What legally happens when someone takes your bank card and uses it? If someone steals your wallet, takes the money and uses it to buy something that is theft against you. If someone steals your wallet, takes the bank card and uses that to buy something what crime are they committing, against whom? This is prompted by the story in the news about this happening: A woman has described how criminals raided her gym locker, stole her wallet and went on an £8,000 shopping spree while she was exercising. Charlotte said she was told her card had been used to make about £8,000 worth of purchases from her current account, with goods bought from the Apple store at Westfield shopping centre in Shepherd's Bush, the Apple store in Regent Street, and Selfridges on Oxford Street - all within 90 minutes. While Santander had managed to stop some of the purchases, she would still be £5,000 out of pocket. &quot;I was very rudely and bluntly told 'you will not be getting your money back. It's your fault because they've used your PIN',&quot; she said. ... Santander apologised for initially &quot;incorrectly declining her refund request and for the customer service she received&quot;, and it has paid her £750 in compensation [after the story went viral and attracted press attention]. If the crime was theft against the account holder this would make sense, as the money was taken from the account holder. If the crime was fraud against the bank, it seems like this would not directly affect the account holder. What actually is happening here, what crime is being committed against whom? The case and myself are in the UK but any jurisdiction would be interesting.
Burglary, theft and fraud(s) The burglary and theft are trivial and unlikely to be prosecuted - it’s the breaking in (burglary) and taking (theft) of the possessions including the physical card itself. Using someone else’s credit card without permission is fraud - in this case it appears there were several frauds. All are crimes against the Queen. While crimes may have victims, they are perpetrated against the state, which, in the UK is the Sovereign. The gym was a victim of burglary, the cardholder was a victim of theft, the cardholder and the bank are victims of frauds. Any of these aggrieved people may seek damages from the perpetrator(s) (who appear to be unknown at this time) for whatever their losses are. Their most likely causes of action are the torts of conversion (the civil equivalent of theft) and fraud (the civil equivalent of, well, fraud). The allocation of the loss between the bank and the cardholder is a matter of the contract between them and financial regulations.
No. Theft is, in most jurisdiction, an action by which the offender takes another person's property with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. The clerk isn't taking any property from the store, and she doesn't have any intent to deprive the store of anything. She is therefore not guilty of theft. If she were doing this intentionally -- either in league with the customer or even without the customer knowing -- she could likely be held liable for the theft, either on a conspiracy theory or perhaps an innocent-agency theory. The lack of criminal liability of course does not mean that there can be no accountability. The employer is free to terminate the employee, and it will have different options -- depending on jurisdiction -- to recover the value of the uncharged printers, perhaps by docking her paycheck or through a negligence action.
The Bank of England actually makes this pretty clear with the following line: Legal tender has a very narrow and technical meaning, which relates to settling debts. It means that if you are in debt to someone then you can’t be sued for non-payment if you offer full payment of your debts in legal tender. Essentially, if you are in debt (frequent examples are a taxi ride or a meal at a sit-down restaurant) then you can use legal tender to pay off that debt. But that doesn't necessarily mean they have to accept it. It only means that they cannot sue you if they do refuse to accept it. But the refusal wouldn't itself alleviate the debt either. They could technically return to you at some point and say "ok, fine, we'll take the cash" and you'd still be obligated to provide it to pay off your debt. It's also worth emphasizing that this only applies to situations where the payment is to alleviate a debt, for services that have already been provided before you are billed. It would not apply while buying groceries at the supermarket. Even restaurants where you pay for your food up-front and then receive it afterwards can refuse cash payment. In those situations the services are prepaid and you are not ever alleviating a debt.
UK-based answer here: The crux of your question revolves around whether the buyer(B) had committed an illegal act by withholding information that would have prevented the seller(A) from selling the good at the price he did. The act that B would seemingly be guilty of would be fraudulent misrepresentation A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact or law which induces the representee to enter a contract. The important thing here is if there is a "false statement". In your scenario, there was no false statement made, let alone one which induced A into selling his stamp to B. So there is no fraudulent misrepresentation, or misrepresentation of any kind. Looking at the law of fraud: s3 Fraud Act 2006: A person commits fraud by failing to disclose information when => The defendant: failed to disclose information to another person when he was under a legal duty to disclose that information dishonestly intending, by that failure, to make a gain or cause a loss. With regards to the scenario you've given, no fraud would have been committed because the buyer was under no legal duty to disclose such information
I think you would have difficulty distorting the situation - Pokemon Go is not magic that defies existing laws, and this would be no different to a mall issuing a trespass notice (which is effectively how they would kick you out) for any other reason. I would question the ability of a store to "Arrest" you - that is a job for the police - After they trespass you (ie by giving you notice to leave), if you come back again then they can call the police to arrest you - but its not as clear-cut as someone seeing you playing a game and arresting you. I don't think Pokemon players are a "protected class" of people, so finding a valid cause of action might be tricky. About the best you could do would be to talk with your wallet (ie shop elsewhere with your friends), but for my money that would make me more likely to go to that mall !
I think Dale M is essentially correct. Let me give more detail by quoting the Theft Act 1968: 1 Basic definition of theft (1) A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and “thief” and “steal” shall be construed accordingly. (2) It is immaterial whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the thief’s own benefit. 3 “Appropriates”. (1) Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of a right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner. (2) Where property or a right or interest in property is or purports to be transferred for value to a person acting in good faith, no later assumption by him of rights which he believed himself to be acquiring shall, by reason of any defect in the transferor’s title, amount to theft of the property. You assume the rights of an owner by placing a notice offering it to other people. Therefore it is theft. I presume similar laws exist in other juristictions.
Yes, its legal Economically, there is no difference between a cash discount and a card surcharge; legally, there is. That’s because the law prohibits charging more than the advertised price for a given payment method but doesn’t prohibit charging less. Of course, it’s likely there is some illegality here but it’s not against the customer. A business doesn't give a 10% discount to avoid paying a 1-2% fee. They do it because they are not reporting (some of) their cash sales to the tax authorities and are therefore saving the 25% VAT and 18% company tax.
This is related to Can a store sell merchandise I&#39;ve left in the store? The phone in question has been mislaid and anyone who finds it has a duty to deliver it to the owner of the bench for safekeeping pending the true owner's return: if the owner does not return within a reasonable time the phone becomes the property of the bench owner (e.g. the city that owns the park). However, the specific question here is: Where the owner has returned within a reasonable time but the possessor of the phone is now clearly attempting to steal it. Most jurisdictions recognise that a person is entitled to use reasonable force to defend their life or property. For example, the law in Australia1, is generally case law for which the authority is the High Court's decision in Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645: The question to be asked in the end is quite simple. It is whether the accused believed upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self-defence to do what he did. If he had that belief and there were reasonable grounds for it, or if the jury is left in reasonable doubt about the matter, then he is entitled to an acquittal. Stated in this form, the question is one of general application and is not limited to cases of homicide. So, you are entitled to do "what you believe upon reasonable grounds that it was necessary to do" to defend your property. This would include using physical force to stop their flight and return your property to your possession: it would not include force that posed real and foreseeable risk of inflicting death or grievous bodily harm upon them. In addition, because you have reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed a crime, you are allowed to arrest them and deliver them to lawful custody (i.e. a police officer). Naturally, if you do not have reasonable grounds them you have just kidnapped them. The consequences if you do injure them is that you can be charged with a crime (battery, grievous bodily harm, manslaughter, murder etc.) and/or be sued for damages (medical bills, lost wages etc.) in both cases you could use self-defence as a defence. The difference between self-defence and vigilante justice is one is legal and the other isn't