It's probably legally the correct call to not criminalize this: they didn't have the intent to deprive her of her property without legal justification. Think r

It's probably legally the correct call to not criminalize this: they didn't have the intent to deprive her of her property without legal justification. Think really, really hard whether you actually want to read intent out of the elements of the crime of theft, because if you do, many routine business mishaps will be punishable by jail time. She has a fairly straightforward remedy: hire a lawyer, send an "intent to sue" letter. They'll settle for somewhere between $25k and $50k, on the spot. (n.b. While I don't have any special knowledge of the operations of this bank in particular, I think suing the bank or threatening it would actually make it easier for the bank. The firm which repo'd her property is likely a contractor of the bank, rather than it being actual bank employees. They probably have a) professional liability insurance and b) a contract with the bank which indemnifies the bank against losses caused by failures in professionalism. A lawsuit or the threat of one gets the ball moving on the risk minimization machinery where a conversation with a PR-oblivious bank manager does not. The conversation goes like this: Bank to contractor: "You just got us sued. Do you intend to fight this?" Contractor to insurance company: "Should we fight this?" Insurance company: "Are you kidding? You'll lose. You're authorized to offer up to $50k. If you need higher, we need to be in the room." Contractor to bank: "Uh we think we're good for $50k on this." Bank to customer: "So sorry about that, counselor. As a gesture of good will, we're prepared to offer $50k -- over twice the assessed value -- for immediate resolution of this, a release, and a non-disparagement agreement.")