Question

what is the difference between someone noticing the bank gave them too much money and spending that money and someone noticing the bank gave them too much money and not doing anything?
○ a. the second case does not count as theft because it is the banks fault for giving them too much money in their account.
○ b. its harder to prove a taking in the second case even if the second person never meant to notify the bank.
○ c. the first example could be a felony theft charge, whereas the second would only be a misdemeanor.
○ d. its harder to prove a taking in the first case because the money has already been spent and is therefore difficult to track.

Explanation:

In theft cases, proving the act of "taking" is crucial. When someone spends the extra money (first case), the act of taking (using the money) is more evident. In the second case (not doing anything), there's no overt act like spending, making it harder to prove the taking element of theft, even if the person had no intention to notify the bank. Option a is incorrect because the bank's fault doesn't absolve theft. Option c - there's no inherent difference in felony/misdemeanor based on just spending vs not acting without more context. Option d - it's actually the second case (not spending) that has a harder time proving taking as there's no act like spending to show the taking (using the money).

Answer:

B. It's harder to prove a taking in the second case even if the second person never meant to notify the bank.