Xu Ting could not believe his luck when he discovered the generous ATM in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province, in April 2006. For every 1,000 yuan ($137) the migrant worker withdrew from the machine, he noticed that his bank account was only debited by 1 yuan ($0.14). Xu knew it was wrong, but failed to inform the authorities of his repeated windfall and pocketed the cash. In the process he amassed a small fortune.

Amazingly Xu's cash cow phenomenon was only uncovered a year later after he inadvertently told a friend, who subsequently made his own withdrawals but later confessed to police. The friend got a year's jail time for his troubles. Xu panicked and went on the run.

According to the Guangzhou Municipal Intermediate Court, in nearly eight months Xu withdrew 175,000 yuan ($23,980) in 171 transactions through this malfunctioning ATM. He was arrested a year later, charged and sentenced to life imprisonment for larceny. The judgment, however, has sparked an outcry from the public.

The ruling came pursuant to Article 264 of the Criminal Law, which stipulates that those stealing extraordinarily large amounts of money from financial institutions are to be given a life sentence or sentenced to death, in addition to the confiscation of property, said the court. According to a judicial interpretation made by the Supreme People's Court, cases involving 30,000 yuan ($4,110)-100,000 yuan ($13,700) or more will be regarded as stealing an extraordinarily large amount of money. The ATM, from which Xu stole, essentially represents a financial institution, and so the court ruled Xu's case as burglary and gave him a sentence of life in jail.

When the judgment was released, it caught the public's imagination. Many netizens felt the sentence was unfair and far too harsh. Most of them argued that the malfunctioning ATM made it possible for anyone to commit a crime. Xu's behavior was not stealing, but should only be defined as acquiring profits improperly and without a lawful basis. His actions should come under the lesser charge of embezzlement, a civil, rather than a criminal liability. Even though he was guilty of theft, a sentence of life imprisonment and the confiscation of all his property seem too tough. A number of citizens believed that the bank should also take on due responsibilities since it was proved that a computer glitch hit the ATM system, which made it possible for Xu to "earn" his unexpected payouts.

Interestingly, almost 50 percent of the correspondents of an online survey said they would take advantage of the ATM's malfunction, while another 70 percent said they would report the problem to the bank or police.

Comparisons are made between Xu and corrupt high-ranking officials. They misappropriate millions of yuan, but receive lighter sentences. With the current focus on this case, it is hard to predict what will develop and what Xu's eventual destiny will be.

Too Harsh

Wang Qing (hlj.rednet.cn): Theft is an action a person takes in secret. However, in this case, Xu withdrew the money with his own bank card in public. He didn't acquire the funds secretly. When Xu withdrew the cash, the machine recognized his identity.

Measuring a crime should largely be based on an assessment of its social impacts. Xu's illegal profits have caused economic losses to the bank, but they did little damage to society. Nevertheless, the bank's negligence should also be factored in. Without a malfunctioning ATM system, Xu would have been unable to take the money. Xu's actions should be defined from a civil, rather than criminal perspective.

Tang Guangcheng (The Beijing News): ATMs act as agents between banks and clients for cash payments. Sometimes, just as a cashier will pay extra money to customers by mistake, an ATM can also have problems. Though Xu acquired illegal money from the malfunctioning ATM, he did not take any illegal measures, such as counterfeiting credit cards or robbing the ATM, indicating that his life sentence is too harsh.

From the legal perspective, the bank had lost control of its cash in the ATM after the machine crashed; any customer could have found this error and benefited from it as Xu did. Under China's current criminal laws, if one refuses to hand back property taken without consent and belonging to another, it is classified as embezzlement.

More importantly, Xu had offered to return the extra money he improperly acquired before he was caught, but the bank's failure to give him a positive response eventually forced him to give up.

Liao Dekai (www.cnhubei.com): The crimes of embezzlement and larceny are fundamentally different in ways of acquiring something, since the latter is often defined as acquiring by illegal means, and the former is to acquire property through a way that looks legal. ATMs belong to banks and should be their responsibility if they do not function properly. Xu, as a client, used his certified identity and withdrew money through lawful means. Despite his bad motives, he did nothing illegal in the procedure of his withdrawals.

Therefore, Xu should not be sentenced to life in prison due to a malfunctioning machine. If he had no intention of committing fraud or escaping, his behavior should only be defined as acquiring profits inappropriately.

Yang Tao (www.jxcn.cn): It is true that the crime of theft is to be severely punished if it involves extraordinarily large amount of money, and 175,000 yuan is really a big sum given the stipulations in present laws. But the Criminal Law that warrants Xu's life imprisonment was enacted in 1997, and it could be deemed to be outdated as China's economic life has profoundly changed through years.

The criterion of measuring of crime has not unified yet. In 2004, four college students in Harbin, Heilongjiang Province, were convicted of illegally transferring 530,000 ($72,600) from several depository branches of a local commercial bank to their bank accounts. The principal criminal, however, was given a jail term of 15 years, far less than Xu's.

It is stipulated that, if those who suffered from the losses did so through their own errors, the accused may face lesser charges for civil liability. So it is with criminal cases. Sentenced to life for unexpectedly discovering a malfunctioning ATM and enticed into committing a crime is too harsh a sentence for Xu.

Theft is theft

Wang Zhixiang (www.hexun.com): The crime of larceny against a financial institution was clearly defined by the Supreme People's Court in a judicial interpretation released in November 1997. It said the property of financial institutions consists of operational capital and securities, including deposit funds, bonds and other equity and cash settlement. The ATM is part of the bank. The money in the ATM belongs to the bank. To steal from the bank means to steal the property of the bank, no matter where it is stored: a cash depot or an ATM.

In a move to enhance the safety of financial institutions, the 1997 amendment to the Criminal Law adopted the implementation of the death penalty for those committing severe crimes or involved in stealing large amounts of money from banks.

Another judicial interpretation of the Supreme People's Court, published in March 1998, clarifies the criterion for large theft amounts from banks at 30,000 yuan-100,000 yuan or above. The range was defined given the gaps in economic development levels and people's income in different areas. As for Xu, the amount of the money he stole far exceeded the ceiling value. As such a huge theft deserves either life imprisonment or capital punishment according to the current Criminal Law, the court actually had given a lesser penalty to Xu.

Li Kejie (Procuratorial Daily): Xu's criminal facts can be identified in two totally different stages.

During the first ATM withdrawal when he unexpectedly discovered the mistake at the machine, his behavior can only be described as a civil misdemeanor. Xu could have been freed from prosecution if he had returned the extra cash immediately.

But after he deliberately took cash on an ongoing basis and told his friend to make several transactions for the purpose of stealing money, followed by remaining on the run for a year, he became a criminal.

Gao Yifei (The Beijing News): Some legal professionals argued that Xu's withdrawals were no secret to the bank because of the transaction records he left; thus, he did not commit a crime of larceny. But when Xu acquired the illegal money, the bank was unaware of what was happening, and the records he left could only be used to trace him or as proof for prosecution. Given this, Xu's behavior fully conforms to the legal definition of theft.