Ghost Employee

Paulyman

My wife found out last week that she has been paid by her last company despite not working there since she stopped working there in July. It is a big corporation who make far too much money for their own good and this has happened before she believes.

She really dislikes her new job and wants to take some time out. She figures that if the company keeps paying for another month or two why not. I agree with that. If it was caught we can pay the money back over a certain amount of time. It is not her fault despite being a kind of fraud. After reading about it is called "Ghost employee" Has anybody come across a similar kind of case beforehand?

Purple Mountain

Maybe they pay a month in arrears?

This isn't a made up story to rouse up some mild outrage at all.

topnotch

Hope the Judge agrees with ya, but somehow i doubt it.:rolleyes:

uck51js9zml2yt

Paulyman wrote: »

My wife found out last week that she has been paid by her last company despite not working there since she stopped working there in July. It is a big corporation who make far too much money for their own good and this has happened before she believes.

She really dislikes her new job and wants to take some time out. She figures that if the company keeps paying for another month or two why not. I agree with that. If it was caught we can pay the money back over a certain amount of time. It is not her fault despite being a kind of fraud. After reading about it is called "Ghost employee" Has anybody come across a similar kind of case beforehand?

You are quiet right.
Call the company and clear it up.

Purple Mountain

How is it a fraud?
It could simply be a payroll error.
Doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory.

_Brian

It’s fraud because your taking the money knowing well it’s not owed at all, taking something knowing it doesn’t belong to you is more theft than fraud..

Yes you will have to pay back the money when it’s found out.

artanevilla

Purple Mountain wrote: »

How is it a fraud?
It could simply be a payroll error.
Doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory.

Fraud in the side of OP.

Haithabu

Paulyman wrote: »

My wife found out last week that she has been paid by her last company despite not working there since she stopped working there in July. It is a big corporation who make far too much money for their own good and this has happened before she believes.

She really dislikes her new job and wants to take some time out. She figures that if the company keeps paying for another month or two why not. I agree with that. If it was caught we can pay the money back over a certain amount of time. It is not her fault despite being a kind of fraud. After reading about it is called "Ghost employee" Has anybody come across a similar kind of case beforehand?

What do you mean with "you agree"? You agree it's ok to take one or two months pay despite not being entitled to it?

Imagine you and your wife go to the cinema tomorrow and she forgets her coat there. Do you think it's ok if some other lady takes it home if that person's husband agrees?

screamer

There will also be tax implications for the money paid out to her and much as we'd all like free money, this isn't free money and it's not hers either. Call the company and clear it up.

mordeith

So she leaves company A to take up a new position with B. Then 'Oh, I don't like this new job but I'll keep taking money from the company I left. I also want to take time off to consider my misfortune while continuing to receive two salaries'. Charming.

Glass fused light

She will want a reference from her former employer, being dishonest in this was tends to have internal blow back on her ex-manager and HR both of whom are involved in the exit process. IMO its not a good long term plan.
If she is currently spending and can't repay immeditaly of at least before YE it will mess her taxes too.

mikeecho

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz9810Y7ZRw

VonZan

screamer wrote: »

There will also be tax implications for the money paid out to her and much as we'd all like free money, this isn't free money and it's not hers either. Call the company and clear it up.

There are no tax implications as long as the payment was processed through payroll. What will happen is if his wife tries to get welfare she'll have to produce a P45 which she won't have if her company are still paying her.

screamer

VonZan wrote: »

screamer wrote: »

There will also be tax implications for the money paid out to her and much as we'd all like free money, this isn't free money and it's not hers either. Call the company and clear it up.

There are no tax implications as long as the payment was processed through payroll. What will happen is if his wife tries to get welfare she'll have to produce a P45 which she won't have if her company are still paying her.

Course there will.... She is getting a standard rate cut off and tax credit applied to those wages that she is not entitled to and probably should be paying tax at higher rate. The revenue are gone very good at copping and balancing your earnings at the end of the year and carrying forward anything you owe them by reducing your tax credits and cut off point in the next.

Glass fused light

VonZan wrote: »

There are no tax implications as long as the payment was processed through payroll. What will happen is if his wife tries to get welfare she'll have to produce a P45 which she won't have if her company are still paying her.

If she is being paid in error by the old company and registered with revenue as a new employee with the new company it's likely that she has been given full allowances and tax band for both salaries and as a result could be underpaying tax when both are added together.

VonZan

screamer wrote: »

Course there will.... She is getting a standard rate cut off and tax credit applied to those wages that she is not entitled to and probably should be paying tax at higher rate. The revenue are gone very good at copping and balancing your earnings at the end of the year and carrying forward anything you owe them by reducing your tax credits and cut off point in the next.

No there wouldn't be an additional liability. If Revenue deem the monies owed to her to be taxable then they have taxed her already through her old employer. It's a moot point as the company can rightfully claim the money back anyway and the company will reclaim any payroll taxes paid.

She's not claiming benefits or in new employment since her old employer hasn't issued her a P45. All her taxes will be paid through her old employer. If any money she earned since ceasing employment from her old employer should be taxable at the higher rate then it will be as her employer already knows what rates she should be on.

If she starts a new employment without a P45 she will be taxed at the higher rate anyway as she will be on emergency tax until she has tax clearance which she won't since she doesn't have her P45. Let's not get silly.

Glass fused light

VonZan wrote: »

No there wouldn't be an additional liability. If Revenue deem the monies owed to her to be taxable then they have taxed her already through her old employer. It's a moot point as the company can rightfully claim the money back anyway and the company will reclaim any payroll taxes paid.

She's not claiming benefits or in new employment since her old employer hasn't issued her a P45. All her taxes will be paid through her old employer. If any money she earned since ceasing employment from her old employer should be taxable at the higher rate then it will be as her employer already knows what rates she should be on.

If she starts a new employment without a P45 she will be taxed at the higher rate anyway as she will be on emergency tax until she has tax clearance which she won't since she doesn't have her P45. Let's not get silly.

Err.. No.
Even without a P45, you get your new employers tax number phone revenue with your PPS no and tell them that you finished job A and want your tax band and credits allocated to job B. they zero out job A and allocate to job B they may not start the allocation mid month as they will assume that the old job has taken the band and credits but should have everything sorted for month 2. Or log on to ROS and self service.

KevRossi

If you can't afford to 'borrow' this money, then don't take it. The fact that you said you could pay this back over time, it seems to me that you can't afford it.

Ring them tomorrow and get them to stop paying you.

Jack Moore

Reference
I’d she will be needing one then this is a bad idea

If I was her manager and you rang for a reference and I knew she decide to pay back an overpayment in her own time

Well I’d tell anyone who asked “she owes us x euros”

CruelCoin

Paulyman wrote: »

ut. She figures that if the company keeps paying for another month or two why not.

"Shure look, i'll just lift this yoke from your house, and if you don't miss it, then shure whats de harm like"

It's theft, nothing short.

Steve F

Paulyman wrote: »

My wife found out last week that she has been paid by her last company despite not working there since she stopped working there in July. It is a big corporation who make far too much money for their own good and this has happened before she believes.

She really dislikes her new job and wants to take some time out. She figures that if the company keeps paying for another month or two why not. I agree with that. If it was caught we can pay the money back over a certain amount of time. It is not her fault despite being a kind of fraud. After reading about it is called "Ghost employee" Has anybody come across a similar kind of case beforehand?

In your heart of hearts I think you know what you are considering doing is wrong,no?
Ring them and get it cleared up.Best in the long run OP

Jim2007

Paulyman wrote: »

It is a big corporation who make far too much money for their own good and this has happened before she believes.

And this justifies it for you does it?

Paulyman wrote: »

If it was caught we can pay the money back over a certain amount of time.

Under the circumstances I doubt the company will agree to that, more likely they will require it paid in full immediately under threat of being reported for fraud.

Paulyman wrote: »

It is not her fault despite being a kind of fraud.

Oh it is definitely fraud and good luck trying to convince any judge that you were unaware of the cash arriving in your accounts.

Jim2007

Purple Mountain wrote: »

How is it a fraud?
It could simply be a payroll error.
Doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory.

On the OPs side it is most definitely fraud. There is no way you could explain to a judge that you were unaware of how or from where the cash was coming.

AmberGold

This happend to me before, left a company and they kept paying into my pension for 8 months or so after I left. I never even realised as I never check my pensions.

Of course I paid it all back as soon as the issue was raised.

On top of the hassle of all this the payroll clerk responsible nearly lost their job over it so these things do have fall out.