It's been a little over 3 weeks since Google randomly sent me $249,999
twitter.com
twitter.com
Quality bantz from the peanut gallery
Finally, after about 8 months of this, I got an extremely threatening letter from BigTechCompany's lawyers informing me that due to a payroll error, I was overpaid, and they demand I immediately return the money that was not mine or face legal consequences, blah, blah, blah. Of course I sent it back, but what a wild and crazy way for a company to treat people when it's entirely the company's fault.
There is such a thing as acting in good faith. When you notice an obvious mistake in your favor (even if it's made by The Evil Faceless Corporation of Malevolency), trying to tell someone about it is not only going to protect your ass if it winds up in court, it's just The Right Thing To Do.
(Of course, if they ignore you or send you in circles, then you have a stronger case that they don't want it back all _that_ bad.)
Hopefully you're joking on this part. No large company will ever act or care about the above quote, so its foolish for an individual to do so.
Now the poster has the opportunity to work for that company again, which would have probably been burned if they fought to keep the money accidentally paid to them.
The theme here is that a (small) win is not worth a life-ruining liability.
At the fourth month they called me and threatened me to get their money back, but in my country all deposits are final, so they didn't have a legal recourse. I offered to return it in six installments, and they threw a tantrum and ghosted me.
I still think you did the right thing. I wouldn't have touched that money if I had an option, because even if it was legal, and the lifesaver I needed to hop jobs, it was immoral. I'm sure someone was scolded because of that, I hope they didn't make them pay that sum in my place.
> Be careful.
> There is a scam where people put money into your account.
> You send the money back to them, only to they've applied for a loan in your name that you still have to pay back, but you've given away the money.
> Make sure it is you who initiates contact. Verify!
That’s a terrifying scam!
Of course after you send that real transaction "returning" the extra amount, you find that the check from them didn't clear (or that the transfer didn't happen for whatever other reason; a modern variant uses remote desktop to trick the victim into thinking a large amount of money is in their account when it's not).
Though with a three week delay that's probably not what's happening here.
If a deposit is fraud, the banks are accountable to reverse it when discovered (inside applicable statutes of limitations for financial fraud), and you as account holder agreed to that when you signed up. Only rarely do banks on the ends have to eat the amount instead of one of the account holders.
No money given to you incorrectly through a bank is yours (unless your lawyers are better with more staying power than theirs, because in practice, contracts are basically irrelevant when litigated with sufficient will and skill).
That's why with any payee over a few $hundred, I first send a tiny test ACH transfer and get them to tell me that it worked and how much. It'll take hundreds of those extra efforts to outweigh just sending one big payment astray.
Also, since there are now so many scams with advance payment, if by surprise some large check or pmt lands in my acct, I'm definitely NOT sending it back with any speed, IDK what kind of pitiful story they tell. I'll transfer it to a new interest-bearing acct (possibly by cash w/security guard), then hold it pending full identification of source, actual error, and the outcome of any investigation.
I'll hold onto it both because it may be an error that would be right to return, and because I don't want to get caught out having to return something I already spent, but the presumption that I'll just send it straight back is no longer valid.
Banks in the UK are on the hook if it's a scam induced transfer.
But back to my point - if you for whatever reason get compromised to such a degree that other people can sign off things with your BankID, you're basically completely fucked. At least for probably 99.99% of the cases.
This is because the law recognizes that sign-off as if you did it. And if some other did it, you've breached the ToS - which more or less states that you, and you only, can know the password, and it is your responsibility that said password is hidden / unavailable to others. Your signature and confirmation, your loan.
The most common victims of these cases are spouses and close family members.
But again, these things do differ from country to country.
Consumers in Scandinavia are not responsible when scammed unless they've acted with grave misjudgment or ill intent.
There was even a case in the high court to cement this right in Sweden this summer specifically for BankID.
https://www.konsumentverket.se/aktuellt/ko-har-ordet/2022/ko...
https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/...
Consider the case where I have a small checking account in which I deposit my child's allowance, the child discovers that this account has $10,000 in it for some reason, and, like a child, goes on a spending spree. Is my child responsible for exercising some measure of restraint with this money? They are, in the eyes of the bank, authorized to access this money for their own use, but suddenly you think that I am obligated to return thousands of dollars that my child spent on minecraft skins or something because the lender wants to lower the friction for loan applications?
The lender should be generally SOL.
1. Apply for loan under Bob Smith's name using stolen/forged identity
2. Company providing loan will only send to a bank account in Bob Smith's name
3. Provide the company with Bob Smith's real bank account details
4. Message Bob Smith, "oops, we accidentally sent you $x in error! please send it back"
5. Bob Smith now on the hook for proving they didn't apply for a loan
Bob fell for a con by transferring money to someone
So even if the loan is forgiven to bob (which it should be), the bank could argue that those funds that were transferred were bob's own money, not the loan
You don’t need to prove that you didn’t create the loan. It’s up to the company to prove that it was you. Having private information isn’t enough. At most you need to file a police report to expunge it off your credit report.
$250k is also the amount that involves the Feds. Most scammers won’t hit that amount since they know the state/loc police don’t have the capability/resources to investigate electronic funds transfer type scams.
Creating a bank account (fully, not just the application to do so) generally requires going into a bank branch. At least in Australia and UK anyway.
Going into a bank branch would mean real potential risk for a scammer, as they'd then be caught on camera. And if the bank figures out they're a scammer before hand... potential police waiting.
My point being that the post you're replying to makes a good point. A scammer could do a bunch of things that aren't all that risky, compared to creating an account in person... which seems like it would introduce a _lot_ more risk.
Not true, wheres the bank branch for ING? https://www.ing.com.au/
I did say generally requires going into the bank in person though. ;)
Regular banking is pretty indifferent to the future profits of a new account that can pay out cash as it examines risk, while a loan salesman's interest in believing he has a sale..
Also pushing $250k to a bank/sweep account won't set anything off because the risk to FI handling the money is minimal. There's minimal risk it can be clawed back and the risk is on the FI that pushed the money. If you pull the money, thats a different story due to rules around ACH clawbacks. I assume fidelity lets you fund your account with no max though a push either ACH or Wire but to pull, you're limited to $50k or a lower amount per day. If you try to transfer that money out from a pull, it will get locked down till the ACH clawback period expires.
And your scenario doesn't match the original:
> There is a scam where people put money into your account.
The constrained message length and lack of edit feature on Twitter means you have to forgive people if their wording isn't exactly as accurate as you might want it to be.
If the person does look up the details and just transfers the money back to the loaning bank, that doesn't cost the scammer anything.
Maybe GP's description mixed two similar frauds, maybe both variations exist
If I defraud somebody on behalf of Wells Fargo you'd better believe they won't cough up any cash for the cause. You are not responsible for third parties interacting with each other without your knowledge or permission, and the fact that your name was dropped somewhere doesn't make that any less true.
https://bughunters.google.com/about/rules/6171833274204160/a...
Alternatively, they have his bank details from participation in bug bounties and he was mistakenly sent someone’s Ad revenue.
> Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) directly deposits your Ad Exchange revenue into your bank account [...] the deposit will be labeled as one of the following [...] Google LLC EDI PYMNTS
(Disclosure: I used to work on ads at Google, but don't know anything internal here)
If this had been kept quiet, I think the odds are high it would have never been noticed. I don't think Google has any of their own internal special sauce on their invoicing and payment. They are just as bad at it as everyone else.
I would very likely go for one year, but I think it's highly unlikely I'd go for two.
If I had to go for 5 years to get 45M, I think I'd pass. I definitely am not going to out-earn that or anything, I just value my time way, way too much, and value money way too little.
9M does a lot for my people and me, and after that I think I would just be helping out more people. They can suffer in their own prison!
If I could risk 5 years in prison for $120M, with a minimum guaranteed return of 45M and a maximum of 2-3 years? Yeah, I'd go for that, even if the chance to succeed without prison was pretty small, say 20%. The chance to escape punishment is a big motivator, and don't all of us think we're clever enough to do it?
Anyway, as you say, I'm the outlier. Almost everyone, even in the richest nation on earth, would accept that level of risk without a whole lot of thought.
Abandoned property is basically finders keepers. Mislaid property should be left and the owner contacted, and the proprietor where it was left notified to help effect that. Lost property where the owner is known must also be returned. Lost or mislaid property might eventually be claimed when the return is impossible, for example, one cannot identify or contact owner after a long period, including perhaps posting public notices. At that point, it becomes considered abandoned.
Specifics vary a bit by jurisdiction, but I don't see it likely ever applying when you know who it came from and it's all on record. No reasonable person abandons cash in the wrong account. It is clearly mislaid. Maybe if they don't respond despite repeated formal contacts via legal channels. Obviously something to consult with a lawyer about over these kind of stakes...
Love that missing comma...
Lost, mislaid, and abandoned are *three technically distinct classifications.
Serial comma isn't really required [in all dialects], and its use is mostly mandated where it resolves some ambiguity.
Which, if it turns out you cannot legally keep the money somehow, you just paid a ton of money for someone to basically tell you that you cannot have the money, so now you're paying money because Google sent you money.
And then if you are considering the possibility of keeping it somehow I don't think you could afford to NOT consult a lawyer.
Either way it does seem like Google is going to end up costing you time/money :|
A family strugling financially gets 250.000 from google but can never contact google because they are so difficult to reach but also can never use the money for fear of google noticing at some point and asking for the money back. Bank freezes account for suspect activity, irs audit and all kinds of hell...
There's two reasons why the time frame is so short: 1) "It's their own damned fault." There's an expectation that of all the institutions that should have 100% control and visibility to all of their transactions it's banks and big businesses. 2) The longer funds have gone unreturned the more expensive and time consuming it (usually) is to trace where the money went. I don't know if one year is the optimal period for such tradeoff calculations (probably not) but it is what it is.
Anything above $10k triggers a bunch of bureaucracy but the money that causes and therefore to deal with this (lawyers, accountants, etc) is not theirs to keep.
They could end up paying thousands in fees, and have to wait years to get $80K back from the taxman
You're in a nasty little situation and they're not answering their business phones. You're facing a $80k windfall tax liability you'll need cash to pay, and the possibility Google will wake up an demand their money back at the most inconvenient time (after taxes are due, etc).
Where I live those trust accounts are interest-bearing, and the interest is swept into a state-run legal aid fund for the poor. So it would be a (very slight) added bonus that Google's payment mistake would have some societal benefit.
Anyway, Google's fiscal quarter ends in ~2 weeks. They'll probably notice it when they reconcile accounts for SEC reporting, starting Oct 1.
$250k is rounding error territory at such a large organization. Not only that but the person in question is registered to receive bug bounties worth... $250k.
So no, I don't think they'd think twice about it when it comes time to reconcile the books.
So I guess the question then is: "at what point can you keep it/spend it without any legal concern?"
I know several accountants who do not work for trillion dollar companies. Variances in the millions are a daily thing. The more money moving around, the more unqualified people categorizing it and the more likely there is mystery money that cannot be rectified.
Realistically speaking the interest would get soaked up by the banks providing that account, because they'll be paying a pitiful rate[1] of 0.01% or whatever, whereas the prevailing rate for short term deposits is around 2.5%[2].
[1] random result: https://www.chase.com/personal/savings/savings-account/inter...
[2] https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/...
Do those 1,000 people even care, or hope the person gets to keep it, or maybe it's the Bystander Effect?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2022/09/01/cry...
As a college student working multiple jobs, I had complicated taxes for a bit. Years later, the IRS sent me a letter that said "you forgot to declare this W2, so you owe us $270". I get nervous about phone calls and couldn't find a web portal to pay it, so I uh, "put it off" for a while. I never actually got in contact with the IRS. They just sent me a letter the next two years saying they took my state tax refund to pay it off and now it's done. I think I spent a couple bucks on interest over the course of multiple years.
People have this weird concept that the IRS will do no knock raids on normal average americans for simple mixups. This perception is mostly driven by people who are ideologically against taxes entirely. Instead, the IRS is predominantly average people with accounting experience who are used to getting simple money mistakes solved. They also don't want to take you to court because they don't have enough money in their budget to take everyone they could to court.
But if you were to say "close down" all your Gmail accounts (I presume you have them) Will Big-G find you or deem it worthwhile for you to be found ?
If Google wants the money back, at least you can now file bankruptcy.
I mean technically if they fill a 1099 for this, the money is yours. Congratulations, you are now 250,000$ richer and owe back taxes to the IRS.
Don't trust anyone.
Please go ahead and report it. I just don't think the interpretation will be so clear cut.
If OP really has no idea why the payment was sent and does not feel entitled to it, I'd judge it as not being income in the current year. While OP is in possession of it (per "cash basis"), it's only by clerical error. They're not free to do with the money as they'd like (eg spend it), and thus they're in the position of a trustee rather than someone who has received personal income. Remember, not every payment coming into your bank account is a taxable event.
If OP receives a 1099 for it, or they file their taxes and then receive a notice that the IRS has a 1099, then they declare it as income (since the 1099 indicates the payment had intent), distribute the money to themselves by moving it to a different account where it can't be ACH reversed, and consider the matter settled.
Failing that, if some time down the line Google confirms it as a legitimate payment or the clock runs out, then you distribute it to yourself and declare it as income at the time of distribution, regardless of the missing 1099.
Alternatively, if Google demands/pulls the payment back and you haven't paid taxes on it, case closed.
If Google does somehow issue a 1099 and then later ends up demanding the money back, then I'd say OP has a strong case that at the very least Google owes them for all the resulting damage of having to refile their taxes, etc. And given that OP is in possession of the money and outside the ACH reversal window, Google would have to mount a legal offense to get it back where OP could argue this point.
Sure you can refile your taxes then, but that will suck
Imagine you own land that has a parking lot on it. Someone parks their $250k lambo on your land and leaves it there for a few months. You don’t get taxed on that.
You certainly don’t report owning a new $250k lambo, and then later amend your tax return when the owner comes back, that would be a false report.
The conversation would probably go like this:
Dude: "Hey taxman Google sent me money but it's not mine"
IRS: "Ok don't spend it or it becomes income, if it turns out it was yours file an amended return. Contact us and reference this conversation and any penalties will be waived."
The IRS is not extremely accommodating and will not work with someone who is dishonest or evasive about their issues.
Yes, in most cases, government agencies will work with you and behave rationally. But one time in <some large number>, things go a different direction. And the people with the power can turn your life into a nightmare without batting an eyelash.
I would get a lawyer, someone that knows how to best protect you from the system.
Anyway the correct analogy here would be incorrectly receiving from someone you know payment in cash which should have been given to someone else. You realise the mistake when you are back home so you bring it back later. You obviously didn’t owe taxes while you were merely storing the money which wasn’t yours in the first place.
I think it would upset me a bit to not have that last cent there. Feels disrespectful in some way.
Say you have two tax brackets:
$0 - $100: 10%
$101 - $200: 15%
If you make $150, the entire $150 is not taxed at 15%. The first $100 is taxed at 10%, and the remaining $50 is taxed at 15%.
This is why being in a higher tax bracket is never (edit: usually not) a bad thing - you can't net less than you would have in the lower bracket.
For example if the person in your example made $105 and gave $5 to charity and brackets worked the way the common misconception worked that would reduce their taxes from $15.75 to $10, saving them $5.75 in taxes which is indeed more than their $5 donation, and they do indeed come out $0.75 ahead of where they would have been had they not donated.
In reality, taxes without the donation would be $10.75 and the donation reduces taxes to $10, giving them a tax saving of $0.75 for their $5 donation, leaving them $4.25 behind where they would have been had they not donated.
Note: there may be other tax consequences besides the deduction for the donation itself for some charity donations that also provide benefits, which might make a donation a net monetary gain for the donor.
It's a bad thing if you could defer realizing that higher-bracket income to a low-income year.
For example in my country the amount you can deduct on health/education expenses depends on the bracket you are placed in.