Quizzes & Puzzles37 mins ago
Cash Machine "crime"?
http://
Apparently these incidences of pushing people out of the way at cash machines are not being classed robbery as the it is the bank not the customer who loses the money but surely there must be some offence committed (if assault can't be proven), to stop this being an incentive to this perpetrator and others to commit the crime if nothing else?
Would it not class as theft from the bank or is that not direct enough as the customer initially loses the money but is then reimbursed.
Apparently these incidences of pushing people out of the way at cash machines are not being classed robbery as the it is the bank not the customer who loses the money but surely there must be some offence committed (if assault can't be proven), to stop this being an incentive to this perpetrator and others to commit the crime if nothing else?
Would it not class as theft from the bank or is that not direct enough as the customer initially loses the money but is then reimbursed.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Eve. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The definition of 'robbery' is given on the CPS website:
http://
As reading that clearly shows, the criteria for a successful prosecution on a charge of 'robbery' (contrary to section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968) aren't met by the actions of the offender.
However he can still be prosecuted for common assault (contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) and theft (contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968).
Er, hang on a moment. Why am I telling you this, Eve? Aren't you a solicitor?
;-)
http://
As reading that clearly shows, the criteria for a successful prosecution on a charge of 'robbery' (contrary to section 8(1) of the Theft Act 1968) aren't met by the actions of the offender.
However he can still be prosecuted for common assault (contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988) and theft (contrary to Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968).
Er, hang on a moment. Why am I telling you this, Eve? Aren't you a solicitor?
;-)
Haha, I am Chris, in qualification. I haven't practiced for quite a few years now (the joys of ill health and disability), I still work but now part time in a much less demanding job which is far more suitable with better hours, adjustments etc...
Criminal wasn't my area, never practised it and it's many years since I've studied it so quite possibly out of date. I had a run through of the offences as I remember them (though possibly out of date from my studies) but it just seems to be worrying that there might be some kind of loophole which means that this does not constitute an offence unless assault (or similar) can be proven sufficiently for a proper charge and conviction to be made.
Possibly with the money being technically taken from one party (the individual) but it actually being the bank who is then deprived of the money, albeit only because they chose to refund it so, in a sense, did they make themselves out of pocket and suffer the loss. The individual is then not suffering a loss.
It is the robbery part that is missing Sandy, as it doesn't not fit the criteria of the offence.
Criminal wasn't my area, never practised it and it's many years since I've studied it so quite possibly out of date. I had a run through of the offences as I remember them (though possibly out of date from my studies) but it just seems to be worrying that there might be some kind of loophole which means that this does not constitute an offence unless assault (or similar) can be proven sufficiently for a proper charge and conviction to be made.
Possibly with the money being technically taken from one party (the individual) but it actually being the bank who is then deprived of the money, albeit only because they chose to refund it so, in a sense, did they make themselves out of pocket and suffer the loss. The individual is then not suffering a loss.
It is the robbery part that is missing Sandy, as it doesn't not fit the criteria of the offence.
Some might say that it's just another thing that the polis aren't interested in.
Delegate to the half-powered minion while they get on with the sexy sirens and blue lights stuff.
How long before it gets so bad that there has to be a zero tolerance policy like New York all those years ago?
Plod management playing the long game?
Delegate to the half-powered minion while they get on with the sexy sirens and blue lights stuff.
How long before it gets so bad that there has to be a zero tolerance policy like New York all those years ago?
Plod management playing the long game?
in the west midlands, an audit 3 years ago revealed that 60% of instances of shoplifting were routinely ignored by the police - for various reasons, including local policies that left stores to deal with them in-house, and considered shoplifting to effectively be a civil matter for the stores to pursue.
I think the interpretation of these incidents not being classed as robberies needs to be tested. Once the customer has inserted his PIN (which he must do before the cash is dispensed) the cash is on its way and is no longer the bank’s. If the customer walked away without taking it and somebody else picked it up the bank would most certainly not stand the loss. The loss was incurred by the violent act of shoving the customer just prior to the theft and in my view that’s robbery.
^ the police are doing their job though as they've obviously classed the incidents as crimes and are dealing with them. The issue seems to be a technicality of whether it's theft or robbery and as mentioned these incidents not being classed as robberies needs to be tested.
A person is guilty of robbery if he steals (theft), and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
A person is guilty of robbery if he steals (theft), and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person or puts or seeks to put any person in fear of being then and there subjected to force.
Quite so, OL. I was not blaming the police. They are obviously acting under guidance, probably from the CPS.
The violence occurred immediately before the theft and was needed to enable the theft to take place. I contend that the money was no longer the bank's property. It had been "dispensed" to the customer and was technically his. To reinforce this, as I stated earlier, imagine if the customer had not taken it from the machine. Would the bank say a withdrawal had not been made because the money had not been physically removed from the machine? Of course not. The money had ceased to be their property and if it was stolen accompanied by violence to prevent the owner taking it, then that is robbery.
The violence occurred immediately before the theft and was needed to enable the theft to take place. I contend that the money was no longer the bank's property. It had been "dispensed" to the customer and was technically his. To reinforce this, as I stated earlier, imagine if the customer had not taken it from the machine. Would the bank say a withdrawal had not been made because the money had not been physically removed from the machine? Of course not. The money had ceased to be their property and if it was stolen accompanied by violence to prevent the owner taking it, then that is robbery.
I must admit, I will only use a cash machine these days if I really have to. Much prefer to get cash back from a store.
Can be more difficult in the city centre to spot people handing around as there are so many people about. Seems to be more common that devices are being found on cash machines too.
Can be more difficult in the city centre to spot people handing around as there are so many people about. Seems to be more common that devices are being found on cash machines too.
eddie get real for chrissakes
every transaction is videod
from a camery near where you push in the card and
usually from another up the building
even the appallingly under-videoed ( no viddie no crime- see ? pun intended) Manchester Picc has adequately viddied bank machine queues on its concourse - [ I see Mark Carney was on tel this morning bleating about the awful service network rail still gives ]
it is more a 'we dont give a tass about crime but we do about under-reporting it' thing rather than we dont know what robbery is
I mean as a Manc I am amazed the spokesleddy didnt ask the reporter:
"are you sure you werent assaulted when you were seven at school, we really are shot hot at investigating that !"
every transaction is videod
from a camery near where you push in the card and
usually from another up the building
even the appallingly under-videoed ( no viddie no crime- see ? pun intended) Manchester Picc has adequately viddied bank machine queues on its concourse - [ I see Mark Carney was on tel this morning bleating about the awful service network rail still gives ]
it is more a 'we dont give a tass about crime but we do about under-reporting it' thing rather than we dont know what robbery is
I mean as a Manc I am amazed the spokesleddy didnt ask the reporter:
"are you sure you werent assaulted when you were seven at school, we really are shot hot at investigating that !"
Haha ring up your local bank mgr New Judge
The Banks will pay good money for an legal opinion such as that
what about: Bank " we deem that once an account holder has gone within 50m of an ATM that title has been transferred or at least title has been intended to be transferred and that therefore the bank has no further interest in the safety of its customers "
It is special for money innit ?
title passes with possession in some cases ?
that was big thing in the Brinksmat case
they couldnt show title had passed unlawfully so they screwed then for VAT offences
NB at least part of this post is spoof
The Banks will pay good money for an legal opinion such as that
what about: Bank " we deem that once an account holder has gone within 50m of an ATM that title has been transferred or at least title has been intended to be transferred and that therefore the bank has no further interest in the safety of its customers "
It is special for money innit ?
title passes with possession in some cases ?
that was big thing in the Brinksmat case
they couldnt show title had passed unlawfully so they screwed then for VAT offences
NB at least part of this post is spoof
Which part, though, Peter? :-)
“How would it be handled if a person decided to make some cash by falsely claiming he/she was pushed out of the way and their cash taken so that they could claim it back from the bank?”
That is exactly my point, Eddie. Imagine this:
Customer goes into the bank:
Customer: “I was pushed out of the way before I could get the cash I had just instructed your machine to pay me and my assailant took it instead. Since the police contend that the money was still yours when that happened and I’d never taken possession of it, I’d like you to give it to me now, please”.
Bank Manager: “Certainly Sir. How would you like your cash?”
Yeah, right. The decision is farcical. The CPS needs to put up a test case charging the perpetrator with robbery and let m’Learned Friends sort it out in court. I don’t even think it is a matter of law. I believe it is a matter of fact. The issue for me is whether the cash was in the possession of the customer when it was taken. It certainly was not in the possession of the bank. Their machine had released into the wide world. If it wasn’t the bank’s money it must have been the customer’s. Robbery is committed “…when a person steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person…”.
What else can it be but robbery?
“How would it be handled if a person decided to make some cash by falsely claiming he/she was pushed out of the way and their cash taken so that they could claim it back from the bank?”
That is exactly my point, Eddie. Imagine this:
Customer goes into the bank:
Customer: “I was pushed out of the way before I could get the cash I had just instructed your machine to pay me and my assailant took it instead. Since the police contend that the money was still yours when that happened and I’d never taken possession of it, I’d like you to give it to me now, please”.
Bank Manager: “Certainly Sir. How would you like your cash?”
Yeah, right. The decision is farcical. The CPS needs to put up a test case charging the perpetrator with robbery and let m’Learned Friends sort it out in court. I don’t even think it is a matter of law. I believe it is a matter of fact. The issue for me is whether the cash was in the possession of the customer when it was taken. It certainly was not in the possession of the bank. Their machine had released into the wide world. If it wasn’t the bank’s money it must have been the customer’s. Robbery is committed “…when a person steals and immediately before or at the time of doing so, and in order to do so, he uses force on any person…”.
What else can it be but robbery?
