[Publius Valerius]

In terms of the theft, sure, you take the money and put it back, you still committed the larceny,” he said. “By giving the money back, you have mitigated in large measure what the sentence might be, but you are still technically guilty of the offense.”

This struck me as particularly dumb, and I wonder if this prosecutor is equally dumb or if he's never seen the movie--or, perhaps, New York has an odd larceny law.

But at common law, larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the previous possessor thereof. What Bailey did in the movie wasn't larceny; he didn't have any intent to steal the money. The money was lost; it wasn't stolen. There might be some sort of banking laws that he violated, but it's not larceny.

[Sherman Logan]

In the movie there was no claim that the money was stolen.

There was a discrepancy in the books. With the money returned, the discrepancy was accounted for and the problem went away.

Maybe George found the money on the Clintons’ dining room table.

[7thson]

I have to disagree with you up to a point. The money was lost by George and his uncle. It was stolen by Old Man Potter. It should be he prosecueted for larceny. To be truly lost would be if the uncle dropped it in the sewer or something like that and nobody got a hold of it. Other than that, I agree with you.