to be money laundering because: &quot;A legally possesses the money and has a perfectly legal (and very private) reason to pay it to B.&quot; The transfer would typically have had to be reported on a Form W-2 (wage and salary income), a Form 1099 (most transfers that are usually taxable income), a Form 709 (gift tax return), a Form 1098 (mortgage interest), or 1040 Schedule A (deductible payments), or on a cash transaction form if conducted in that manner. The fact that you are reporting it as income, and that there would have been some disclosure requirement if paid to person B, implies that there is some reporting requirement that is avoided. Tax Crimes There are also multiple tax related crimes that could be implicated, not all of which require that taxes due by the person charged by reduced. See, e.g., Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 371); Attempts To Interfere With Administration of Internal Revenue Laws (I.R.C. § 7212); Fraudulent Returns, Statements or Other Documents (I.R.C. § 7207); Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028(a)(7)), etc. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States, for example, is defined as follows: If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.f &quot;Conspiracy to defraud the government is a very broad concept.&quot; Tax Crimes Handbook at 132. Conspiracy to defraud the government is not limited to efforts to obtain money or property, but includes conspiracies where the object of the conspiracy is to obstruct, impair, interfere, impede or defeat the legitimate functioning of the government through fraudulent or dishonest means. Thus, conspiracy to defraud is not confined by reference to common law definitions of fraud. It is a separate crime to interfere with the lawful functions of the government without regard to the monetary consequences. Thus, § 371 involves both efforts to defraud the government of funds as well as interference with the lawful function of the government. The conspiracy to defraud prong of § 371 includes conspiracies to impede, impair, obstruct or defeat the lawful functions of the Treasury Department in the collection of income taxes. United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908, 915 (2d Cir. 1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 924 (1958). Arguments have been presented that § 371 was not intended to encompass conspiracies to violate the internal revenue laws or conspiracies to defraud the Service but these arguments have been rejected. Although decided in 1957, Klein is the leading case regarding conspiracies to impede and impair the Service and such conspiracies are commonly referred to as &quot;Klein conspiracies.&quot; In Klein the defendants were acquitted of the tax evasion charges but were convicted on the conspiracy count. The wording of the conspiracy count read, in part, as follows: &quot;... to defraud the United States by impeding, impairing, obstructing and defeating the lawful functions of the Department of the Treasury in the collection of the revenue; to wit, income taxes.&quot; In part, it was alleged in Klein that as &quot;part of said conspiracy that the defendants would conceal and continue to conceal the nature of their business activities and the source and nature of their income.&quot; The defendants concealed the source and nature of their income by altering and making false entries in their books, filing false income tax returns, and providing false answers to interrogatories. Thus, a money laundering plan may result in a conspiracy to obstruct the Treasury. United States v. Sanzo, 673 F.2d 64, 69 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 858 (1982). In Sanzo, one defendant argued that there was no direct evidence that the other party to the plan would not report the laundered money or claim deductions. The court felt there was enough circumstantial evidence from which the jury could find that the defendant knew his accomplice would not report large sums of laundered money as income and that he would have to falsify business records to hide the laundering activities. Sanzo, 673 F.2d at 69. Note, it is not necessary to prove that the Service was actually impeded in its efforts to assess and collect the revenue. Tax Crimes Handbook at 132-136 (in the pertinent parts, with most citations omitted). Caveat Regarding Legal Alternatives It is also worth noting that there are legal ways for person A to transfer money to person B without making it apparent, for example, in his check book or on his tax return that the funds were transferred to person B (exactly how is beyond the scope of this answer). Generally speaking, they are distinguishable because the IRS is fully and accurately informed of what is going on in a way that the IRS is not allowed to disclose publicly. But, the crude method used here does not achieve that end.
To me this seems analogous to failing to report a bank error in your favour, which amounts to theft in england-and-wales. I wrote an answer about that here. See that answer for the details but briefly there are five elements to establish under section 1(1) the Theft Act 1968: Dishonesty (section 2) Appropriation (section 3) Property (section 4) Belonging to another (section 5) Intention to permenantly deprive (section 6) As pointed out in the comments, there is a separate offence of abstraction of electricty in section 13 which only has the following elements: dishonesty, use of electricity, and lack of due authority. The courts have also held that electricity cannot be considered &quot;property&quot; for the purposes of the Theft Act (Low v Blease [1975] 1 WLUK 325). Arguably this offence is not commited here as you had due authority (permission from the supplier) to consume the electricity, however I will have a look later to see if I can find some case law on this point and edit it in if I find anything. With that said, &quot;property&quot; includes choses in action (section 4(1)). Choses in action are intangible property which can only be recovered by enforcing a right rather than by taking possession. In the case of a bank error, the resulting bank balance is a chose in action and the crime of theft is committed on that basis. In your scenario, the right to be paid for electricity you consume is a chose in action belonging to the supplier. Although I'm not aware of any case law specifically on this point, it seems to me that depriving the supplier from its right to be paid could satisfy the requirement of appropriation of property. The other elements of theft, as in the case of bank errors, are easily established here. Note that you won't be saved by &quot;if and when the company does discover its error, I have no problem with paying the arrears&quot;. This is because of section 6(1) of the Act which states: 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. Even if you eventually pay for the electrity, your intention was not to do so if they didn't notice. Note also that it is not necessary that there is a contractual requirement to notify the supplier of their mistake. Such a requirement can arise under common law (e.g. A-G's Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1984] 3 All ER 369, elaborated in my other answer). You didn't specify which part of the UK and this answer may not be applicable in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
...many [countries] forbid even the possession of software for &quot;hacking&quot; despite intentions That is not the case in the united-kingdom where accessing a computer, and possessing the tools to do it, are only offences if the activity is unauthorised. In fact, private entities and government departments are encouraged to carry out authorised penetration tests to identify vulnerabilities in their systems. [by] using my computer to break into my old brick laptop... This is perfectly legal as you have authorised access to the brick. The relevant offences are at s.1 to s.3A of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, in particular: s.1 - Unauthorised access to computer material. (1) A person is guilty of an offence if— (a) he causes a computer to perform any function with intent to secure access to any program or data held in any computer, or to enable any such access to be secured; (b) the access he intends to secure, or to enable to be secured, is unauthorised; and (c) he knows at the time when he causes the computer to perform the function that that is the case [...] Sections 2, 3 and 3ZA (not reproduced here to save space) follow similar wording for unauthorised access relating to such things as commiting other offences, impairing a computer's functionality, or creating serious damage to health, infrastructure etc. s.3A - Making, supplying or obtaining articles for use in offence under section 1, 3 or 3ZA [...] (3) A person is guilty of an offence if he obtains any article— (a) intending to use it to commit, or to assist in the commission of, an offence under section 1, 3 or 3ZA, or [...] (4) In this section &quot;article&quot; includes any program or data held in electronic form. [...] So, hacking is not always unlawful - all it needs is the right permission from someone who is authorised to give it. Edited To Add This is also the case in canada (the subject of the OP's first linked article) where s.342.2 of the Criminal Code makes an exception for having a lawful excuse to possess &quot;hacking tools&quot;: (1) Every person who, without lawful excuse, makes, possesses, sells, offers for sale, imports, obtains for use, distributes or makes available a device that is designed or adapted primarily to commit an offence under section 342.1 or 430, knowing that the device has been used or is intended to be used to commit such an offence, is (a) guilty of an indictable offence... (b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. [...] (4) In this section, device includes (a) a component of a device; and (b) a computer program within the meaning of subsection 342.1(2).
No, it is not illegal There is no law that says a business must have a bank account, let alone that they must make deposits to it.