Soldato
if it ewas sent as a gift you maight have a chance if not you'd be scrwed by paypal if you remvoed it.
Drunk much?
if it ewas sent as a gift you maight have a chance if not you'd be scrwed by paypal if you remvoed it.
Drunk much?
Drunk much?
Nope, that's what all my posts look like before I fix them. Just couldn't be arsed.
Funny if it turned out to be an elaborate phishing scam, and now the op is in minus money.
Got a mega childish LOL from me
There are so many BS threads on GD its actually stupid. Last month we had "Hey guys I found 30k worth of platinum in a tin in my grandads garage wat do?" and that climaxed "Yea I asked a guy down the pub and its aluminium".. Couple of months before that we had "Yea Im 30 never kissed a girl and am a perpetual loner wat do?" this evolved into a "Pics of ur ugly face please" thread and then died.
And finally we had the legend that is Theophany and his "trolls". Faked a marriage, very very professional job and then bottled it last minute.
Welcome to General Discussion where threads dissapoint
/rant
There are so many BS threads on GD its actually stupid. Last month we had "Hey guys I found 30k worth of platinum in a tin in my grandads garage wat do?" and that climaxed "Yea I asked a guy down the pub and its aluminium".. Couple of months before that we had "Yea Im 30 never kissed a girl and am a perpetual loner wat do?" this evolved into a "Pics of ur ugly face please" thread and then died.
And finally we had the legend that is Theophany and his "trolls". Faked a marriage, very very professional job and then bottled it last minute.
Welcome to General Discussion where threads dissapoint
/rant
I refer you to the Theft Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/1
The OP has already completed the actus reus of theft, namely the appropriation of property belonging to another. Appropriation can include receiving money with the consent of the owner - R v Gomez.
The mens rea required is 'dishonesty' and an 'intention to permanently deprive'. Finders are only protected by s.2(1)(c) if they believe the owner cannot be traced by taking reasonable steps. Clearly this is not the case.
The Ghosh test for dishonesty is whether ordinary and reasonable people would consider the action dishonest, and whether the defendant realises that ordinary and reasonable people regard it as dishonest.
Personally, I would not like to stand before a jury and plead that I thought that most people would consider keeping £861 that I knew to be transferred in error to be honest.
Fake your own death the move to Panama!
While there are many failures, there is the odd gem of a thread that more than makes up for it....