I love Prudie's answers and I think this is the first time I disagree albeit partially. She told the person who stole $3,000 from an employer 10 years ago and feels guilty about it some great advice. Except for the part about paying the money back. She suggested TTDR choose a charity and donate the money there. That's a great back up plan but the charity isn't who TTDR stole from. Check and see if the employer is still in business, if so, give an attorney $3,000 and have the attorney mail the money to the employer saying my client was responsible and now wishes to make amends and this is the $3,000 that was taken. The money is owed to the business or owner of the business not a charity! If the previous employer cannot be found then great expiate the guilt by giving to a charity but look for the employer FIRST!

You also appear to NOT know who suffered the actual loss of $3,000. The employer might of had insurance that covered this lost and therefore their out of pocket loss was NOT 3K, so some of the money should go to the insurance company.

Also, a lost for theft can be deducted when filing state and fed tax returns. Thus the state and the IRS should receive some of the 3K.

Next if the business was to receive 3k they would have to book this money for tax purposes. If they book it as income and income for what? Thus their accountant wouldn't really know what to do with this money. The best thing to do would be to just pretent they didn't get it and spent it on personal expenses but that would be illegal.

Best to give money to a charity. My guess is that after 10 years the business would feel the same (at least their accountant would!).

For that matter, we don't know if the victim was a small-business owner who was inadequately insured, we don't know if he was insured but suffered a huge jack-up in rates after the theft -- yeah, there are many things we don't know.

And none of them matter.

If you steal from Company X, you return the money to Company X. It is up to them, not you, to decide who else gets a share of the repayment money (insurance co., IRS), or to throw up their hands and give it to charity. It is not up to you. It is not your money to decide the best use of. Repay the company you stole from.

Most people here have said the goal (purpose) of returning the money was to make up for the losses suffered by the company. That is logical and I agree with this goal 100%.

BUT returning 3K to the company is likely to NOT meet this goal and I have explained why.

You say it is up to them. My point is that their accountant would wish you did NOT give them this BURDEN. Yes, BURDEN!!!! You assume the company would WELCOME the money and I have provided logical reasons why the money could be a burden.

It the GOAL was to do the company a favor than giving back the money is likely NOT do a favor but instead a disservice. Learn something about how a business is run. I wasn't taking about a MORAL issue here. With regards to the MORAL issue there is NO WAY to make up for the crime that was committed but giving the business another burden isn't a good start!

Mircat, Thank you so much for making this point. I am the owner of a small business, and I would be delighted if the $1,700 that a former worker took from me were repaid. There would be no questions asked. I see a later poster commented that getting $3,000 repaid would be a burden! That's ridiculous. The time it would take our accountant to figure out what to do with the money would be minimal compared to the value it would bring to us. I'm curious as to why someone would be so adamant about not repaying a business the money that had been stolen from it. The business owners I asked about this issue were 100% in agreement that they would want the money paid back to them. It would not only be good for them financially, but it would make them feel better too. It's an awful feeling to have someone steal from you. If anyone reading this has stolen from a person or business, don't think you have attoned by paying the same amount to a charity.

Excellent points Jen.

Most businesses have a category in their Ledgers labeled as "Other Income". The IRS doesn't care where you got the money as long as they get a piece of it. The insurance company has already been paid back through higher premiums.

One other thing to note is that $3000 ten years ago is probably worth closer to $5000 now. Plus there should be interest and an additional penalty fee tacked on too. Three years of interest, adjusted for inflation, can add up to quit a bit.

Note I said it might be a burden after 10 years. Ask your accountant about the tax ramifications. I assuming that when taxes were filled for the year that the theft was deducted as a loss.

Don't you have theft insurance? If you received a settlement the legal thing to do would be to replay the insurance company the amount of the settlement.

Of course the business owner would want any out of pocket money paid back to them (out of pocket being the acutal amount of loss after any insurance settlements or tax credits were applied). That is a DUH but after 10 years determining what that amount is could be complex. It clearly is easier for a small business, on this we agree.

Note I was never adamant about not replaying but only going by the facts as listed in the letter. TEN YEARS AGO!!! That is a long time and as other pointed out there might be NEW owners. In otherwords there were LOGICAL reasons that just sending cash or a check to the business addresss might not pay back who really took the lost.

With regards to atonement, in my view there is NOTHING that the person can do to make this whole from a moral POV. I was just looking at this from a practical POV. So I clearly understand that from a moral POV trying to give back to the business is the right thing to do. No question about that, but since it might not be practical at least a gift to a charity is some form of atonement (but not a complete one by any means).

It should at least be offered to the business (or former owners) first. If they don't want it, then give it to charity.

jazzguitarman:

Most people here have said the goal (purpose) of returning the money was to make up for the losses suffered by the company. That is logical and I agree with this goal 100%.

BUT returning 3K to the company is likely to NOT meet this goal and I have explained why.

You say it is up to them. My point is that their accountant would wish you did NOT give them this BURDEN. Yes, BURDEN!!!! You assume the company would WELCOME the money and I have provided logical reasons why the money could be a burden.

It the GOAL was to do the company a favor than giving back the money is likely NOT do a favor but instead a disservice. Learn something about how a business is run. I wasn't taking about a MORAL issue here. With regards to the MORAL issue there is NO WAY to make up for the crime that was committed but giving the business another burden isn't a good start!

Sorry, as an accountant for a middling size company, I don't agree with you. What is so logical about your reasons? Depending on the size of the company they may have just written it off as a loss or bad debt instead of burdening themselves with dealing with an insurance company for what really equals a small amount of money. In receiving the money all they would have to do is claim it as miscellaneous income and pay the taxes at that time. If they did go through the insurance company, they would have claimed their deductible as a loss or bad debt and all they would have to do is pay back the insurance company and claim the amount that was the deductible as miscellaneous income and pay the taxes on it. A good accountant would not consider that a BURDEN no matter how they dealt with it at the time. It is not a very complicated problem in an accounting standpoint.

Thanks for the feedback. I respect that you know more about this than me but wouldn't the company also have to pay back taxes if they deducted the theft as a lost in the year of the theft?

Also, the company might have a different insurance company then the one they had 10 years ago. Yes, it isn't 'hard' per se to write one's prior insurance company a check, assuming that company still in in business.

But again we are talking about something that took place 10 years ago. What you have listed above isn't too complex but it isn't as simple as just getting a check and cashing it either and that was my point (but granted I might of overstated how complex it was).

I still feel that if the reason the LW wanted to give money back was to relieve guilt, than a payment to a clairity would do that just as well. If the goal was to make the company whole then one would have to pay the company back. I got the feeling the LW was trying to relieve guilt.

If a small company with a few owners that makes sense. But if a public company than the owners are the stock holders and that isn't as practical.

I agree with Mircat completely. If this person TTDR really wants to make amends, he has to do it with the entity he offended in the first place. After all, he says he's trying to live an "honest" life, and part of being honest is living with the consequences, which in this case I believe will be minor, but being honest does not mean that you get to control the consequences by determining how honest you want to be. If TTDR doesn't want to be totally honest and confront the employer he stole from for fear of the consequences he'll suffer today, then he doesn't really want to live the honest life that he claims to want. In fact, he ought to give the $3000 back PLUS INTEREST to show that he understands he robbed the employer of not just the money, but the opportunity to use the money for all that time TTDR had it stolen! Prudie's solution will not clear this person's conscience if he truly wants to live an honest life -- it's simply an easy way out. He has to deal with the entity he stole from.

I agree with Jen completely on this. [see my other note on this]

I agree completely with Mandrake9's position. If the company doesn't want the money back, they can just refuse it, but they should have the first right of refusal, not some charity.

jazzguitarman said: "Note I said it might be a burden after 10 years. Ask your accountant about the tax ramifications. I assuming that when taxes were filled for the year that the theft was deducted as a loss."

TTDR should not ask his accountant about the tax ramifications, he should ask the accountant of the company he stole from. If he really wants to be relieved of his guilt and atone for his crime, he needs to deal with the entity he stole from.