From: "Tumbleweed" 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: Responsibility for ID fraud
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 23:19:16 +0100


"Ronald Raygun"  wrote in message 
news:Nz17g.65154$wl.52252@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Adrian Smith wrote:
>
>> AFAIK Thieving is the act of knowingly taking something that does not
>> belong to you.
>
> That's exactly what the bank would be doing in the scenario I envisage.
>
> The taking would be done knowingly.  There's a difference between your
> wording and moving the "knowingly" along a bit as in "the act of taking
> something they know does not belong to you".  Whether it belongs to them
> or not is a matter of fact which they are not necessarily in a position
> to know wih certainty.  Believing it is not enough.
>
> If you knowingly take something you believe to be yours but in fact is
> not, then arguably it's still theft.

Indeed,and the argument will take place in court with all the hassle that 
entails.

>
>> A bank seizing your savings because they claim you owe them money is not
>> theft
>
> Oh yes it is, unless they can substantiate their claim.
>
>> and the police would not interested.
>
> They had better be.

they wont.

>
>> Especially as there will be a
>> clause in their T&T to allow them to do this.
>
> Not good enough.  If there is a dispute about a fact which makes the
> difference between a civil and a criminal matter, then there is at
> least suspicion of a crime, in which case the police should investigate.

It simply doesnt work that way.

-- 
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com