Legal Question in Civil Litigation in Virginia

Boy of 17 robbed a bank, and bank did not tell parents.

My son of 17 and another 17 yr old robbed a bank.Did not get caught for a few days.Bank calls other boy's parents but does not notify me.The banks tells the boys they have x amount of time to pay back the money or they will go to police, this happens twice.The boys not wanting to get trouble try to come up with the money, no luck the leagl way.They get the bright idea to rob another place to pay the bank.That failed.By this 4 boys are involed.Things went from bad to horriable.The other 17 yr old ended up dead.Is the bank responsible in any way for not notifying myself.I know I could have stopped the snowball affect which occurred with the banks pressure to retrieve the money.

help Please


Asked on 8/26/00, 12:02 pm

2 Answers from Attorneys

Daniel Hawes Hawes & Associates

Re: Boy of 17 robbed a bank, and bank did not tell parents.

I think the bank is responsible. To understand why, you need to know what the difference is between the criminal and civil justice systems. In a criminal case, the victim/plaintiff is the State. The nature of a "crime" is an offense against the dignity of the sovereign, for which the sovereign can bring an action in its own name. The person who was injured, robbed, or whose house was burned down is merely a witness in a criminal case. That person isn't there to protect his own interests, but those of the State. Contrast this with a civil case, in which the victim/plaintiff is suing to recover money to compensate him for the wrong committed. Most offensive acts are the basis of both criminal and civil cases. So, in this case, what did the bank do that was wrong? It attempted to obtain money through threats, force, or intimidation - that's a crime in and of itself, called "extortion". If one has knowledge of a crime committed, one has a duty to report it to a magistrate or the police; it is wrongful to use the information to strong-arm another citizen. The fact that the boys legally owed the return of the money to the bank is not justification for the bank's extortion. In my opinion, the bank had reason to know it was dealing with minors, people who were likely to do something less than reasonable, so they took responsibility for whatever the kids did. In my opinion, the bank is also liable to whomever was also robbed.

Read more
Answered on 10/02/00, 7:48 am
Daniel Press Chung & Press, P.C.

Re: Boy of 17 robbed a bank, and bank did not tell parents.

I hate to disagree with Dan Hawes, but I will here. The bank is not liable because it had no civil duty not to ask for the money back; the existence of the crime of extortion would not create such a duty (this was not extortion in any event because it was indisputably the bank's money and there was no threat of prosecution, but rather an offer not to report it if the money were returned); and robbing another bank is not a foreseeable consequence of asking for one's money back. These kids were felons, and while I am sorry for your loss, they knew the risk they were taking.

Read more
Answered on 10/02/00, 10:13 am


Related Questions & Answers

More General Civil Litigation questions and answers in Virginia