Repayment?

[Gbrew42]

I am in Tennessee. Someone stole a deposit from my restaurant and I did not report it immediately to my boss. Instead I attempted to discover who all of my thieves were since theft is a big problem there. Of course I was terminated for that but also told that I have 30 days to repay them $2500 or they'll prosecute. I definitely didn't steal it and they didn't think that I did. Can they do that?

 

[LdiJ]

I am in Tennessee. Someone stole a deposit from my restaurant and I did not report it immediately to my boss. Instead I attempted to discover who all of my thieves were since theft is a big problem there. Of course I was terminated for that but also told that I have 30 days to repay them $2500 or they'll prosecute. I definitely didn't steal it and they didn't think that I did. Can they do that?

They could try to prosecute you, but if you did not do it, then they should not be successful.

 

[eerelations]

A successful prosecution could in large part depend upon your reason for not reporting the theft to your boss immediately. Why didn't you report it to your boss immediately?

 

[justalayman]

Make it simple and back way up.

Why did you have control of this deposit money?
Explain the circumstances surrounding its disappearance.
How soon after you realized it was missing did you report it to your boss or the police?
What was involved in "tried to discover who all my thieves were"?

 

[Alpha_Wolf_]

This largely depends on how you handled the situation.

Telling your supervisor was definitely a big step, but if you took the appropriate actions otherwise (assuming you have position to do so) and can prove it, I don't see how or why they would pursue you for a lost deposit unless you actually did lose it.

To accuse someone of theft is a big deal and needs solid proof.

 

[Zigner]

This largely depends on how you handled the situation.

Telling your supervisor was definitely a big step, but if you took the appropriate actions otherwise (assuming you have position to do so) and can prove it, I don't see how or why they would pursue you for a lost deposit unless you actually did lose it.

To accuse someone of theft is a big deal and needs solid proof.

You don't see how? Really? I can easily see how, both criminally and civilly.

 

[Alpha_Wolf_]

You don't see how? Really? I can easily see how, both criminally and civilly.

"unless you actually did lose it."

You can't convict someone for something they didn't do without any evidence.

I'm not protecting the person, I'm simply stating that if you didn't do something and followed the right steps, you should have nothing to worry about

Was that not apparent?

 

[Alpha_Wolf_]

You can't convict someone for something they didn't do without any evidence.


There are a lot of people in prison based on nothing greater than circumstantial evidence. With as little as op posted its not possible to say there is adequate evidence to convict, it surely does not preclude the possibility either.

Of course not, but until the person provides more detail I'm giving the benefit of doubt and assuming the person didn't steal the deposit.

Not saying the person is safe.

 

[Zigner]

Of course not, but until the person provides more detail I'm giving the benefit of doubt and assuming the person didn't steal the deposit.

Not saying the person is safe.

What you DID say was: I don't see how or why they would pursue you for a lost deposit unless you actually did lose it.

If that's not what you meant, then choose your words more carefully.

 

[Alpha_Wolf_]

What you DID say was: I don't see how or why they would pursue you for a lost deposit unless you actually did lose it.

If that's not what you meant, then choose your words more carefully.

Great way to quote half my sentence, as the beginning of it clearly stated the conditions necessary for no action to be taken.

I see you just like to argue over semantics for fun. What else would you like to debate over?

 

[Zigner]

Great way to quote half my sentence, as the beginning of it clearly stated the conditions necessary for no action to be taken.

I see you just like to argue over semantics for fun. What else would you like to debate over?

No debate, just pointing out that you can't have it both ways. You either said it or you didn't...please be more careful with how you word things.

 

[Alpha_Wolf_]

No debate, just pointing out that you can't have it both ways. You either said it or you didn't...please be more careful with how you word things.

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I clearly identified in my sentence that everything else had to be done correctly and proven for no action to be taken.

How is that confusing or trying to have it both ways?

I say you are trying to debate because I think that it was obvious in my post what I meant, even to you.

This is an advice forum, not a literary forum, although, I have had a college literary level since I was 12. Thanks for the input though. I'll try to be more specific next time.

 

[eerelations]

Uh-oh, misuse of the word "literary"! (Sweetie, some of us have literacy levels at university master's level and higher. Trying to start arguments with people you know nothing about might bring you a whole lot of unwanted bother.)

 

[eerelations]

I'm not trying to have it both ways, I clearly identified in my sentence that everything else had to be done correctly and proven for no action to be taken.

How is that confusing or trying to have it both ways?

I say you are trying to debate because I think that it was obvious in my post what I meant, even to you.

This is an advice forum, not a literary forum, although, I have had a college literary level since I was 12. Thanks for the input though. I'll try to be more specific next time.

Just quoting this in case OP tries to correct her spelling.

 

[cbg]

Alpha, I mean this nicely. I really do.

But before you start coming in here like you're the world's expert on everything, you might want to take note of the fact that there are quite a few folk here who have been here a long time and have earned the respect of the forum. You've been here what? Twenty minutes? And coming across like you think you own the place and no one knows anything but you, isn't exactly the best way to make friends and influence people. I don't think you realize that's what you're coming across as - I get the impression that you actually are a nice guy. And if you can do what I suggested before and dial it down a bit, and if you can listen and pay attention to people who have been doing this a very long time and learned a few things about responding to internet questions that you might not know, you might prove to be a valuable contributor at some point.

But right now, you need to remember that God gave you two ears but only one mouth. Stop showing off how much you know and listen a bit more to what other people do.