Perhaps I missed a detail here, but it appears the OP reported this money stolen before he knew what happened to it. He was subsequently informed that it was his SIL.
It’s up to the OP to decide whether his SIL borrowed the money with the intention of paying it back, which she did. She didn’t tell him at the time because it was an emergency situation but since it’s his family he does not consider it theft. Or he could insist it is still theft. Without the OP’s say-so there is no theft or fraud, and no bank or DA will waste their time with this matter. If he insists that it’s theft his engagement is over, and he could end up needing a lawyer himself, as will his former fiancee and SIL. So he can create that mess if he wants, for no benefit to himself since he has no losses here. Or he can act like a sensible person and not voluntarily participate in any prosecution and let the matter drop.
I don’t get how you consider it borrowing vs theft.
If I take something without permission, it’s theft, whether or not I really, truly intend to repay it. Even if it were an emergency, there were several days between the “borrowing” and the time the OP discovered it. The SIL had plenty of time to notify him that she’d had this emergency. As did the fiancee, if SIL had asked fiancee for help.
I strongly suspect that the person who deposited the 1,500 dollars was not the thieving SIL, but rather a family member trying to keep SIL from getting into any more legal trouble.
The OP may well choose not to press charges. I think that’s unfortunate, because otherwise SIL will feel she can continue whatever behavior led to the whole scenario. But that is his business. Doesn’t make it “not theft” though. And I think it’s quite likely the bank WILL press charges, unless they too have been reimbursed for the thousand bucks they refunded to the OP already.
If you consider condoning theft just because it was committed by a (future) in-law, what exactly would you consider prosecuting family for? Is murder forgivable? After all, the victim ain’t kin.
In general, I believe theft requires an intent to deprive someone of their property. If something is borrowed, even without permission, that is not necessarily theft.
This isn’t the general case though, this involves a family member. If a member of my family steals something of mine… sorry, ‘borrows’ something of mine, and then returns it, it is up to me to determine if that was really a loan, something I can decide after the fact, which I would probably decide to do to protect a family member in some cases, not necessarily this one.
So if the fiancee says she gave permission to her sister to take the money, and the fiancee intended to tell the OP but forgot, and the OP says it’s all cool with him, what kind of case for theft is left over based on the evidence?
Remember when he thought the money was stolen he didn’t know he SIL had ‘borrowed’ it with the ‘permission’ of his fiancee. Yeah, there’s a lot of winks and nods going on, but this case only goes any further if the OP wants it to. They need him to say it wasn’t a loan, that he would not have agreed to SIL taking that money under any circumstances.
It depends on the jurisdiction and the circumstances. Sometimes it is a crime, at other times it isn’t, or it’s a crime but not considered theft. For example, in parts of the UK if you borrow a vehicle without permission and return it, it is a crime called “taking without owner’s consent” which is a less serious crime than actual theft. Of course, that is a specific circumstance regarding a vehicle, and not involving something like cash.
For another example, let’s say that you regularly lend your lawn mower to your neighbor, who asks you for permission each time. One day your neighbor borrows it without asking, figuring that you’ve allowed them to take it dozens of times then permission is implied. You find it missing, can’t find it, and report it as stolen. The neighbor returns it with an apology that they should have asked. Is that legally theft? I imagine it wouldn’t be considered theft in most places, especially if you’re not pressing charges.
Take that same scenario and substitute a family member using your debit card to get cash. Maybe you lend them your card regularly to withdraw money for gas or groceries, etc. One time they borrow without asking, and pay you afterward as they usually do, and apologize for not letting you know about it beforehand.
My point is that it’s not necessarily as cut-and-dry as “taking without explicit permission is always theft”. It can be circumstantial.
That’s a good point. By not pressing charges, it may actually make the OP look like he was a co-conspirator. I don’t think he was, but it seems like it would be a common scam that people would pull. Give the card to a friend or relative and then dispute all the charges. The bank reverses the charges and the scammers split up the loot. Obviously that didn’t happen here, but the bank and police won’t necessarily know that.
I must have missed where that was stated to be the case. If so, I would definitely be rethinking the whole marriage thing. One they marry, there’s a certain expectation that he and his wife would help each other out, but there is NO reasonable expectation that his new extended family will have free access to his funds.
True - though in all your examples there’s some history that shows an ongoing pattern of expectation. Has SIL been allowed to use the debit card in the past? No. And I don’t think that privilege extends to family members’ family members. If I let, say, my son use my credit card for something, it doesn’t mean he can tell his sister “Oh, just grab Mom’s credit card, she won’t mind”.
Oh yes, I agree that this situation is different. My point is just that not every instance of taking without permission is automatically considered theft.
It might - but it more likely will be seen as exactly what happened here. The bank doesn’t really care if you were a co-conspirator or decided to forgive it when you found out who it was - they just want their money back if you won’t cooperate in the prosecution. The OP may want to forgive the future SIL - but he doesn’t get to speak for the bank.
There’s still the $1000 in purchases outstanding. The $1500 cash withdrawal was returned, but the $1000 in purchases was reversed by the bank. If this was a scam situation, the OP and the sister could split the $1000 in stuff bought with the card. By saying the charges were fraudulent and then backing out of pressing charges, it may look like the initial claim was done just to reverse the charges so they could get the money back and keep all the stuff.
Didn’t he say those were reimbursed? My bad if I got that wrong, can’t look for it right now, but I thought that was resolved too. Completely different matter if not.
You do realize that the post you were responding to was about the purchases right? Personally, I don’t think the bank would think the OP was a co-conspirator - but if OP reported fraudulent charges and when SIL gets arrested says " oh never mind , I gave her permission" , it does look like someone committed fraud. If not the SIL when she used the card, then the OP when he falsely reported the charges were unauthorized. No one will believe that the OP reported a fraudulent charge to the credit card company, denied at least once ( maybe more) that anyone used it with his permission , had the charges removed and then miraculously recalled giving her permission when she gets arrested. The only believable options are 1) He knew all along and is trying to defraud the bank or 2) She fraudulently used the card without his permission.
The bank is most likely going to be satisfied with getting their money - but that absolutely doesn’t mean their wasn’t any fraud- even if the OP is willing to pay the bank so SIL doesn’t get arrested.
Ok, if he didn’t reimburse the bank and they know SIL made the charges they may go after her. I don’t think they’d suspect him of being in on the fraud for very long without some evidence of that.
But if he’s not stuck without those charges being handled this is a lot tougher decision for him.
That was the case when I had cash taken from an ATM with my card. The bank was relentless. I even got deposed over the phone. Turned out someone had skimmed the digits off my card and made multiple withdrawals right after I did.
Isn’t there a third option?
Anyone know what a bank would do if the $1000 was reimbursed to them? Would they be willing to drop it if someone (fiancée’s sister? Other family member? Whoever “returned” the 1500?) met with a bank officer* and gave them a cashier’s check?
*(or their insurance agent if it’s gotten that far… my case did)
I really appreciate your updates, Superdude. Can’t wait to hear who made good on the 1500.
I wouldn’t hesitate to bet that much that it’s one of those female family members. I really hope it’s Cat Burglar Sister, and this is the beginning of her taking responsibility (hey, I’m an Eagle Scout, the oblivious optimism is baked-in). But I’m concerned that it could be the fiancée, and she’s been less than forthcoming about that (you HAVE asked her, right? What’s her take on this?)