There is a curious case out of Brooklyn where William Powell, 27, fell into a habit of not charging for drinks for customers who could not afford it at his IHOP. The sodas added up to $3,000 to be specific and the owner was not pleased. Powell described himself as “the modern-day Robin Hood.” It would not be surprising if the owner fired Powell, but instead he called the police and now Powell is facing a grand larceny charge.
Store owner Akrell Cox became suspicious when he found Powell’s beverage sales were at six percent of the overall receipt compared to 17-20 percent for other employees who with the same shift and schedule. Cox then reviewed surveillance footage and saw that Powell not charging for sodas.
Powell insisted that “I am not stealing, I am serving the ones in need. I take from the rich and give to the poor.” His free soda policy lasted for six months. Police say that he was simply trying to “get bigger tips.” Perhaps, but is this really a criminal matter?
The state law defines larceny as “A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.”
Despite the spin on the tip angle, Powell was not pocketing the money or consuming the sodas. Many restaurants give waiters liberty in waiving such charges. Just as the practice may have benefitted Powell in tips, it also likely benefitted the restaurants in happy and repeat customers. A defense under the state law is “that the property was appropriated under a claim of a right made in good faith.”
Should this be a larceny charge?
Seriously, this is a debatable issue? The law is clear. He violated it. It is stealing to take what is not yours. It doesn’t matter whether he personally benefited or was doing it to be nice, or whether the patrons could afford those necessary sodas or not.
IF I read this correctly:
“A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.”
Does that mean, Mr. Powell (being the person) appropriated the property of another (soft drinks, owned by the IHOP owner) to be given to a third person (the ‘poor’ customers).
It would not have been theft if the transaction had occurred, but he effectively acted as their agent in stealing sodas for them. Does that not fit the state’s definition of larceny?
Steg writes, “he effectively acted as their agent in stealing sodas for them.”
“A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself or to a third person, he wrongfully takes, obtains or withholds such property from an owner thereof.”
You’re right. Thanks. I stand correct. So, was it grand larceny or separate counts of petty larceny?
Technically he can be charged. However, as Paul states, the owner is kind of shooting himself in the foot. The owner is punishing someone of the same income bracket as those forced to eat at IHop. If the owner was intelligent he/she would have either stopped the guy or quietly fired him. The guy is working for poverty wages and saw a way of making some extra tips. It kind of follows if a patron can’t afford a soda they probably won’t tip. Again, this is done at most restaurants for high rollers and frequent patrons. Nothing loosens the old wallet better than feeling special. On the other hand the water was contributing to our national shame of obesity; lock him up.
Darren writes, “My answer is Yes. He denied his employer a source of revenue and took the cost of the beverage.”
I’d have to disagree with you here. He may have denied his employer a source of revenue, but it’s too tenuous to believe he wrongfully took, obtained, or withheld the payment from its owner. For one thing, he never had possession of the payment and because of this the owner of the payment was the customer, not the owner of the IHOP.
It’s a civil matter, but unless the video evidence shows what was ordered and put on the table, it’ll be a pretty difficult case making the employer whole again. I’d fire the fellow, and let it go as a cost of doing business.
The owner gave Mr. Powell access to the soda fountain – doesn’t that argue “conversion” (a civil charge) rather than “theft” (a criminal charge?
You’re right phillyT, he and many other progressive Republicans and Democrats have no problem redistributing other people’s wealth.
I think it is 1500 cases of petit larceny. And he can make the claim he did more in good will for his employer than he lost on the sodas.
Olly is right. It appears that it might be working for Trump who has walked away from literally billions of dollars owed to others. He is the perfect Republican.
phillyT brings up a very good point. This man should have waited until he climbed the ladder into the political class because then giving away other people’s money could get you elected President.
Steal a few hundred or a few thousand from your employer and you will probably do time. Launder money for a drug cartel or the Iranian government, or sell worthless mortgage backed securities and your company might pay a fine but no one ever goes to jail. SSDD. Move on.
Ridiculous. People who misappropriate funds from the employer, for example, when said misappropriation transpires over a period of time, don’t have that theft broken down by the day or the week, into multiple segments, even though that is, in fact, the manner in which the crime occurred. There is a loss. An aggregate loss. Not a series of them.
What part of the law allows them to aggregate his theft? Seems to me he faces maybe 1500 charges of steeling a dollar or two at most – much less if the charge is based on actual cost. What is the sentencing guideline for theft under 99 cents?
The case is complicated by the fact that any goodwill he gains toward tips also redounds to the business as good will and increased business.
Fire the guy and move on – or promote him to VP Marketing.
My answer is Yes. He denied his employer a source of revenue and took the cost of the beverage.
My experience with thieves is that they usually come up with excuses, often where they are trying to do some good or that they are sorry–hoping they will be given another chance to steal. Once a thief, always a thief. I never gave breaks on thieves over twelve years of age. It didn’t matter if it was a minor shoplifting or an embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars or who they were or what they did for a living. They received the same treatment; arrest or citation.
I’m not buying his Robin Hood excuse. The most likely explanation is he wanted to earn more in tips. If he wanted to discount or give away free drinks he should have sought the approval of a supervisor or management. The drinks were not his to give away.
He’s the Snowden of soda.
Renegade
Far from expressing vehemence, perhaps you simply fail to grasp or appreciate the gravity of having an employee give away $3,000 worth of product? Are you incapable of wrapping your head around that? Have you ever owned a store, yourself? It doesn’t appear as though you have, so, imagine, if you will, that one of your employees, without your express consent, is handing out your hard-earned and acquired merchandise for free, so that he, himself, can personally benefit from that action. Now, imagine, that $3,000 worth of product has been distributed, without your consent or compensation, and that said financial shortage has resulted in you not being able to pay your bills. Only shortsighted people are incapable of comprehending the snowball effect that these seemingly “harmless” actions can cause. What’s a few sodas? Well, the owner doesn’t sell Cadillacs, after all. He sells sodas. If you knew anything about the food business, you would comprehend the slim margins that these individuals work on and by which they survive.
I happened to go to my local Einstein’s Bagels the other day, and I was surprised by the new faces behind the counter. I questioned the manager regarding the sudden change in employees, and I got an earful. Thousands and thousands of dollars of meat, soup and other items were disappearing, out the back door. The employees were giving away the merchandise–stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I suppose you would claim that the manager was overly vehement for firing them.
Nice try.
Let’s face it–tables, filled with patrons, who are “wealthy enough” to choose to visit IHOP, of all places, for their meals, are not people who can’t afford to purchase a soda. Seriously. Let’s just be honest here. Powell wasn’t doing this out of a sense of charity–he wanted bigger tips, period, and his actions should be considered theft if, in fact, he never had the explicit permission of the owner to provide free drinks to patrons on a consistent and regular basis. Of course, on occasion, the food in restaurants is comped, but this is a rarity–these businesses work on such slim margins that it would be impossible to do this on a regular basis and still survive. This was, obviously, a frequent occurrence, where the owner’s property was being handed out, free of charge. Funny, how it’s always easy to give charity when that charity is not yours to give. This doesn’t sound like someone trying to emulate Robin Hood, unless, of course, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor included Powell, as the one qualifying as the poor, since he was the one who benefited from the free distribution of sodas in the form of larger tips.
Jeeezzuss Bam Bam, really? Do you even know the neighborhood? IHOPs are not gourmet establishments. Pancakes are one of the highest margin foods. So are soft drinks. That’s one possible reason why the owner is unhappy. I’m not sure if the charge will stand when the cost of materials is computed. Not sure if the owner really wants that data “out there.” Is the worth of the drinks determined by the menu or the cost of materials and what ever labor!
Now did the man break the law if the facts as presented are true…yep. He was also less that wise by talking as he did.
My surprise was the vehemence you expressed. Had a bad day??
Never, ever, EVER give an explanation, reason, justification or any response more than ” I understand that you are angry (pissed, sad, whatever) but I really can’t speak to this right now.”
Do they calculate the damages at cost or at retail??? Because there is a big difference!
Doing the math here at 18% cost, which is high, the actual loss was $540.00 max. (18% x $3,000.00 = $540.00)
His lawyer needs to look into this because theft felonies vs. misdemeanors is usually math based. Over a certain amount is a felony, and under a misdemeanor. Not to mention the cost of any restitution. Lost sales or revenues, are not usually felonies.
There are other angles to this.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Giving away sodas is not exactly the same as feeding the poor. Giving away your employer’s property to increase your own tips is pretty questionable behavior. Larceny? Maybe not, but firing for cause (no unemployment) is certainly called for.
No larceny. Nothing went into his pockets. The news will be bad for the store. The public will say screw these dorks. I would represent the defendant here for free. At the jury trial I would pass out free sodas during the break– to the jurors.