it heavily depends on exactly was the policy - if it is a card where each day seven dollars has been added and after it they don't care how you've spend them - it's one thing.

Is it theft if you are un-aware of the situation? But yes, he should pay back any monies spent that were added after his termination date.

@PeterM it is still theft. The second he stopped working for the company he should have stopped using the card. Every time he used the card after that, it was theft because he did not work for the company.

@PeterM The money that is still in the card the exact moment he left is still usuable, since it is money that was earned while he was working.

@PeterM He was given the card while employed. The intent was to buy meals while employed. They gave it to him while he was entitled to it. He did not give it back. The hones will be on him to pay it or face the consequence of not paying it back.

In my eyes, its the companies fault if they don't stop adding money to the card. Its pretty much the same as the company dropped 7 dollars each day on his way and he picked it up. This could be seen as an accident, yet they were giving him the money voluntary

@XtremeBaumer, what matters isn't your opinion but what the law is and likely the law in most countries is on the side of the employer. It is the same if they accidentally continue your paycheck, that is not your money to spend and they are entitled to have it back.

@SaggingRufus: The money on the card was part of the payment for his job. You lose your job and still have $100 from your last paycheck in your pocket - you keep that money. You lose your job and still have $20 on your lunch card - that money is yours, you worked for it.

@HLGEM: Yes, you may have to pay it back (there are exceptions), but it is not a crime. He also didn't notice for quite a while.

@gnasher729 like wise, if they accidentally keep paying you, you have to pay it back.

@gnasher729, ignorance is not an excuse. Even if he was entitled to what was left (which is questionable given its purpose was to pay for lunches while employed), he knew that amount and the first time he spent over that amount, he stole money. If the bank accidentally credits your paycheck twice and you spend it, then you are stealing, it is the same concept. You spent what you should have known was not yours. You have to pay attention to this stuff or it gets you in trouble.

Ignorance is not an excuse for theft or fraud.

According to the OP, he was not required to return the card. The money left on the card was available for him to use them. How this is theft, I cannot understand.

He continued to use the card after spending what was left. That is clearly theft. He knew he was not entitled to more money on that card. No matter how you slice it, its theft.

You say he knew, I read as "I just realized". Now that he knows, he asked what is the correct thing to do. I don't see any intent to steal. I don't see how he knew that he had spent all what was left. Was the amount left on the card possible to find? The question is not clear about that.

Just because he failed to keep track is not an excuse. He knew he only had lets say $10 on the card. the minute he spent more than that he was stealing money.

And if the card had say $500 and he spent 510?

I think we're splitting hairs here between "theft" and "technically theft" at this point. In other words, legally wrong and ethically wrong. If you have $10 on the card and spend $1000, obviously that's theft; it's ethically and legally wrong. If you have $500 and spend $510, that's technically theft. It's legally wrong, but you've got a good case to argue it's not unethical (so it's unlikely you'd actually get in trouble), assuming you tell your employer. In both cases, knowing you've overspent and telling noone is unethical.

-1 - we are not the attorney office, neither the police. As much as we can't / shouldn't offer legal advice, we also can't / shouldn't accuse of a crime.

Nobody stole anything. The only entity at fault here is entirely the company. If it was me in this situation, i would be bringing a suit against the company for all the damages they have now caused me.

@HLGEM: Any crime that does not require intent to commit the crime is an abomination.

@HLGEM and others: Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Ignorance of facts is. If you spend money that you believed is yours, that's not theft. If you spend money that I left at your desk by mistake, thinking it's legal, that's theft. This one is not theft. He didn't take the money. It is not fraud. He didn't trick anyone into giving him the money. It's not misappropriation. This is not money that he was tasked to collect on behalf of his employer which he then kept. Theft requires intent.

@HLGEM: He just used a strategy that everyone uses with gift cards, for example. You just use it until someone tells you there's not enough money, then the card is empty, and you throw it away. No reason to keep track of the exact amount. And remember, the company lost the money anyway. Whether he spent it or not. He could have thrown away the card, and in ten years time the company figures out they paid €20,000 over 10 years and there's no way to get the money back.

This isn't a gift card. It is inconceivable to me that anyone who is adult would behave this way. It is truly theft no matter how you try to make excuses.

The real crime here is that nothing in the answer or the comments is likely to match up with what will likely be the outcome: OP will call his old company, both parties realize they made a mistake, OP pays them back for the difference and everybody gets on with their lives. Your dogged insistence that the OP is a criminal no matter what the circumstances diverges far enough from your usual even keel that it makes me want to ask if everything's okay.