State v. Langford
467 So.2d 41 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who knowingly appropriates funds made available due to a unilateral mistake by another party, such as a bank's computer error, is guilty of theft because the intent to permanently deprive is formed upon realizing the mistake and deciding to keep the property.
Facts:
- John A. Langford applied for a $225,000 loan from Hibernia National Bank but was denied due to his credit standing.
- A week later, on March 18, 1981, Langford opened an interest-earning checking account at the same bank with an initial deposit of $5,362.21.
- In processing the account, the bank erroneously assigned it a code that allowed for unlimited overdrafts without any charge or managerial review.
- The account became overdrawn a few weeks after it was opened, and Langford made no further deposits.
- Langford proceeded to write over two hundred checks, continually receiving computer-generated daily overdraft notices and monthly statements showing a large and growing negative balance.
- Daily computer reports that should have alerted bank managers to the overdrafts were mistakenly discarded by a clerk and never reviewed.
- On September 24, 1981, the bank discovered the account was overdrawn by $848,879.39 after a third party called to verify one of Langford's checks.
- When confronted by the bank, Langford offered to execute a promissory note to repay the funds.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana prosecuted John A. Langford for theft in a Louisiana trial court.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court convicted Langford of theft of $848,879.39.
- The trial court sentenced Langford to eight years at hard labor.
- Langford, as defendant-appellant, appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a bank customer commit theft by repeatedly and knowingly withdrawing funds made available through a bank's computer error, despite the bank's automated system continuing to honor the checks and send overdraft notices?
Opinions:
Majority - Schott, J.
Yes. A customer commits theft by knowingly taking advantage of a bank's computer error because there is no true consent from the bank, and the intent to permanently deprive can be inferred from the circumstances. The bank's honoring of the overdrafts was not consent but the result of a series of mistakes, including an initial coding error and the failure to review computer reports. The bank's prior refusal to loan Langford a much smaller sum makes it unreasonable to believe it consented to an $848,000 overdraft. Langford's intent to permanently deprive the bank of its money is inferred from his actions: knowing the bank had denied him credit, he exploited the error, never made deposits, continued to withdraw massive sums (including $100,000 in one day), and failed to notify the bank of its obvious mistake. Under established criminal law, a person who receives property by mistake and, upon realizing the mistake, decides to appropriate it, is guilty of theft.
Analysis:
This case applies the traditional legal principle of 'theft by mistake' to the context of modern, automated banking systems. The court's decision clarifies that a victim's negligence or a system's passive error does not constitute legal consent, preventing defendants from using a bank's technological or procedural failures as a defense. It establishes that criminal intent can be formed at the moment a defendant recognizes an error and decides to exploit it, rather than at the initial transaction. This precedent is significant for future cases involving theft through the exploitation of computer glitches, system errors, or other forms of automation.
