Given the specificity here, have to sue Barclays to find out whom did the money go to. Barclays cannot take customer money without a court order or disclose customer identity. Then sue the person to get the money back.
I think the lesson here is that person who tried to keep the money is a dickhead. Moreover, it's really lucky that he didn't burn it all and was insolvent.
I guess it gets blurry when looking at it after the fact and he's been formally refusing to return it for a year.
Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if—
(a)a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest;
(b)he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and
(c)he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled
Did he dishonestly fail to take reasonable steps? From the article, it seems that the bank asked him if they could take the money back. It would seem to me to be a reasonable step for him to say "yes". Did he dishonestly do so? Tricky one; Theft Act 1968 specifies what dishonesty is not, leaving it open to a jury to decide what it is.
Theft Act 1968 says the following cases are NOT dishonesty:
(a) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person; or
(b) if he appropriates the property in the belief that he would have the other’s consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it; or
(c) (except where the property came to him as trustee or personal representative) if he appropriates the property in the belief that the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
HOWEVER, there is an incomplete definition of "wrongful credit" here that could throw a spanner in the works:
A credit to an account is wrongful to the extent that it derives from—
(a)theft;
(b)blackmail;
(c)fraud (contrary to section 1 of the Fraud Act 2006); or
(d)stolen goods.
One legal interpretation of "to the extent that" is simply "if", in which case this was NOT a wrongful credit to an account, and this entire section of the Theft Act 1968 ceases to apply.
HOWEVER, it's not "if and only if"; could one argue that this was a wrongful credit? Well, it was certainly wrong in that the account that was credited was not the intended account. I suspect a good lawyer could reasonably argue this, but I don't need to go looking for case law; in this case, the court agreed that the money must be returned, which I think is itself case law supporting the idea that the recipient was in the wrong.
Either way, it's still a civil case at the beginning. Have to go to court with the bank to formally request a return and establish the identity of the holder.
By the way I was thinking of another Act that says you have to return stuff sent to you by mistake, can't seem to find it again.
In this case, is it a "wrongful credit"? Arguably, yes — it's theft per S1(1) of the Theft Act 1968 since the recipient intends to keep it and appropriates the rights of the owner in doing so.
The closest Act I can find regarding returning stuff sent to you by mistake is the Consumer Rights Act 2015, specifically S25 which says that if the trader sends you a quantity of goods greater than you were expecting, you may accept them but you must pay for them at the contract price—you cannot keep them for free: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/25
The original Act was the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 but the section on the right of recipients to keep unsolicited goods has been repealed accordingly.
"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."
In this case, the person innocently came by the money as a result of a mistaken bank transfer. They then proceeded to withdraw it from their account and presumably spend it: thus keeping it and/or dealing with it as the owner would—meaning they appropriated it accordingly.
All other elements seem to be made out here too: 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.
The conclusion hints that it was returned, without making it clear. In the absence of better information, I would assume that it wasn't used or withdrawn, it couldn't have been returned if it were.
Doesn't it say that he "bagan to withdraw the cash" though?