Author Topic: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error  (Read 12816 times)

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4942
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #100 on: September 25, 2019, 11:31:16 AM »
Anyone arguing the situation is equally fair if you transfer money wrongly is not really the same. If you transfer money because you type the wrong account numbers, you are in really bad luck if you don't catch it ASAP and/or the other person isn't nice about it.

https://www.businesstoday.in/money/banking/what-if-you-transfer-money-to-a-wrong-bank-account/story/232449.html

There are tons of stories online about people who accidentally transfer money to the wrong account and can't get it back without legal action. It basically sucks. That situation is very different than the one here, where the bank has the ability to just undo their action regardless of impact on the people in question. As a bank customer, a similar mistake cannot be remotely as easily reversed.


That being said, I don't expect that a couple that spent $120k within 3 weeks of it showing up without bothering to say anything and did this afterwards would have cared at all about doing things the right way in any circumstance either:

Quote
Court papers show after the initial phone calls from the bank, the couple had no contact with bank representatives, despite several attempts by the bank to contact them.

I think in all cases, if I accidentally transfer $120k to someone, it is very unlikely they would be charged with felony theft in the process.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #101 on: September 25, 2019, 01:03:54 PM »
Apparently some people in this thread think that a mistake which allows you the opportunity to commit a crime is equally as culpable as the said crime.

Hope they never leave a loaded gun lying around by mistake. If someone shoots them with it they would only wish to apportion it 50/50 responsibility.

If I recall correctly only one commenter has stated that the responsibility should be equal. Most are simply saying that the bank carries some responsibility, which I agree with. And I don't think anyone has suggested that the couple didn't commit a crime, only that the punishment was irrational and that the steps taken by the bank were not in the bank's best interest if they want to get their money back.

Lol, this is the most angry I've made people on this forum outside of political discussions. It's kind of funny on my end when I'm not really passionate about what I'm saying, just sort of throwing out another perspective. It's really a good lesson for discussions and is reminding me of the importance of actually reading what people say not what I think they're saying and not what maybe one guy said and assuming everyone else thinks that way. It seems (and I may be wrong) that people are getting so angry because they're assuming everyone having any discussion are saying what the couple did was not a crime or that the bank was just as responsible as the couple.

I in no way approved of what they did or said it wasn't a crime. That doesn't mean the playing field is level though. It doesn't mean that people would have anywhere near the level of recourse that the banks have in fixing something, especially if they were the ones who had initially made the mistake like the bank did in this instance. The people in this story were so egregious that they got a thread on here and tons of internet commentary about them - of course they're ridiculous. It doesn't mean that we have to pretend like the bank has 0 responsibility for this. In less ridiculous situations, the uneven playing field would merit further discussion, but it does future conversations a disservice to imply that the bank has 0 responsibility here just because the couple were obviously significantly at fault.

No one's getting angry. It's a civil discussion. As for the fact that the bank can "fix" something (by paying out the funds that are stolen), no doubt it can, and no doubt in practical terms the bank is going to bear the brunt of the civil loss, but that doesn't detract from the criminality of the act. Nor does it matter that the playing field is "uneven". I am not sure why there is even a playing field here - the fact that you imply there is one means that you are trying to assign some sort of culpability apportionment when the bank has not stolen (or sought to steal) anything and it is the criminals who have stolen everything.

There are two different concepts - "responsibility" (in a causal sense) and "criminality" (in a culpability sense) - you can use different terms, but as I see it, both the bank and the criminals are responsible for the situation because the crime couldn't have happened without the inadvertent error. Only the criminals are culpable, because they are the only party to have willingly taken advantage of a situation with the intention of depriving the owner of the funds. When you use loose and enabling language like "the couple were obviously significantly at fault" and "uneven playing field" you are trying to excuse criminal responsibility, which is what I don't understand. What is the uneven playing field here?

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #102 on: September 26, 2019, 02:59:00 AM »
Taking/spending the money is straight up theft.
Spot the guy who works for banks. :p

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #103 on: September 26, 2019, 03:04:24 AM »
If you spend $100,000 that you know is not your money, you should expect felony charges.
What if you blow $700 billion?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/11/lehman-brothers-collapse-where-are-the-key-figures-now

Hmm, apparently then the government bails you out. I guess the couple just weren't thinking big enough! :D

netskyblue

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 630
  • Location: Midwest USA
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #104 on: September 26, 2019, 06:13:21 AM »
My take on this - the bank's mistake was 100% an error.  Somebody keyed in a wrong digit or something, shit happens.

The couple spending the money was 100% a deliberate decision on their part.  There can be no argument made that they thought they were entitled to this money, or they had "no way of knowing" where it came from or where it should go back to.  They knew, and they decided to do what they did regardless.

The bank is absolutely in the right to demand the money back.  HOWEVER.  Charging late/interest fees when they took their sweet time to figure out the error seems a bit shady to me.  And if it happened to me, I would absolutely demand that the bank pay me the interest I earn on my bank balance, for that full balance, for the length of time they had it sitting in my account.  THAT'S what their error should cost them.

Now, I might feel differently about the couple if it was say, a couple hundred dollars that they then spent not realizing it wasn't their couple hundred.  I'd be more inclined to believe they were ignorant of the situation if the amount could reasonably be argued to be something they might have thought was theirs.  (They should still be required to pay it back in a reasonable time frame, but perhaps not punished for the mistake of having spent it).

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #105 on: September 26, 2019, 09:22:38 AM »
"Shit happens" doesn't scale well.  It would work for $12 but not for $12x10^4.  No one says "shit happens" if an engineer misses a decimal place and a building collapses.

The bank has a duty of care, and was negligent.  Clerks should proofread their entries carefully when dealing with large sums.  That's within their responsibility and expertise.

These people were obstructionist when they avoided calls from the bank but the bank should liquidate the assets and eat some of the losses.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #106 on: September 26, 2019, 09:30:19 AM »
"Shit happens" doesn't scale well.  It would work for $12 but not for $12x10^4.  No one says "shit happens" if an engineer misses a decimal place and a building collapses.

The bank has a duty of care, and was negligent.  Clerks should proofread their entries carefully when dealing with large sums.  That's within their responsibility and expertise.

These people were obstructionist when they avoided calls from the bank but the bank should liquidate the assets and eat some of the losses.

If you dropped your wallet on the ground and somebody found it, complete with your full information on it, would you prefer they have the attitude of "too bad so sad, Wrenchturner has the duty of care to protect his wallet, was clearly negligent, everyone knows that holding on to your wallet is within your responsibility and duty of care, etc."? Would it make you feel any better if you were able to figure out the identity of the individual who found your wallet after a few days, and after you finally got a hold of him (because he wouldn't return your calls) you find he's spent your cash, maxed your credit cards, etc.? Would you be ok with going in halfsies on that debt?

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #107 on: September 26, 2019, 09:45:11 AM »
"Shit happens" doesn't scale well.  It would work for $12 but not for $12x10^4.  No one says "shit happens" if an engineer misses a decimal place and a building collapses.

The bank has a duty of care, and was negligent.  Clerks should proofread their entries carefully when dealing with large sums.  That's within their responsibility and expertise.

These people were obstructionist when they avoided calls from the bank but the bank should liquidate the assets and eat some of the losses.

If you dropped your wallet on the ground and somebody found it, complete with your full information on it, would you prefer they have the attitude of "too bad so sad, Wrenchturner has the duty of care to protect his wallet, was clearly negligent, everyone knows that holding on to your wallet is within your responsibility and duty of care, etc."? Would it make you feel any better if you were able to figure out the identity of the individual who found your wallet after a few days, and after you finally got a hold of him (because he wouldn't return your calls) you find he's spent your cash, maxed your credit cards, etc.? Would you be ok with going in halfsies on that debt?

Your analogy is faulty.  If money falls out of my wallet with no other context I consider it gone.
Banks operate for profit and their competence is part of the deal.
I also never said they should go halfsies.  I said the bank should eat half the loss.  I hope you're never my bank teller!

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #108 on: September 26, 2019, 10:29:32 AM »


No one's getting angry. It's a civil discussion. As for the fact that the bank can "fix" something (by paying out the funds that are stolen), no doubt it can, and no doubt in practical terms the bank is going to bear the brunt of the civil loss, but that doesn't detract from the criminality of the act. Nor does it matter that the playing field is "uneven". I am not sure why there is even a playing field here - the fact that you imply there is one means that you are trying to assign some sort of culpability apportionment when the bank has not stolen (or sought to steal) anything and it is the criminals who have stolen everything.

There are two different concepts - "responsibility" (in a causal sense) and "criminality" (in a culpability sense) - you can use different terms, but as I see it, both the bank and the criminals are responsible for the situation because the crime couldn't have happened without the inadvertent error. Only the criminals are culpable, because they are the only party to have willingly taken advantage of a situation with the intention of depriving the owner of the funds. When you use loose and enabling language like "the couple were obviously significantly at fault" and "uneven playing field" you are trying to excuse criminal responsibility, which is what I don't understand. What is the uneven playing field here?

It seemed like some were upset, but maybe not. However, Freedom certainly was - "[sorry -- that quote incensed me so much that I didn't read the following comments which make the same point]"

You're making some assumptions based on how you're seeing things versus what I'm saying in terms of playing field. Please look back at what I've said. No where did I say that the people weren't criminally responsible for their act. The comment of playing field is in regards to mistakes being made. The bank didn't steal the money so it's not a criminal act in that way per se, but there is also negligence in the legal sense, which you seem to be ignoring. The money came from somewhere and the bank was negligent with that money. That is legal responsibility, however you want to parse it.

It's not enabling language to assign fault where fault lies, and in pretty much everything in life, it's never just on one person. The couple was significantly at fault, but it is in no way equivocating to say that they couldn't have even done what they did without negligence from the bank. The bank screwed up.

The uneven playing field thing is why people aren't just jumping on the side of the bank like it seems that you are. The bank made the initial mistake. The uneven playing field is not just for this couple but for every Joe Schmo who uses a bank. When we make mistakes, as someone pointed out earlier, sometimes they reverse it and fix it and yay, that's great. But we have to go to them and jump through hoops and hope they'll fix it. When they make mistakes like this one, they hit the couple with overdraft fees tied to their initial mistake because they can. Because they have all of the leverage. Because they are the bank.

Banks can be nice and some are. The fact is, though, if a person had made a mistake of transferring this money incorrectly, they would not have had the recourse and/or ability to levy fines to essentially cover them for their mistake that the bank does. That's the uneven playing field and it in no way takes away from the literal fact that the couple criminally spent money that wasn't theirs.

TheGrimSqueaker

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2189
  • Location: A desert wasteland, where none but the weird survive
  • www.theliveinlandlord.com
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #109 on: September 26, 2019, 11:20:22 AM »
"Shit happens" doesn't scale well.  It would work for $12 but not for $12x10^4.  No one says "shit happens" if an engineer misses a decimal place and a building collapses.

The bank has a duty of care, and was negligent.  Clerks should proofread their entries carefully when dealing with large sums.  That's within their responsibility and expertise.

These people were obstructionist when they avoided calls from the bank but the bank should liquidate the assets and eat some of the losses.

If you dropped your wallet on the ground and somebody found it, complete with your full information on it, would you prefer they have the attitude of "too bad so sad, Wrenchturner has the duty of care to protect his wallet, was clearly negligent, everyone knows that holding on to your wallet is within your responsibility and duty of care, etc."? Would it make you feel any better if you were able to figure out the identity of the individual who found your wallet after a few days, and after you finally got a hold of him (because he wouldn't return your calls) you find he's spent your cash, maxed your credit cards, etc.? Would you be ok with going in halfsies on that debt?

Your analogy is faulty.  If money falls out of my wallet with no other context I consider it gone.
Banks operate for profit and their competence is part of the deal.
I also never said they should go halfsies.  I said the bank should eat half the loss.  I hope you're never my bank teller!

This analogy is apt when you consider that the bank really isn't the victim. The victim is whoever the money belonged to-- one of the bank's other customers who quite possibly was not the one making the mistake on the bank transfer. Mistyping a number in the destination account and not checking it (similar to dropping one's wallet) was a mistake, but the person who should have been receiving the funds made no such mistake and has a reasonable expectation of having access to the money.

If the person who made the mistake was an employee of the bank, the bank should make the victims whole and then pursue other legal options to recover the money. These might include a civil suit. I wouldn't rule out a criminal suit as a pressure tactic. Same goes for if the person who made the mistake was the person initiating the transfer. I wouldn't suggest that either of them just accept the loss.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #110 on: September 26, 2019, 11:40:36 AM »
"Shit happens" doesn't scale well.  It would work for $12 but not for $12x10^4.  No one says "shit happens" if an engineer misses a decimal place and a building collapses.

The bank has a duty of care, and was negligent.  Clerks should proofread their entries carefully when dealing with large sums.  That's within their responsibility and expertise.

These people were obstructionist when they avoided calls from the bank but the bank should liquidate the assets and eat some of the losses.

If you dropped your wallet on the ground and somebody found it, complete with your full information on it, would you prefer they have the attitude of "too bad so sad, Wrenchturner has the duty of care to protect his wallet, was clearly negligent, everyone knows that holding on to your wallet is within your responsibility and duty of care, etc."? Would it make you feel any better if you were able to figure out the identity of the individual who found your wallet after a few days, and after you finally got a hold of him (because he wouldn't return your calls) you find he's spent your cash, maxed your credit cards, etc.? Would you be ok with going in halfsies on that debt?

Your analogy is faulty.  If money falls out of my wallet with no other context I consider it gone.
Banks operate for profit and their competence is part of the deal.
I also never said they should go halfsies.  I said the bank should eat half the loss.  I hope you're never my bank teller!

I stated "If you dropped your wallet on the ground...", not "If you dropped money from your wallet on the ground...". The distinction is that the former has a clear owner (assuming you carry some kind of identification in your wallet), while the latter does not and is rightfully "finders keepers" unless there is some other clearly identifying information.

Edit: To address your second point, the bank will likely have to eat a considerable portion of the loss, because as someone said earlier you can't squeeze blood from a stone. And the teller will likely be reprimanded if not fired. Does that somehow make the couple's choices in the story justifiable?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2019, 11:44:03 AM by Boofinator »

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #111 on: September 26, 2019, 02:17:52 PM »
"Shit happens" doesn't scale well.  It would work for $12 but not for $12x10^4.  No one says "shit happens" if an engineer misses a decimal place and a building collapses.

The bank has a duty of care, and was negligent.  Clerks should proofread their entries carefully when dealing with large sums.  That's within their responsibility and expertise.

These people were obstructionist when they avoided calls from the bank but the bank should liquidate the assets and eat some of the losses.

If you dropped your wallet on the ground and somebody found it, complete with your full information on it, would you prefer they have the attitude of "too bad so sad, Wrenchturner has the duty of care to protect his wallet, was clearly negligent, everyone knows that holding on to your wallet is within your responsibility and duty of care, etc."? Would it make you feel any better if you were able to figure out the identity of the individual who found your wallet after a few days, and after you finally got a hold of him (because he wouldn't return your calls) you find he's spent your cash, maxed your credit cards, etc.? Would you be ok with going in halfsies on that debt?

Your analogy is faulty.  If money falls out of my wallet with no other context I consider it gone.
Banks operate for profit and their competence is part of the deal.
I also never said they should go halfsies.  I said the bank should eat half the loss.  I hope you're never my bank teller!

I stated "If you dropped your wallet on the ground...", not "If you dropped money from your wallet on the ground...". The distinction is that the former has a clear owner (assuming you carry some kind of identification in your wallet), while the latter does not and is rightfully "finders keepers" unless there is some other clearly identifying information.

Edit: To address your second point, the bank will likely have to eat a considerable portion of the loss, because as someone said earlier you can't squeeze blood from a stone. And the teller will likely be reprimanded if not fired. Does that somehow make the couple's choices in the story justifiable?

Money appearing in my account doesn't have a clear owner.   That's my point.  Unlike a wallet.   Maybe Mr Beast liked something I wrote on Twitter!

I never attempted to justify the behavior of the people in the story.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #112 on: September 26, 2019, 03:09:11 PM »
<SNIP>

Money appearing in my account doesn't have a clear owner.   That's my point.  Unlike a wallet.   Maybe Mr Beast liked something I wrote on Twitter!

I never attempted to justify the behavior of the people in the story.

The owner was probably pretty clear to the couple. The couple knew that they weren't the lawful owner, and they could certainly spend five minutes calling the bank (who was the fairly clear owner) and rectifying the situation. Just as the finder of the hypothetical wallet should do.

I'll take back my comment on justification, though claiming an act of negligence is somehow equivalent to a crime seems a lot like justifying bad behavior.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #113 on: September 27, 2019, 05:18:16 AM »
<SNIP>

Money appearing in my account doesn't have a clear owner.   That's my point.  Unlike a wallet.   Maybe Mr Beast liked something I wrote on Twitter!

I never attempted to justify the behavior of the people in the story.

The owner was probably pretty clear to the couple. The couple knew that they weren't the lawful owner, and they could certainly spend five minutes calling the bank (who was the fairly clear owner) and rectifying the situation. Just as the finder of the hypothetical wallet should do.

I'll take back my comment on justification, though claiming an act of negligence is somehow equivalent to a crime seems a lot like justifying bad behavior.

Conflating civil error/negligence (that of the bank) as being equal, in terms of apportionment of loss, with criminal malice is classic gaslighting and victim blaming. It is a deplorable thing to do.

Imagine for example if the account-holder herself accidentally transferred $120k to the criminals, and they just spent the money. It's still a combination of a clerical error (negligence) and a crime. However, something tells me wrench turner would be somewhat more sympathetic towards the account-holder than the bank. Why? A clerical error is a clerical error. Doesn't change the nature of the crime.

Some people in this thread just don't like banks, which (although off topic) is somewhat strange because there is no better device, other than perhaps the slot machine, for taking money from the stupid and distributing it as dividends to the smart.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #114 on: September 27, 2019, 07:20:09 AM »
The bank has a duty of care.  they operate for profit based in part on their competence.  their balances are forced to be insured by federal legislation, which illustrates my argument that they have a high level of responsibility. 

citizens do not have the same responsibilities with their financial engagements.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14187
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #115 on: September 27, 2019, 07:41:43 AM »
If I invest 120,000$ in a non-traded REIT for a few months . . . then realize I made a huge mistake and ask for my money back, will the bank give everything back?  Or will they charge me a shit ton of fees initially investing, then a shit ton of fees to get my money back that are never to be recouped?  Spoiler - it's the latter . . . people have to pay for their mistakes.  I don't see why a bank should be exempt from this rule.

While the couple who got the money were obviously idiots to spend it all, I don't think the bank should be allowed to recoup the full amount.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #116 on: September 27, 2019, 08:53:34 AM »
If I invest 120,000$ in a non-traded REIT for a few months . . . then realize I made a huge mistake and ask for my money back, will the bank give everything back?  Or will they charge me a shit ton of fees initially investing, then a shit ton of fees to get my money back that are never to be recouped?  Spoiler - it's the latter . . . people have to pay for their mistakes.  I don't see why a bank should be exempt from this rule.

While the couple who got the money were obviously idiots to spend it all, I don't think the bank should be allowed to recoup the full amount.

Again, this is a completely different scenario. Even if you accidentally invested in a REIT (intending to invest in something else), it is your money and your decision (even if it was a mistake) and yes you would suffer any losses (or gains).

A better scenario would be if you opened your own Bank of GuitarStv, and a Mustachian asked you to invest their money in REITs, but instead you accidentally transferred the money to Billy Joe and Betty Sue, who spent it all. You would be on the hook for making the investor whole (plus interest made in REITs) as soon as you discover the mistake, because that was the lawful transaction and it is your duty. You would also probably do whatever is in your power to recoup as much of the unlawfully spent money as possible. Is the Bank of GuitarStv probably going to have to eat some losses? Absolutely. Should the Bank of GuitarStv roll over and declare bankruptcy? Oh hell no, it should do everything within its power to recoup as much of the loss as possible. Now, it could probably better recoup some of the money by working out a payment plan and not sending these people to prison so they can work, but at the same time if they couldn't recoup anything I wouldn't feel the slightest bit of sadness for those people to learn a valuable lesson behind bars.

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4942
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #117 on: September 27, 2019, 09:01:37 AM »
If I invest 120,000$ in a non-traded REIT for a few months . . . then realize I made a huge mistake and ask for my money back, will the bank give everything back?  Or will they charge me a shit ton of fees initially investing, then a shit ton of fees to get my money back that are never to be recouped?  Spoiler - it's the latter . . . people have to pay for their mistakes.  I don't see why a bank should be exempt from this rule.

While the couple who got the money were obviously idiots to spend it all, I don't think the bank should be allowed to recoup the full amount.

Again, this is a completely different scenario. Even if you accidentally invested in a REIT (intending to invest in something else), it is your money and your decision (even if it was a mistake) and yes you would suffer any losses (or gains).

A better scenario would be if you opened your own Bank of GuitarStv, and a Mustachian asked you to invest their money in REITs, but instead you accidentally transferred the money to Billy Joe and Betty Sue, who spent it all. You would be on the hook for making the investor whole (plus interest made in REITs) as soon as you discover the mistake, because that was the lawful transaction and it is your duty. You would also probably do whatever is in your power to recoup as much of the unlawfully spent money as possible. Is the Bank of GuitarStv probably going to have to eat some losses? Absolutely. Should the Bank of GuitarStv roll over and declare bankruptcy? Oh hell no, it should do everything within its power to recoup as much of the loss as possible. Now, it could probably better recoup some of the money by working out a payment plan and not sending these people to prison so they can work, but at the same time if they couldn't recoup anything I wouldn't feel the slightest bit of sadness for those people to learn a valuable lesson behind bars.

Alternatively, by having some responsibility for this type of mistake, banks might be encouraged to create processes that are more resilient/error proof so they don't accidentally put money into the wrong accounts.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14187
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #118 on: September 27, 2019, 09:07:24 AM »
If I invest 120,000$ in a non-traded REIT for a few months . . . then realize I made a huge mistake and ask for my money back, will the bank give everything back?  Or will they charge me a shit ton of fees initially investing, then a shit ton of fees to get my money back that are never to be recouped?  Spoiler - it's the latter . . . people have to pay for their mistakes.  I don't see why a bank should be exempt from this rule.

While the couple who got the money were obviously idiots to spend it all, I don't think the bank should be allowed to recoup the full amount.

Again, this is a completely different scenario. Even if you accidentally invested in a REIT (intending to invest in something else), it is your money and your decision (even if it was a mistake) and yes you would suffer any losses (or gains).

I don't agree with you that it's really a different scenario.

I do online investing.  It's quite easy for me to make a couple incorrect clicks of a mouse and invest in the wrong thing.  If I do this, not only do I suffer any losses and gains, but I also pay the full costs of various fees charged to move the money in and out.  When I (as an individual) make a mistake I am penalized for it.

When a bank makes a mistake (due to incorrect mouse clicks on typing the wrong account number in - whatever), they aren't penalized for it.  They expect to get the full amount of their money back . . . which I think is unreasonable.  The errors are all on the part of the bank.  First they made a mistake in the transfer of money.  Then they made a mistake by not catching this error and correcting the bad transfer (they let it go on for an extended period).  Then they made a mistake in allowing the people to take money out of their account that wasn't theirs.  There's little real incentive for the bank to correct the problem if they are never held accountable for it.


A better scenario would be if you opened your own Bank of GuitarStv, and a Mustachian asked you to invest their money in REITs, but instead you accidentally transferred the money to Billy Joe and Betty Sue, who spent it all. You would be on the hook for making the investor whole (plus interest made in REITs) as soon as you discover the mistake, because that was the lawful transaction and it is your duty. You would also probably do whatever is in your power to recoup as much of the unlawfully spent money as possible. Is the Bank of GuitarStv probably going to have to eat some losses?
 Absolutely. Should the Bank of GuitarStv roll over and declare bankruptcy? Oh hell no, it should do everything within its power to recoup as much of the loss as possible. Now, it could probably better recoup some of the money by working out a payment plan and not sending these people to prison so they can work, but at the same time if they couldn't recoup anything I wouldn't feel the slightest bit of sadness for those people to learn a valuable lesson behind bars.

If the Bank of GuitarStv is making enough regular and big mistakes that one bad transfer is going to prevent them from operating as a financial institution . . . absolutely they should go bankrupt.  I'd much prefer that the people handling my money are competent with money, rather than good at lawsuits to fix their screwups.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #119 on: September 27, 2019, 09:27:45 AM »
There's also something weird here(ethically) with the  $100k overdraft.  Seems ursurious/extortionate to impose a great debt on people without their expressed consent post hoc.  Although it's probably covered in the terms(maybe not though, who has access to that kind of overdraft?)

(I need to brush up on my Latin if I'm going to engage with the Australian lawyer).

Edit: it's like a fungibility problem or something.   Only banks can take away money that was given, and only because it's abstracted in electronic form.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2019, 09:30:24 AM by Wrenchturner »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #120 on: September 27, 2019, 10:18:18 AM »
Nobody's denying that the bank fucked up, and in this case they are going to pay a heavy price (lawyers aren't cheap, and they'll be lucky to get 50 on the dollar for the liquidated assets). This point's not under contention. Banks have a large incentive to get transfers correct for a number of reasons, so bringing up that banks should be penalized for making a mistake is in my opinion irrelevant, as they often are.

The better question to ask is, what kind of society do we want to live in? One that protects property (and aims to correct mistakes related to incorrect transfers of property) or one that says its ok to blow someone else's money on whatever we feel like because someone made a mistake. We're all investors here, and we entrust a large amount of money to companies that we expect to be financially responsible. As index investors, we're removed from a lot of the checks and balances placed on these companies to ensure semi-fiduciary behavior for investors. But we're protected by other investors who ensure money is being spent appropriately and government laws and regulating institutions that also ensure our money is not being blown away. I don't think anybody would argue that a fiduciary responsibility for someone else's money is a bad thing.

Last analogy: Let's say a carpenter is going to work on a house, and he sends a part-time helper to the house a week ahead of time to place cabinets and tools under the porch. Unfortunately this helper misheard the house number and therefore dropped them off at the wrong house. When the homeowners of the incorrect house arrive and notice all of this equipment in their backyard, they also happen to notice the owner's information all over the equipment. A week later, the carpenter arrives at the correct house and doesn't see any of the equipment; the correct homeowners haven't seen it either. The carpenter finally gets a hold of his helper, they realize the issue, and then he goes to the house where the equipment was dropped off, only to not see the equipment under the porch and to be completely ignored by the people inside (meanwhile he sees a fancy new RV out front). What would you do if you were the carpenter in this situation? What should be the laws governing property that is accidentally placed in the possession of someone who is not the lawful owner? What if the placement wasn't even accidental; what if the carpenter was working on a house, left his tools there overnight, only to come to finish up the next day and realize his tools were pawned because the owners of the house felt the tools now belonged to them since they were on their property? What about a bicycle that is placed on public property, is that ok to take since it isn't in someone's personal possession? By that logic, shouldn't it also be ok to cut the lock on that bike, since someone who walked up to it can now claim it is in their personal possession?

I'm really struggling to understand others' perceptions of where property rights should exist, especially in the case of a mistake. My understanding is property should be transferred at agreed upon terms between two parties. When a mistake is made (such as when a cashier accidentally charges me too much (or too little) for an item at a supermarket), both parties should be able to lawfully rectify the situation in accordance with the terms of the transaction.

Sorry for being longwinded, it's probably time for me to bow out of this conversation.

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #121 on: September 27, 2019, 10:20:51 AM »
The problem with a lot of these hypothetical situations is that they involve money moving from one institution to another, when the actual situation is a bank moving funds in house. Once money leaves an institution it's obviously going to be difficult to undo a mistake without effort (and/or law suits).

You don't own the money in your bank account the same way you own the money in your wallet. You've agreed to give the bank your money in exchange for what is essentially an IOU that is guaranteed by the government. The bank has legal access to your account to add or remove funds for legitimate purposes, which would include undoing obvious errors.

The bank does have responsibility for the error and will end up losing a lot of money because of it. Whether it rises to the level of negligence or not depends a lot on information we don't have (are their processes sloppier than is typical in the industry? was the teller know to be error prone? etc). But to say the bank shouldn't be allowed to undo an obvious mistake without penalty is weird to me. All the couple had to do to avoid trouble was do absolutely nothing at all. The money appears, then the money eventually disappears. Or better yet, pick up the phone and let the bank know they made a mistake.

There really is a "f the banks, f corporations" attitude here which is disappointing. Who cares if the overall playing field isn't level. In this situation the bank is clearly the victim of a crime.

prudent_one

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 58
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #122 on: September 27, 2019, 10:36:12 AM »
One thing I learned from this thread is that people on the internet never get tired of torturing analogies.

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4942
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #123 on: September 27, 2019, 10:37:13 AM »
Nobody's denying that the bank fucked up, and in this case they are going to pay a heavy price (lawyers aren't cheap, and they'll be lucky to get 50 on the dollar for the liquidated assets). This point's not under contention. Banks have a large incentive to get transfers correct for a number of reasons, so bringing up that banks should be penalized for making a mistake is in my opinion irrelevant, as they often are.


By using language like this, you are forcing people into either a camp of "the couple is 100% at fault and bank 0%" or "the couple is 0% at fault and the bank is 100%."

Both the bank and this couple can be wrong in this situation and culpable for mistakes, in different ways. A lot of people in the "couple screwed up" group seem to be acting as if the bank did nothing wrong.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #124 on: September 27, 2019, 11:30:30 AM »
Nobody's denying that the bank fucked up, and in this case they are going to pay a heavy price (lawyers aren't cheap, and they'll be lucky to get 50 on the dollar for the liquidated assets). This point's not under contention. Banks have a large incentive to get transfers correct for a number of reasons, so bringing up that banks should be penalized for making a mistake is in my opinion irrelevant, as they often are.


By using language like this, you are forcing people into either a camp of "the couple is 100% at fault and bank 0%" or "the couple is 0% at fault and the bank is 100%."

Both the bank and this couple can be wrong in this situation and culpable for mistakes, in different ways. A lot of people in the "couple screwed up" group seem to be acting as if the bank did nothing wrong.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding me. The bank messed up and will have to pay for it (I thought my last statement was clear). But only one party did any criminal actions.

To continue the torturous analogies: If a bank was broken into and robbed, clearly the bank is going to have to pay on some level (whether or not its security was lax), but only one party committed a crime. This example obviously differs with regards to criminal intent, so the punishment for the crime should obviously be greater.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14187
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #125 on: September 27, 2019, 11:56:20 AM »
Nobody's denying that the bank fucked up, and in this case they are going to pay a heavy price (lawyers aren't cheap, and they'll be lucky to get 50 on the dollar for the liquidated assets). This point's not under contention. Banks have a large incentive to get transfers correct for a number of reasons, so bringing up that banks should be penalized for making a mistake is in my opinion irrelevant, as they often are.


By using language like this, you are forcing people into either a camp of "the couple is 100% at fault and bank 0%" or "the couple is 0% at fault and the bank is 100%."

Both the bank and this couple can be wrong in this situation and culpable for mistakes, in different ways. A lot of people in the "couple screwed up" group seem to be acting as if the bank did nothing wrong.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding me. The bank messed up and will have to pay for it (I thought my last statement was clear). But only one party did any criminal actions.

To continue the torturous analogies: If a bank was broken into and robbed, clearly the bank is going to have to pay on some level (whether or not its security was lax), but only one party committed a crime. This example obviously differs with regards to criminal intent, so the punishment for the crime should obviously be greater.

A bank that's broken into hasn't done anything wrong.  A bank that dumps money into someone's account and allows them to remove that money has.

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4942
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #126 on: September 27, 2019, 12:04:51 PM »
A bank that's broken into hasn't done anything wrong.  A bank that dumps money into someone's account and allows them to remove that money has.

Adding to this, it's really insightful to check into laws around packages being mailed to the wrong person.

If I mail a package to the wrong address, I'm entirely out of luck.

Villanelle

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3055
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #127 on: September 27, 2019, 12:24:18 PM »
Banks are assholes.  Sure.

I'm someone who doesn't think that child murders should be assaulted in prison.  And asshole banks shouldn't be stolen from, either. 

A tainted victim is still a victim.

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #128 on: September 27, 2019, 12:27:45 PM »
Nobody's denying that the bank fucked up, and in this case they are going to pay a heavy price (lawyers aren't cheap, and they'll be lucky to get 50 on the dollar for the liquidated assets). This point's not under contention. Banks have a large incentive to get transfers correct for a number of reasons, so bringing up that banks should be penalized for making a mistake is in my opinion irrelevant, as they often are.


By using language like this, you are forcing people into either a camp of "the couple is 100% at fault and bank 0%" or "the couple is 0% at fault and the bank is 100%."

Both the bank and this couple can be wrong in this situation and culpable for mistakes, in different ways. A lot of people in the "couple screwed up" group seem to be acting as if the bank did nothing wrong.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding me. The bank messed up and will have to pay for it (I thought my last statement was clear). But only one party did any criminal actions.

To continue the torturous analogies: If a bank was broken into and robbed, clearly the bank is going to have to pay on some level (whether or not its security was lax), but only one party committed a crime. This example obviously differs with regards to criminal intent, so the punishment for the crime should obviously be greater.

A bank that's broken into hasn't done anything wrong.  A bank that dumps money into someone's account and allows them to remove that money has.

Ah, but a bank should clearly know that criminals want to break in, and should therefore have strong enough security to deter theft (just as they should have strong enough safeguards to deter all mistakes). Or are banks not required to be secure?

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #129 on: September 27, 2019, 01:15:37 PM »
There really is a "f the banks, f corporations" attitude here which is disappointing. Who cares if the overall playing field isn't level. In this situation the bank is clearly the victim of a crime.
I'm really not seeing this attitude in this thread.  More like an unsympathetic, calculating attitude which is very bank-like.  How many houses get repossessed for the same attitude?  It's a banking modus operandi (still working on that latin).

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #130 on: September 27, 2019, 01:52:22 PM »
Nobody's denying that the bank fucked up, and in this case they are going to pay a heavy price (lawyers aren't cheap, and they'll be lucky to get 50 on the dollar for the liquidated assets). This point's not under contention. Banks have a large incentive to get transfers correct for a number of reasons, so bringing up that banks should be penalized for making a mistake is in my opinion irrelevant, as they often are.


By using language like this, you are forcing people into either a camp of "the couple is 100% at fault and bank 0%" or "the couple is 0% at fault and the bank is 100%."

Both the bank and this couple can be wrong in this situation and culpable for mistakes, in different ways. A lot of people in the "couple screwed up" group seem to be acting as if the bank did nothing wrong.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding me. The bank messed up and will have to pay for it (I thought my last statement was clear). But only one party did any criminal actions.

To continue the torturous analogies: If a bank was broken into and robbed, clearly the bank is going to have to pay on some level (whether or not its security was lax), but only one party committed a crime. This example obviously differs with regards to criminal intent, so the punishment for the crime should obviously be greater.

I think I've put my finger on the difference, and I won't even use an analogy :-)...I'll use a what if

OK, so as far as I know everyone is for the couple being criminally punished. Full stop. If someone on here has said that they shouldn't be criminally prosecuted, then please copy and paste it. With literally everyone agreeing that they should be criminally prosecuted, there is no reason for you or anyone to keep saying that people are asking for the couple to get off or that they're minimizing their crime. Being prosecuted, going to jail - that's pretty much all anyone who wants justice could hope for. Being for that isn't exactly promoting the wild wild west in here or spitting on the rule of law. I don't know how to be any clearer than that.

What people on my side (I believe) or at least I'll speak for me are frustrated at is banks taking zero responsibility in this situation and assigning fees in comparable situations or even in this situation when it's literally their fault that the situation came to be. You keep saying the bank messed up and will pay for it, but that's a defacto situation, something that will happen probably because the couple doesn't have enough money to recoup it. If the couple was rich, I'm pretty sure the bank would get their entire amount of money and fees too. Saying you're acknowledging the bank will have to pay for it because the couple doesn't have enough money to pay it back is simply acknowledging what's going to happen in this particular situation because you can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. They have no money. That's not the same as truly assigning them responsibility for their fault (again, because you're using the fact that the couple has no money to pay it back as meaning the bank will be taking responsibility) - yes in this situation, but again, they wouldn't have to take any responsibility for their mistake if the couple had had enough money to cover it.

Now for my what if. What if this situation had happened but instead of 120k, it was much less. What if the couple didn't really pay enough attention and spent the money the bank gave them not even realizing that they had. Maybe a stretch, but let's just say what if. What would happen - I'll tell you. The bank would kick their butt with fees and things for the bank's mistake. The fact that fees are attempted to be charged in a situation where the bank put the money in a person's account shows that the bank is penalizing another entity for their mistake. That's where I'm saying it's not a level playing field. That's why people are emphasizing the bank's responsibility. The bank can make a mistake and charge someone else for something triggered by a situation they caused...and somehow people are arguing that someone getting upset at banks for having the upper hand in this and every situation are promoting lawlessness or theft. No, I'm just saying banks will get no sympathy from me. They make mistakes. They even penalize people for their own mistakes. They don't take responsibility for anything. Sometimes reality screws them over like in this case where they can't get money back from where it doesn't exist anymore. That doesn't excuse them for everything above or just make it all alright.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #131 on: September 27, 2019, 02:36:53 PM »
There really is a "f the banks, f corporations" attitude here which is disappointing. Who cares if the overall playing field isn't level. In this situation the bank is clearly the victim of a crime.
I'm really not seeing this attitude in this thread.  More like an unsympathetic, calculating attitude which is very bank-like.  How many houses get repossessed for the same attitude?  It's a banking modus operandi (still working on that latin).

You are constantly going on about how the bank is at fault, for an error which was easily reversible if not exploited by criminal theft, and yet you call the defenders of the bank unsympathetic and calculating??? I would say that deliberately spending money that was in your account (which you must have known was not yours), and evading contact from the bank, is both unsympathetic (to the bank but more importantly to the owner of the money) and obviously very calculating.

I'm glad they're in jail. As they should be. Respect the property that is yours and that which is not yours.

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4942
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #132 on: September 27, 2019, 02:39:23 PM »
There really is a "f the banks, f corporations" attitude here which is disappointing. Who cares if the overall playing field isn't level. In this situation the bank is clearly the victim of a crime.
I'm really not seeing this attitude in this thread.  More like an unsympathetic, calculating attitude which is very bank-like.  How many houses get repossessed for the same attitude?  It's a banking modus operandi (still working on that latin).

You are constantly going on about how the bank is at fault, for an error which was easily reversible if not exploited by criminal theft, and yet you call the defenders of the bank unsympathetic and calculating??? I would say that deliberately spending money that was in your account (which you must have known was not yours), and evading contact from the bank, is both unsympathetic (to the bank but more importantly to the owner of the money) and obviously very calculating.

I'm glad they're in jail. As they should be. Respect the property that is yours and that which is not yours.

Uh, what?



Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #133 on: September 27, 2019, 02:48:49 PM »
There really is a "f the banks, f corporations" attitude here which is disappointing. Who cares if the overall playing field isn't level. In this situation the bank is clearly the victim of a crime.
I'm really not seeing this attitude in this thread.  More like an unsympathetic, calculating attitude which is very bank-like.  How many houses get repossessed for the same attitude?  It's a banking modus operandi (still working on that latin).

You are constantly going on about how the bank is at fault, for an error which was easily reversible if not exploited by criminal theft, and yet you call the defenders of the bank unsympathetic and calculating??? I would say that deliberately spending money that was in your account (which you must have known was not yours), and evading contact from the bank, is both unsympathetic (to the bank but more importantly to the owner of the money) and obviously very calculating.

I'm glad they're in jail. As they should be. Respect the property that is yours and that which is not yours.

I kind of address this in my post above, but please post anyone on this thread that has said the couple should not be charged with a crime. We all agree on it. We don't need to keep talking about it because everyone agrees with it. The only people going on and on about it are people with your viewpoint. At this point, it's hard to call it anything other than a straw man. I literally don't know how to make it any clearer. Arguing that the bank has some responsibility =/ the couple didn't commit a crime. The couple committed a crime. The couple broke the law. The couple are criminals. The couple did not not commit a crime....:)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14187
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #134 on: September 27, 2019, 02:52:57 PM »
Nobody's denying that the bank fucked up, and in this case they are going to pay a heavy price (lawyers aren't cheap, and they'll be lucky to get 50 on the dollar for the liquidated assets). This point's not under contention. Banks have a large incentive to get transfers correct for a number of reasons, so bringing up that banks should be penalized for making a mistake is in my opinion irrelevant, as they often are.


By using language like this, you are forcing people into either a camp of "the couple is 100% at fault and bank 0%" or "the couple is 0% at fault and the bank is 100%."

Both the bank and this couple can be wrong in this situation and culpable for mistakes, in different ways. A lot of people in the "couple screwed up" group seem to be acting as if the bank did nothing wrong.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding me. The bank messed up and will have to pay for it (I thought my last statement was clear). But only one party did any criminal actions.

To continue the torturous analogies: If a bank was broken into and robbed, clearly the bank is going to have to pay on some level (whether or not its security was lax), but only one party committed a crime. This example obviously differs with regards to criminal intent, so the punishment for the crime should obviously be greater.

A bank that's broken into hasn't done anything wrong.  A bank that dumps money into someone's account and allows them to remove that money has.

Ah, but a bank should clearly know that criminals want to break in, and should therefore have strong enough security to deter theft (just as they should have strong enough safeguards to deter all mistakes). Or are banks not required to be secure?

A bank should know that people want to break in - agreed.  If the bank leaves the doors unlocked and the vault open, then they have done something wrong (were lax in their duty to protect the wealth of other people), and share some responsibility for the theft.  I'm willing to bet that the bank wouldn't be able to get insurers to pay for the losses in that case.  That's not very typical though.

By the same token, if the bank hands money over to a client's account and then facilitates their removal of the money from the bank I don't think the bank should be considered blameless and should shoulder an amount of financial loss.  While not typical, this kind of 'leaving the virtual bank doors open' does happen surprisingly often.


Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #135 on: September 27, 2019, 03:01:11 PM »
By the same token, if the bank hands money over to a client's account and then facilitates their removal of the money from the bank I don't think the bank should be considered blameless and should shoulder an amount of financial loss.  While not typical, this kind of 'leaving the virtual bank doors open' does happen surprisingly often.

Please tell us, how much of the loss should the bank shoulder? (Not de facto how much they will shoulder, but the law should state that if the bank places $x in someone's account by mistake, that person is entitled to y% and the bank to 1-y%. Call it a finder's fee.)

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #136 on: September 27, 2019, 03:10:03 PM »
There really is a "f the banks, f corporations" attitude here which is disappointing. Who cares if the overall playing field isn't level. In this situation the bank is clearly the victim of a crime.
I'm really not seeing this attitude in this thread.  More like an unsympathetic, calculating attitude which is very bank-like.  How many houses get repossessed for the same attitude?  It's a banking modus operandi (still working on that latin).

You are constantly going on about how the bank is at fault, for an error which was easily reversible if not exploited by criminal theft, and yet you call the defenders of the bank unsympathetic and calculating??? I would say that deliberately spending money that was in your account (which you must have known was not yours), and evading contact from the bank, is both unsympathetic (to the bank but more importantly to the owner of the money) and obviously very calculating.

I'm glad they're in jail. As they should be. Respect the property that is yours and that which is not yours.

I kind of address this in my post above, but please post anyone on this thread that has said the couple should not be charged with a crime. We all agree on it. We don't need to keep talking about it because everyone agrees with it. The only people going on and on about it are people with your viewpoint. At this point, it's hard to call it anything other than a straw man. I literally don't know how to make it any clearer. Arguing that the bank has some responsibility =/ the couple didn't commit a crime. The couple committed a crime. The couple broke the law. The couple are criminals. The couple did not not commit a crime....:)

The post you are missing is that the bank are victims of a crime. Imagine you leave your car unlocked and someone steals it. Okay, you've been the victim of a crime. You're partly at fault for being silly, and now you may (or may not) have some difficulty recovering your loss from your insurer, but it doesn't make you any less the victim of a crime, even if there is another victim as well (say, the blameless co-owner who didn't leave the doors unlocked).

People in this thread are focusing on blaming the bank for the fault, instead of concentrating on the crime at the heart of it. That is victim blaming. The bank is a victim. It is possible to be causally at fault (in part) - for example, by leaving a car door unlocked in a bad neighbourhood - whilst still being very much a victim.

Wrenchturner

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #137 on: September 27, 2019, 03:16:10 PM »
There really is a "f the banks, f corporations" attitude here which is disappointing. Who cares if the overall playing field isn't level. In this situation the bank is clearly the victim of a crime.
I'm really not seeing this attitude in this thread.  More like an unsympathetic, calculating attitude which is very bank-like.  How many houses get repossessed for the same attitude?  It's a banking modus operandi (still working on that latin).

You are constantly going on about how the bank is at fault, for an error which was easily reversible if not exploited by criminal theft, and yet you call the defenders of the bank unsympathetic and calculating??? I would say that deliberately spending money that was in your account (which you must have known was not yours), and evading contact from the bank, is both unsympathetic (to the bank but more importantly to the owner of the money) and obviously very calculating.

I'm glad they're in jail. As they should be. Respect the property that is yours and that which is not yours.

The unsympathetic and calculating people are the people like me, arguing that the bank should get treated the way they treat others.   I think thats where you misunderstood me.
This is business, after all.  The clerical error is the bank's problem.  No one is saying these people should have no consequences or get to keep all the stuff they bought.

Houses get foreclosed on when the math is unfavorable, with little regard for the people that live in said houses.   I find it difficult to sympathize with the bank's clear negligence here.

ender

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4942
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #138 on: September 27, 2019, 03:27:09 PM »
The post you are missing is that the bank are victims of a crime. Imagine you leave your car unlocked and someone steals it. Okay, you've been the victim of a crime. You're partly at fault for being silly, and now you may (or may not) have some difficulty recovering your loss from your insurer, but it doesn't make you any less the victim of a crime, even if there is another victim as well (say, the blameless co-owner who didn't leave the doors unlocked).

People in this thread are focusing on blaming the bank for the fault, instead of concentrating on the crime at the heart of it. That is victim blaming. The bank is a victim. It is possible to be causally at fault (in part) - for example, by leaving a car door unlocked in a bad neighbourhood - whilst still being very much a victim.

A more relevant analogy is parking your car in someone else's garage and being surprised someone did something to it.



Villanelle

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3055
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #139 on: September 27, 2019, 03:57:40 PM »
The post you are missing is that the bank are victims of a crime. Imagine you leave your car unlocked and someone steals it. Okay, you've been the victim of a crime. You're partly at fault for being silly, and now you may (or may not) have some difficulty recovering your loss from your insurer, but it doesn't make you any less the victim of a crime, even if there is another victim as well (say, the blameless co-owner who didn't leave the doors unlocked).

People in this thread are focusing on blaming the bank for the fault, instead of concentrating on the crime at the heart of it. That is victim blaming. The bank is a victim. It is possible to be causally at fault (in part) - for example, by leaving a car door unlocked in a bad neighbourhood - whilst still being very much a victim.

A more relevant analogy is parking your car in someone else's garage and being surprised someone did something to it.


Except one is probably a fairly easy mistake to make--fat fingering something and then missing it on a double check, perhaps--and the other takes pretty gross negligence.

For those who thinks the bank is responsible, I assume you also think the specific employee who made the mistake or skipped a process is responsible as well, right?  Wherever the error occurred, that can be traced back to a human, whether that's data entry or programming or whatever.  That person is also responsible, no?

It's still not entirely clear what those who think the bank is responsible mean, but at least in some cases, it seems like they think the bank should eat the error as part of their responsibility.  So should that teller/data enterer/programmer/whatever-er have to pony up some or all of the $120k?  After all, the bank likely had a policy intended to prevent this, so it wasn't really "bank" error, but human error.  So that human should owe the $120k, no? 

If the bank had a process intended to prevent or catch this kind of thing, then clerical error isn't the bank's fault, it's the clerk's fault. 

If someone made a deposit and was given a receipt and they didn't check it to make sure it went into account 12345, not 12346, then they are responsible, too, right?  At least if the teller asked them to confirm the information.  So that person is responsible as well.  I guess maybe they can split the $120k payback with the clerk. 

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #140 on: September 27, 2019, 04:24:14 PM »
There really is a "f the banks, f corporations" attitude here which is disappointing. Who cares if the overall playing field isn't level. In this situation the bank is clearly the victim of a crime.
I'm really not seeing this attitude in this thread.  More like an unsympathetic, calculating attitude which is very bank-like.  How many houses get repossessed for the same attitude?  It's a banking modus operandi (still working on that latin).

You are constantly going on about how the bank is at fault, for an error which was easily reversible if not exploited by criminal theft, and yet you call the defenders of the bank unsympathetic and calculating??? I would say that deliberately spending money that was in your account (which you must have known was not yours), and evading contact from the bank, is both unsympathetic (to the bank but more importantly to the owner of the money) and obviously very calculating.

I'm glad they're in jail. As they should be. Respect the property that is yours and that which is not yours.

The unsympathetic and calculating people are the people like me, arguing that the bank should get treated the way they treat others.   I think thats where you misunderstood me.
This is business, after all.  The clerical error is the bank's problem.  No one is saying these people should have no consequences or get to keep all the stuff they bought.

Houses get foreclosed on when the math is unfavorable, with little regard for the people that live in said houses.   I find it difficult to sympathize with the bank's clear negligence here.

The bank should get treated the way they treat others - are you saying that if I accidentally deposited money into the wrong account the bank would avoid my attempts to contact them and dissipate the money entirely? Because as I said upthread, it happened to me once and I paid nothing for the bank's rectification.

Foreclosure is their right upon default by a borrower. That has nothing to do with this (inadvertence). Also, banks don't foreclose if you accidentally miss 1, or even 2, payments. So...your reasoning is not apt.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1035
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #141 on: September 27, 2019, 04:26:33 PM »
The post you are missing is that the bank are victims of a crime. Imagine you leave your car unlocked and someone steals it. Okay, you've been the victim of a crime. You're partly at fault for being silly, and now you may (or may not) have some difficulty recovering your loss from your insurer, but it doesn't make you any less the victim of a crime, even if there is another victim as well (say, the blameless co-owner who didn't leave the doors unlocked).

People in this thread are focusing on blaming the bank for the fault, instead of concentrating on the crime at the heart of it. That is victim blaming. The bank is a victim. It is possible to be causally at fault (in part) - for example, by leaving a car door unlocked in a bad neighbourhood - whilst still being very much a victim.

A more relevant analogy is parking your car in someone else's garage and being surprised someone did something to it.

I think your analogy is sound. Well, I wouldn't be surprised if they clamped it or towed it and made me pay for that. I would be surprised if they stole it and never gave it back, though.


Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #142 on: September 27, 2019, 04:47:15 PM »
Alternatively, by having some responsibility for this type of mistake, banks might be encouraged to create processes that are more resilient/error proof so they don't accidentally put money into the wrong accounts.
Correct.

I'm reminded of that Seth Godin comment about credit cards: rather than making their storage of the number more secure against hacking, perhaps it'd be better to make it less important and thus less likely to be hacked. Meanwhile I binned a credit card system Stripe because they (after taking payments) suddenly decided they wanted photo ID, too - credit card number plus photo ID, "That's a pretty attractive data bundle to hackers," I said.
"We are trusted by over one million businesses," they said.
"So you have the credit card details, date of birth of company owners, addresses and their photo ID for one million people and businesses? That makes you an even juicier target. Bye."

Asking me to join my data to theirs during what is in effect a cyberwar is like asking me to put my house in a massive ammunition store during a regular war. It seems... imprudent.

Quote from: Bloop Bloop
The bank should get treated the way they treat others
So the CEOs of the Big Four here in Australia should go to prison for theft of money, like charging fees to deceased people? I dunno, Bloop, that seems harsh. But if you say so.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14187
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #143 on: September 27, 2019, 07:56:35 PM »
By the same token, if the bank hands money over to a client's account and then facilitates their removal of the money from the bank I don't think the bank should be considered blameless and should shoulder an amount of financial loss.  While not typical, this kind of 'leaving the virtual bank doors open' does happen surprisingly often.

Please tell us, how much of the loss should the bank shoulder? (Not de facto how much they will shoulder, but the law should state that if the bank places $x in someone's account by mistake, that person is entitled to y% and the bank to 1-y%. Call it a finder's fee.)

There's certainly a lot of room for discussion on this, but going with my gut I'd say that about 15% of total amount should be immediately non-recoverable, with the non-recoverable amount increasing by 2% per month after that.  That would both provide penalty for the error they committed initially, and incentive to quickly find their misplaced money . . . while not being unduly punitive.

gooki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2388
  • Location: NZ
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #144 on: September 28, 2019, 04:27:07 AM »
Quote
OK, so as far as I know everyone is for the couple being criminally punished. Full stop. If someone on here has said that they shouldn't be criminally prosecuted, then please copy and paste it.

Disagree. Criminal charges should never have been made, this is an civil legal issue only.

GatorNation

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #145 on: September 28, 2019, 05:48:18 AM »
Not entrapment.

I'm attorney and routinely practice criminal law.

Anyone saying otherwise is being silly.

So in your professional opinion, if the FBI were to leave $120K in my living room having entered my home without my knowledge under U.S.C. 3103a(b) would they be able to charge me with felony theft?

What if I spent the money, knowing that it wasn't "mine?"

Poor analogy.

This case is like finding a pair of car keys on the sidewalk and then stealing the car which the keys being to.

The bank accidentally deposited $$ in the wrong account. It never encouraged these people to spend it.
 
No entrapment.  These people should be prosecuted

GatorNation

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #146 on: September 28, 2019, 05:49:06 AM »
Quote
OK, so as far as I know everyone is for the couple being criminally punished. Full stop. If someone on here has said that they shouldn't be criminally prosecuted, then please copy and paste it.

Disagree. Criminal charges should never have been made, this is an civil legal issue only.

Disagree.  Criminal charges are more than appropriate.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #147 on: September 28, 2019, 07:13:52 AM »
There really is a "f the banks, f corporations" attitude here which is disappointing. Who cares if the overall playing field isn't level. In this situation the bank is clearly the victim of a crime.
I'm really not seeing this attitude in this thread.  More like an unsympathetic, calculating attitude which is very bank-like.  How many houses get repossessed for the same attitude?  It's a banking modus operandi (still working on that latin).

You are constantly going on about how the bank is at fault, for an error which was easily reversible if not exploited by criminal theft, and yet you call the defenders of the bank unsympathetic and calculating??? I would say that deliberately spending money that was in your account (which you must have known was not yours), and evading contact from the bank, is both unsympathetic (to the bank but more importantly to the owner of the money) and obviously very calculating.

I'm glad they're in jail. As they should be. Respect the property that is yours and that which is not yours.

I kind of address this in my post above, but please post anyone on this thread that has said the couple should not be charged with a crime. We all agree on it. We don't need to keep talking about it because everyone agrees with it. The only people going on and on about it are people with your viewpoint. At this point, it's hard to call it anything other than a straw man. I literally don't know how to make it any clearer. Arguing that the bank has some responsibility =/ the couple didn't commit a crime. The couple committed a crime. The couple broke the law. The couple are criminals. The couple did not not commit a crime....:)

The post you are missing is that the bank are victims of a crime. Imagine you leave your car unlocked and someone steals it. Okay, you've been the victim of a crime. You're partly at fault for being silly, and now you may (or may not) have some difficulty recovering your loss from your insurer, but it doesn't make you any less the victim of a crime, even if there is another victim as well (say, the blameless co-owner who didn't leave the doors unlocked).

People in this thread are focusing on blaming the bank for the fault, instead of concentrating on the crime at the heart of it. That is victim blaming. The bank is a victim. It is possible to be causally at fault (in part) - for example, by leaving a car door unlocked in a bad neighbourhood - whilst still being very much a victim.

I really, truly, honestly, don't know how I can be more clear on the crime part. You say that I am missing the fact that the bank is a victim of a crime. I am not. I stated and restated and restated that the couple were criminals. If they're criminals, then there is a victim. The bank is the victim (assuming they restored the money wherever the money was taken from). The bank is the victim. I'm not missing it.

Now, let's move on to your other assertion, that I'm doing some convoluted type of victim blaming. This is, to put it frankly, quite ridiculous and maybe even a little insensitive. Victim blaming is an extremely important term that should be reserved for a real situation of it. Victim blaming is perfectly applicable for the classic example of short skirts and assault. It is ridiculously far removed from this situation. The bank caused the situation. They negligently put money in someone's bank account. They created the situation, and not just in any way. This is not some 80's couple with dementia who were scammed into depositing money somewhere else. The bank screwed up by being negligent in their main job! You can't just throw around victim blaming for this. If you do, you can throw it around for anything. A guy sucker punches someone and gets the crap beat out of him. "Oh it's victim blaming to mention the fact that the first guy created the situation by punching first." As this was a situation literally made possible by the bank making not just any mistake but a mistake in their job - no, calling it victim blaming in order to avoid talking about the bank's responsibility is just silly.

Second point, no one on your side has addressed the fee issue that I can tell this whole thread (except one anecdote where the bank didn't do it in one situation). The bank charges fees when they create the situation. The bank charges fees when you make a mistake. They charge fees willy nilly because they have all the power, and when someone tries to say, hey you screwed up, perhaps you should eat some of the cost on your own or perhaps there needs to be some form of pressure so that you don't do it again, that perspective is in the wrong....yea, I'm not buying it.

Chraurelius

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 18
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #148 on: September 29, 2019, 10:21:42 AM »
How funny! I had a similar real life situation just last week, so maybe it will be easier to analyze.
I got a package to my address, but with a name no one in my family had ever heard of.  Well, it was UPS, and not illegal, so I opened it -- a $1000 iPhone and a nice Otter case were inside.  Do I get to keep them?
I did send it back, since I don't like iPhones (and it wasn't mine).  The Verizon people thought the buyer planned to steal it off my porch.  Since it had a signature required, more likely it was an inside scam.  Or if could have been an error, but who wouldn't carefully check the address on such a valuable item?
It was a huge pain to get it picked up, too.  Despite a scheduled pick up, I ended up running down the sidewalk, barefoot, yelling at the driver at the top of my lungs to stop.
Who's at fault here?  Could I legally have kept it?  I blame UPS,  who didn't check the signature, or Verizon, with inadequate security or customer service (putting in the wrong address).  Clearly, the people who received the money were morally wrong, but legally?  Criminally?

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 852
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Bank transfers $120k into couples bank account in error
« Reply #149 on: October 01, 2019, 07:32:56 PM »
No entrapment.  These people should be prosecuted
The indignation that you and the bank share could be taken more seriously if there had been any criminal or financial consequences for those causing the GFC, since after all they engaged in deliberately fraudulent practices with CDOs and misleading their own clients as to their value.

As it is, it is unclear why $120,000 is prosecutable but $700,000,000,000 is not.