What to do, potential criminal charges.

[promac]

Which bar is this? I should quit my job and go work there! Let's say I only work three nights a week raking in $1000 a night... That's $156,000 a year! If I worked five nights I could have my house paid off in a year.

It was always my understanding that a portion of the tips were shared. Also, IIRC, the owner of the establishment needs to keep a payroll record of tips. I couldn't imagine the CRA allowing tips to be a free-for-all. If your workers can cheat the CRA, they can probably cheat you too.

 

[nobbie48]

Let's try some cross threading here. Everyone says that if you let a person test ride a bike for sale they should give you a grand or so deposit in case they drop it. If the bartender had to justify having a grand in the purse the explanation could be the potential test ride of a bike. Be careful what you post. They could be lurking.

 

[suprPHREAK]

There are a couple questions here:

Did he just sneak the purse away, or was it taken by force? If the latter, he's pooched. That is considered to be Robbery, and is strictly indictable (CC343, 344). He will be arrested. If he was just sneaky, then he will get charged with theft under $5000. In that case, it is a dual process offense, but given he returned the item, then he will not (can not) be arrested. He will get charged under CC334(b), as a summary offense. It is unlikely he will see jail time, especially if this is a first offense, but yes, a large fine for sure.

I'm not a lawyer at all, but this seems like the most likely scenario. Either way, your buddy needs a lawyer.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

There are a couple questions here:

Did he just sneak the purse away, or was it taken by force? If the latter, he's pooched. That is considered to be Robbery, and is strictly indictable (CC343, 344). He will be arrested. If he was just sneaky, then he will get charged with theft under $5000. In that case, it is a dual process offense, but given he returned the item, then he will not (can not) be arrested. He will get charged under CC334(b), as a summary offense. It is unlikely he will see jail time, especially if this is a first offense, but yes, a large fine for sure.

I'm not a lawyer at all, but this seems like the most likely scenario. Either way, your buddy needs a lawyer.

Whether he "returned the item" is a point of contention, given the claim of missing funds.

 

[nobbie48]

Whether he "returned the item" is a point of contention, given the claim of missing funds.

"Buddy was caught stealing a bartenders purse (they caught him on video tape at the bar after the fact). He was very drunk; black out drunk at the time. They got in contact with said buddy, and he simply said sorry and returned the purse to them"

Also, he didn't return the purse on his own conscience but only after being told he was on camera.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

"Buddy was caught stealing a bartenders purse (they caught him on video tape at the bar after the fact). He was very drunk; black out drunk at the time. They got in contact with said buddy, and he simply said sorry and returned the purse to them"

Also, he didn't return the purse on his own conscience but only after being told he was on camera.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you agreeing with me, or something else?

 

[nobbie48]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you agreeing with me, or something else?

My point was that "Buddy" didn't wake up, realize his mistake and then immediately do the right thing to hopefully mitigate the damages. Instead the bar had to review tapes and chase him down.

The former scenario shows conscience and responsibity although somewhat delayed. Buddy chose to hope he wouldn't get caught. Wrong choice IMO.

He now has to prove the money wasn't there (Good luck on proving a negative) and he will have a harder time trying to prove he's a responsible person worthy of a mercy rule.

 

[promac]

My point was that "Buddy" didn't wake up, realize his mistake and then immediately do the right thing to hopefully mitigate the damages. Instead the bar had to review tapes and chase him down.

The former scenario shows conscience and responsibity although somewhat delayed. Buddy chose to hope he wouldn't get caught. Wrong choice IMO.

Most people of good conscience wouldn't be in that position in the first place, but assuming they were, I wonder how many would choose to come clean and/or bother to return the purse after the fact, if:

A). There was little no money in the purse, or
B). There was $1,000 in the purse.

He now has to prove the money wasn't there (Good luck on proving a negative) and he will have a harder time trying to prove he's a responsible person worthy of a mercy rule.

He doesn't have to prove that, unless someone can prove that the money was in the purse in the first place. So far, all she has on video surveillance is the purse. You have to prove your damages/losses. It would have been better if she'd called the police in the first place and they found the purse in his possession along with all the contents.

 

[Starchild]

I didn't get a chance to read the entire thread, but why doesn't your buddy "counter-sue" the bar for serving him past his limit?

 

[promac]

I didn't get a chance to read the entire thread, but why doesn't your buddy "counter-sue" the bar for serving him past his limit?

If he can afford a decent lawyer or he lucks-out and can find a decent one otherwise, he probably will.

 

[turbodish]

If he can afford a decent lawyer or he lucks-out and can find a decent one otherwise, he probably will.

And on what grounds? He has not suffered personal injury or loss as a result of overserving (assuming it can even be proven that he was over-served), so what damages can he hope to sue for? His committing a criminal act while under the influence would not be considered as being either personal injury or loss attributable to the bar's actions or lack there-of.

 

[promac]

It depends on the cost of his defense lawyer for the theft and future financial losses, suffering, etc, from a criminal conviction resulting from the theft. Basically compensation to make him whole again, if that is even possible.

 

[turbodish]

It depends on the cost of his defense lawyer for the theft and future financial losses, suffering, etc, from a criminal conviction resulting from the theft. Basically compensation to make him whole again, if that is even possible.

The bar cannot be held responsible for his choice to commit a criminal act or any legal costs arising out of that act.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

My point was that "Buddy" didn't wake up, realize his mistake and then immediately do the right thing to hopefully mitigate the damages. Instead the bar had to review tapes and chase him down.

The former scenario shows conscience and responsibity although somewhat delayed. Buddy chose to hope he wouldn't get caught. Wrong choice IMO.

He now has to prove the money wasn't there (Good luck on proving a negative) and he will have a harder time trying to prove he's a responsible person worthy of a mercy rule.

Oh, so you were agreeing with me :lol:

 

[nobbie48]

Oh, so you were agreeing with me :lol:

Yup! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

 

[Starchild]

The bar cannot be held responsible for his choice to commit a criminal act or any legal costs arising out of that act.

Though you gotta ask yourself: if he wasn't inebriated to the point of blacking out, would he have stolen the purse and the possible money within?

Plus, if this $1000 was from tips, he could request to see the account records for that day to see if the bar actually came up short. Wouldn't it be mostly small change as well? How much does $1000 in small change weigh; I'd bet too much for a purse.

 

[turbodish]

Though you gotta ask yourself: if he wasn't inebriated to the point of blacking out, would he have stolen the purse and the possible money within?

Alcohol doesn't "create" dishonesty in a person. It just lowers inhibitions suppressing already-existing character traits.

Plus, if this $1000 was from tips, he could request to see the account records for that day to see if the bar actually came up short. Wouldn't it be mostly small change as well? How much does $1000 in small change weigh; I'd bet too much for a purse.

Tips are not like menu items and they do not appear on your bar tab, so there is no real accounting as far as tips collected goes.

If a patron pays with a credit card, you "might" see a tip amount on the credit card slip that is filled in and signed by the customer, but a patron paying a tab with a credit card might also elect to pay the tip in cash for different reasons. Also, cash-paying customers will most certainly give cash tips, and these are not formally accounted in any way at all.

Most bartenders I've known regularly tally up coins collected as tips as well as small bills, and exchange them for large bills out of the till on a periodic basis. That way the bar always has change and small bills on hand to make change (and for customers to leave as the next round of tips), and the cycle starts all over again. $1000 in tips is only 50 20-dollar bills, only 20 50-dollar bills, and only 10 100-dollar bills. Neither is a particularly large bundle to keep in a purse.

 

[promac]

The bar cannot be held responsible for his choice to commit a criminal act or any legal costs arising out of that act.

Says who? What about a patrons impaired driving causing bodily injury or death? Last I heard, that was a criminal act too. Who knows how a judge will rule these days.

 

[turbodish]

Says who? What about a patrons impaired driving causing bodily injury or death? Last I heard, that was a criminal act too. Who knows how a judge will rule these days.

Injury and/or death is different from legal jeopardy. Find a court case where an impaired driver was able to sue for legal costs associated with his being charged for impaired driving. I don't think you'll be successful.

 

[promac]

Alcohol doesn't "create" dishonesty in a person. It just lowers inhibitions suppressing already-existing character traits.

It suppresses a persons higher level thinking - especially when almost blacked-out drunk. At that point, there is no coherent understanding of right and wrong, honesty or dishonesty at that point - only wants and needs. That's the problem society has with drunk drivers - they don't have the mental capacity to make a proper and sound decision not to drive because they're impaired. "I want to go home.". Too bad their mental capacity and motor skills are so impaired that they'll never get home. Does this person already have a natural propensity to criminal behaviour? I'd doubt it. No more than anyone else. That is precisely why an establishment should not allow a patron to reach that state and why they will be held accountable if they do.