As you know, the game “Monopoly” includes a source of free money in playing the game in which one of the cards in the middle of the game board allows you to receive money from an error the bank made. The cartoon-style picture of the bank customer who receives the money shows that he is surprised. But also notice that no one, so far as I can tell, ever refuses the money from the Monopoly bank – even though the person who receives it is not actually entitled to it.
Now, you might argue that this is part of “how to play the game” and it gives you an edge and an advantage over other players in that you now have more money to spend in order to win the game. You might reason that because anyone could have by chance received the benefit of landing on the appropriate section of the board, that you simply had more luck than those who did not land there and choose that card. So, you might think, it is perfectly fair and reasonable for you to take the money that the card permits you to receive.
But now take this example a bit further, and fill it in with some details that, I assume, could happen in “real life.”
One morning, a representative of the company that maintains ATMs at Ninth National Bank of Bithlo accidentally hits a sensitive part of the machine that controls the counting function for distribution of funds from the machine. This accident results in every person who uses the ATM receiving DOUBLE the amount originally requested in a withdrawal. But it DOES NOT record this double withdrawal on a person’s bank account. So, essentially, if you request a $100 withdrawal, you receive $200, but your bank account shows that you received only $100.
In addition, the company that maintains the video camera at the machine has not serviced the camera in several months, and it malfunctions at the very time that the mechanism for distribution of funds malfunctions. This means that the transactions at the broken ATM will not be recorded.
Later that morning, you go to the ATM at the Ninth National Bank of Bithlo and punch in the numbers to make a $40 withdrawal. To your surprise, you receive $80. You look around to see whether anyone sees what you are doing and, satisfied that no one has noticed, you pocket the $80, take your $40 receipt from the machine, and when you go back to your car, you tell your brother, who is with you in the car, about your good fortune. Your brother smiles at you, but even though he also has an account at the bank, he does not go to the ATM to try to get a two for one withdrawal like you did. You drive away and, with the extra $40, you and your brother stop at a nearby restaurant to have a big lunch.
While there, you tell the waiter about what happened at the bank. The waiter thinks to himself that maybe this means he’ll get a bigger tip. The waiter calls his sister, who has an account at the bank, and tells her what happened. She goes to the bank to get a “two for one” withdrawal, too.
In all, fifty other users of the ATM experienced a similar stroke of good luck that day, ranging from recorded withdrawals of $20 to withdrawals of $600 (in each case, the recorded withdrawal is only half the amount actually received by the ATM user). The 51st customer, who requests a $600 withdrawal and actually receives $1200, goes immediately into the bank to return the extra $600. The bank manager, who wondered earlier in the day why so many people were smiling hugely as they left the ATM, thanks you and immediately calls her supervisor who tells the manager to shut down the machine.
One of the tellers whose window is close to the ATM saw several customers using the ATM and acting in a suspicious manner, looking over their shoulders occasionally, and recounting the money they received from the machine. Out of curiosity, the teller, Bob, went out to the ATM during his break and used the machine (he was customer number 25 to use the machine that day) and discovered that it was doubling the amounts received for withdrawals. Bob requested $200 from his own account from the ATM and therefore received $400. Bob did not report the error to his employer.
The action of the 51st customer results in the bank discovering that EVERY person who used that machine most likely received a double distribution of funds from the bank. The bank calls all of the customers to tell them about the problem and to request that their funds be returned. Bob is asked whether he received a double distribution and he replies that he did not.
Do you have a moral obligation to return the funds in a case like this one, in which the bank has no record or proof that you actually received a double distribution?
Assume that on that day, the bank lost $20000 – that is, the 50 customers who made withdrawals at the ATM received a total of $40000 from the machine, but the bank has an official record of only $20000 in withdrawals. Who is responsible for the loss of money at the bank?