Shoplifting, Larceny, Robbery, Theft Stole $30, civil restitution for $400.

[HelpPlease555]

Jurisdiction

Texas

6 months ago I stole some water bottles and other stuff totaling 32 dollars from a place I worked. I was fired, signed 2 sheets of paper and I was told that they wont press charges over something that small.

The first letter I got is from some law group for $400 but with $100 payment intervals. Second letter is titled Restitution Agreement XXX Company. I got the first letter, but I just ignored it. Now they sent another letter saying:

"on XX/XX/2017 you had entered into an agreement with my client, promising to pay restitution for losses you have caused in the amount of $32.00. As a reminder your payment of $420.00 was due in this office by 10//05/2017. The promissory note further stated that in the event you default on the agreement, the entire amount becomes instantly due and payable.

Our records show that to date you are in default of the above agreement. Therefore, the entire current balance for $420.00 is now due. If I do not receive the total amount owed within (10) days from the date of this letter, my client may take all necessary legal steps which include a civil action in court"

My problem is that they are calling it civil RESTITUTION in this letter, not civil demand.

Most online lawyers say that you can ignore this, but the way the letter is worded leads me to think that if I dont pay restitution they will charge me. I never paid any money initially for what I stole, but 400 is way too much.

 

[army judge]

They'll threaten you, harass you, bulky you, hoping you'll cough up the four hundred bucks.

Eventually they'll demand eight hundred, maybe a thousand bucks, or more.

They rarely sue.

I suggest you make your own decision.

I've never stolen anything, but if I did, I'd do two things.

I'd never steal again, and I'd never pay some ridiculous demand letter or whatever thing these scammers call it.

If they sue you, they sue you.

But they don't wanna work for a lousy $400, they just wanna scare stupid suckers into coughing up $400.

I've never been a sucker, much less a stupid sucker.

 

[army judge]

One more thing.

I am a licensed Texas lawyer.

I tasked one of my paralegals with researching if anyone had ever been sued in Texas for a demand scam letter.

The answer was no, not one person.

I then asked our county bar association librarian to research it, and she came up with the same answer, in Texas, no one has ever been taken to court for the $400.

The answer is because its illegal.

The most a merchant could get by suing you is the value of the loss.

But it's legal to scare you into coughing up $400.

Mate this is Texas, not California, that nonsense won't fly in JP Court, giving someone $400 for $20 worth of junk.

You lucked out, because if the police had been involved, you would have had more exposure. Count your blessings, mate.

 

[HelpPlease555]

One more thing.

I am a licensed Texas lawyer.

I tasked one of my paralegals with researching if anyone had ever been sued in Texas for a demand scam letter.

The answer was no, not one person.

I then asked our county bar association librarian to research it, and she came up with the same answer, in Texas, no one has ever been taken to court for the $400.

The answer is because its illegal.

The most a merchant could get by suing you is the value of the loss.

But it's legal to scare you into coughing up $400.

Mate this is Texas, not California, that nonsense won't fly in JP Court, giving someone $400 for $20 worth of junk.

You lucked out, because if the police had been involved, you would have had more exposure. Count your blessings, mate.

Thank you for your quick response. I am very thankful for not having the cops involved. I honestly felt disgusted with myself, how can I be that stupid? I am going to do my best to stay away from that chain of stores.

The only think that was scaring me was that it was called Civil Restitution instead of Civil demand, since I never paid for the items that I stole. Online it said that Restitution is different from demand, and several online threads said that not paying them will make the company more likely to charge me, but its some BP Fisher Law Group, not some other compay. They want a check payapble to the company though...

Thanks again for your quick response!

 

[army judge]

Thank you for your quick response. I am very thankful for not having the cops involved. I honestly felt disgusted with myself, how can I be that stupid? I am going to do my best to stay away from that chain of stores.

The only think that was scaring me was that it was called Civil Restitution instead of Civil demand, since I never paid for the items that I stole. Online it said that Restitution is different from demand, and several online threads said that not paying them will make the company more likely to charge me, but its some BP Fisher Law Group, not some other compay. They want a check payapble to the company though...

Thanks again for your quick response!

Live and learn.

Yes, avoid that store and any of its sister stores for at least five years.

If you get sued, as likely as me (a man & US citizen) ever becoming Queen of England, come back here and I'll represent you for free.

Good luck, don't break your word to yourself, and keep that $400 in your wallet.

 

[HelpPlease555]

Live and learn.

Yes, avoid that store and any of its sister stores for at least five years.

If you get sued, as likely as me (a man & US citizen) ever becoming Queen of England, come back here and I'll represent you for free.

Good luck, don't break your word to yourself, and keep that $400 in your wallet.

Again, thanks for the quick response. I was seriously about to pay up in the morning. Just out of curiosity, what's the difference between a restitution and demand? I was really scared about it.

 

[HelpPlease555]

Live and learn.

Yes, avoid that store and any of its sister stores for at least five years.

If you get sued, as likely as me (a man & US citizen) ever becoming Queen of England, come back here and I'll represent you for free.

Good luck, don't break your word to yourself, and keep that $400 in your wallet.

Also, I am not worried about being sued, I am worried about criminal charges popping up because I never paid them the 30 dollars that I owe, or the 400 dollars they asked me to pay in restitution.

Regardless, thank you for your help, again!

 

[adjusterjack]

I am worried about criminal charges popping up because I never paid them the 30 dollars that I owe,

Whether you pay the $32 or not has nothing to do with whether you get criminally prosecuted. You still committed the crime and the statute of limitations for a misdemeanor charge in Texas is 2 years. You can still be charged, although the possibility is a bit remote at this point.

You're just going to have to sweat out your stupidity.

 

[HelpPlease555]

You're just going to have to sweat out your stupidity.

I like that. Thank you. Though can you please explain to me the question between civil demand and civil restitution? I can't find anything online and the only articles are about criminal restitution, which scared me.

 

[army judge]

Again, thanks for the quick response. I was seriously about to pay up in the morning. Just out of curiosity, what's the difference between a restitution and demand? I was really scared about it.

Semantics.

The term RESTITUTION isn't used in the statute.
Again, to me it's to intimidate you, to guilt you into paying something you need not pay.

The law uses the term "civil demand".
The fact the scammer used "civil restitution" reveals its a scam.

Retailers already have the right to sue shoplifters just as any of us can do, if we've suffered a civil wrong, tort.

Retailers got dumb ass legislators to carve out this little $400 scam, to avoid them going to court and collecting $10, $30 for the trinkets someone boosted. However, if the junk is recovered when the thief is apprehended, there is no loss, which is why you'd win if you we're sued.

That's EXACTLY why not one ALLEGED shoplifter has been sued in the republic of Texas.

You suffered aplenty, you lost your job.
Now some scamming lawyer demands $400 for what, exactly?

You haven't been arrested, and you won't be arrested, that ship sailed.
So why do you owe anyone $1.00, much less $400?
Think, don't be bamboozled by slick, shyster, scammers.


This Texas lawyer explains it further:

civil demand for theft payment | Criminal Defense Lawyer | DWI, Drug, Theft & Assault Charges

 

[army judge]

Also, I am not worried about being sued, I am worried about criminal charges popping up because I never paid them the 30 dollars that I owe, or the 400 dollars they asked me to pay in restitution.

Regardless, thank you for your help, again!

You'll never be charged criminally in Harris County, or any of the 254 counties across Texas for a crime ALLEGEDLY committed SIX months ago.

The police weren't called then, there's nothing to report today or tomorrow.

I assure you that ship sailed for ports unknown six months ago, because you know nothing about some alleged theft by some unknown suspect.

If you do get charged, which you won't, how could the store prove anything?

If you're stupid enough to say, "Yeah, I stole that junk." You deserve to get arrested. But, relax, you'll never have to say anything because YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

Even if someone admitted to something six months ago, HR people, managers r supervisors, or store security guards aren't sworn law enforcement officers, and their allegations are just words.

Let it go, keep the $400 you need, get or keep the new job, live and learn, and DON'T DO STUPID STUFF.

 

[shrinkmaster]

I am a Retail Theft consultant and answer questions like yours daily. I advise all clients to pay Civil Demand even though risk of law suit is low. there are other possible consequences as well that could impact you for years! I suggest you look at links below before making any decision and then decide if risks are worth it.
A recent writing of mine - Parent Nook Forums

Civil Recovery

 

[mightymoose]

If you continue to ignore their letters they will eventually go away. Their hope is that you will be scared into paying. They can demand all they want but you have no legal obligation to pay regardless of any promises you might have made.
Criminal charges are extremely unlikely. Most prosecutors would tend to defer this to civil court, especially after the agreement was made, and despite your not paying.
These matters are so petty nobody wants to spend any time on them.

 

[4Justice_MD]

I am a Retail Theft consultant and answer questions like yours daily. I advise all clients to pay Civil Demand even though risk of law suit is low. there are other possible consequences as well that could impact you for years! I suggest you look at links below before making any decision and then decide if risks are worth it.
A recent writing of mine - Parent Nook Forums

Civil Recovery

I know as a Retail Consultant,you think you are doing good by trying to advance the cause of state laws that permit Retailers to "legally extort" money out of a scared,ignorant public who think they have no choice but to "payup,"or face a criminal prosecution for their theft.
But what you,as do many others,fail to understand,is that there is a very good reason why such laws exist,and if you think,it has anything to do with "Justice,"such as the government helping you make the "bad guy" pay for his crime,you need to think again.
Civil Demand,state laws are about,passing the buck,freeing up the "always,""over crowded" court dockets,and using the Retailers as an scapegoat to achieve those ends.Let me explain.
Misdemeanors are by far the most arrested,and charged offenses.Larceny-Thefts,including,Shoplifting,and weather felony or misdemeanor(most are misdemeanor,)still outpace all other crimes committed.
By passing a Civil Demand Law,the hopes of the government is that once you have caught a shoplifter,after detaining and getting all their personal information,you will focus your attention on pursuing them "civilly" by sending them these letters demanding that they pay x-amount of money or face the possibility of being prosecuted criminally.Assuming,that most people will be scared through their ignorance of the law that they will be arrested and go to jail,they will pay up to avoid prosecution,and your wallets are a bit much fatter,while the court case load is a bit much lighter,so it's a win-win for everyone.No arrests,and no prosecution means the courts are saving time and money and moving on to more serious criminal offenses/criminals,at least that's the plan.
The problem is,when your legal attempts to extort this outrageous amount of money out of people fail,and you didn't have them arrested after they were caught,you decide,it's not worth spending more time and money to sue them,and there's no "profit" for you,to finally have them arrested,you reason that,you got your property back,and you have their personal information in case they ever come back,so you end up dropping it,and the state's law has served it's purpose.
Now perhaps you should reflect on that,besides the fact,that no one is breaking any laws by ignoring or refusing to pay the amount being demanded.The best deterrent is what it has always been,criminal prosecution,not demanding money from people who can't or won't pay.
In the end,weather you get your "demand money," is of no consequence to the Criminal Justice System,but they do get benefit from having a much lighter case load involving thefts by shoplifting.

 

[shrinkmaster]

A recent writing of mine - Parent Nook Forums


Civil Recovery

 

[4Justice_MD]

Now is that the best you can do,repost your former post with nothing added.

 

[shrinkmaster]

Yes because it answers those issues.

 

[4Justice_MD]

Yes because it answers those issues.

yes,but you have been proven wrong repeatedly both here and other threads on this issue about the effect the law has on these Offenders,with regards to what they are "legally" required to do,which is ignore it,and do nothing.
Furthermore,as people continue to become more informed,that there's no legal obligation for them to pay the civil demand,the "fear element,"that the law promotes,loses it's effect.Forums like this,is just proof,that people will ask questions,and get the 'correct" information they need.
People in business,have to realize,that thieves will attempt to steal their merchandise,and have the best security they can afford.It's just another "cost of doing business."

 

[shrinkmaster]

If you have read these other threads then you know my response. the risk is low but there is possible negative consequences. You may advise person to ignore "civil" law and the retailer and/or recovery service can use legal means to seek these funds if they so choose. I advise person to pay you may not not and they can assume the risks and possible consequences. This very site has had a person who bank account was attached due to this.

 

[4Justice_MD]

It's not the fear of being sued,which would have to be done in order to collect anything.People in this situation biggest fear is being criminally prosecuted,and unless you can show me Statistics,I'd being willing to bet,that percentage is in the single digits.
Also,if "suit" were to follow the civil demand,a Judge is going to take in consideration a person's financial situation,and if their unemployed,only work part time,on disability income or just have limited assets,the Judge will only order them to pay a very small amount,if anything at all.
You should also understand that some people are what is known as "Judgement Proof,"meaning,whatever income or resources they do have just meets their bare necessities,and they have no assets of value,so the chances of a Retailer actually collecting any awarded judgement may not be realized unless/until the Offender wins the lottery,if ever.
Once again,the law was made to benefit the Government,not Merchants.I guess ,it never dawned on you that if these people stole in the first place,they weren't exactly sitting on a "goldmine."