Kennison v. Daire case brief summary
§ Before the offense, the Appellant had closed his account, withdrawing all the money, but had not returned the card.
§ While the machine was offline, he withdrew $200 from the ATM (it was programed, while offline, to allow up to a $200 withdrawal from anyone with a card and a PIN)
§ It is without a doubt that the appellant acted fraudulently with intent to permanently deprive the bank of the $200.
§ Did the bank, through the ATM, consent to the taking? [No]
o Court’s Reasoning:
· programing does not mean consent
· The machine could not give the bank’s consent in fact and there is no principle of law that requires it to be treated as though it were a person with authority to decide and consent.
· Rather, the proper inference to be drawn from the facts is that the bank consented to the withdrawal of up to $200 by a card holder who presented his card and supplied his PIN, only if the card holder had an account which was current.
The conditions of use of the card supplied by the bank to its customers support the conclusion that no such inference can be drawn.