(2) Commits theft of property lost, mislaid or delivered by mistake as provided in ORS 164.065;

64.005 Definitions. As used in chapter 743, Oregon Laws 1971, unless the context requires otherwise:
      (1) “Appropriate property of another to oneself or a third person” or “appropriate” means to:
      (a) Exercise control over property of another, or to aid a third person to exercise control over property of another, permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances as to acquire the major portion of the economic value or benefit of such property; or
      (b) Dispose of the property of another for the benefit of oneself or a third person.
      (2) “Deprive another of property” or “deprive” means to:
      (a) Withhold property of another or cause property of another to be withheld from that person permanently or for so extended a period or under such circumstances that the major portion of its economic value or benefit is lost to that person; or
      (b) Dispose of the property in such manner or under such circumstances as to render it unlikely that an owner will recover such property.
      (3) “Obtain” includes, but is not limited to, the bringing about of a transfer or purported transfer of property or of a legal interest therein, whether to the obtainer or another.
      (4) “Owner of property taken, obtained or withheld” or “owner” means any person who has a right to possession thereof superior to that of the taker, obtainer or withholder.
      (5) “Property” means any article, substance or thing of value, including, but not limited to, money, tangible and intangible personal property, real property, choses-in-action, evidence of debt or of contract. [1971 c.743 §121]

Section 76. Delivered By Mistake.
Where the owner of money or property delivers it to another by mistake and that person, knowing the mistake at the time he receives it, conceals the mistake intending at the time to appropriate it to his own use, he is guilty of larceny. Thus for example, when a bank by mistake handed the accused five hundred dollars more than his check called for, and the accused at the time he received the money
"Johnson vs. People, 113 111., 103. Hughes, Cr. Law, Sec. 402.
Section 77. Finding Goods And Appropriating.
So if one finds the goods of the owner in the highway or elsewhere, containing marks which identify the owner, and the one finding them converts the same to his own use with criminal intent, he is guilty of larceny; but otherwise if there be no marks to identify the owner.29
Section 80. Value Of The Property Taken.
The article or thing taken must be of some value to make it the subject of larceny and the value must be alleged and proven. It is especially necessary to prove the value of the property stolen for the purpose of determining whether the offense is grand or petit larceny; for grand larceny is a felony and petit larceny a misdemeanor.
But the value of several articles stolen at different times by distinct acts, although from the same person, cannot be added together to make the offense grand larceny.34
The value of an article or thing is its market value, and not what it may be worth to the owner.

A treatise on the law of crimes, Volume 2 By William Lawrence Clark, William Lawrence Marshall[/i]
In several cases, for example, it has been held that, when money or property is delivered to a person by mistake, the taking is not complete, and he does not acquire possession, until he discovers the mistake, and that he is guilty of larceny if he then forms and carries out an intent to appropriate the property or money to his own use. Reg. v. Ashwell, 16 Cox, C. C. 1, Beale's Cas. 566; State v. Ducker, S Or. 394.  

The wrongful appropriation of property mistakenly delivered appears to have been considered larceny at common 565*565 law only if, upon receipt, the recipient knew that it was mistakenly delivered and at that time formed the intent to keep it.[5] However, State v. Olds, 39 Wn.2d 258, 235 P.2d 165 (1951) and State v. Heyes, 44 Wn.2d 579, 269 P.2d 577 (1954), construing Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2601(4) (the statutory forerunner of RCW 9A.56.020(1)(c)), distinguished this statutory offense from common law larceny.[6] In State v. Olds, supra, the court expressly held that, in order to sustain a conviction under Rem. Rev. Stat. § 2601(4), no evidence of original felonious intent was necessary. One noted authority interpreted State v. Olds, supra, as holding that Washington's statutory offense of wrongfully appropriating misdelivered property is distinguishable from common law larceny:

The wrongful withholding of property delivered by mistake, with knowledge of the mistake acquired subsequent to the receipt, may be punishable by statute under the name of larceny, but it is an offense distinct from common law larceny.
(Italics ours.) R. Perkins, Criminal Law 254 n. 76 (2d ed. 1969).

[2] Thus, the common law of larceny required proof that the defendant's intent to steal concurred with his mistaken receipt of the property,[7] whereas, under RCW 9A.56.020(1)(c) 566*566 the "intent to deprive" must exist at the time of the appropriation. In the case at bench, Woll was charged with having committed the crime on or about April 18, 1979. Thus, under the charge and under the trial court's instruction, the prosecution had to prove defendant's intent on the date he transferred the funds — not the date or dates on which he subsequently spent the money. Under Washington law, "[t]he gravamen of the offense is the appropriation of the property after having received it". (Italics ours.) State v. Heyes, 44 Wn.2d at 588.

If the bank credits your account by mistake and you withdraw the funds they will come after you. This is probably the same thing.

On the other side of the coin why was this code tested on a live site and not testnet coins ?