NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28793620/

Short article.

Do you think the couple should be punished, or is it strictly the bank's fault?

What would you do with such an error?

If you know it's a mistake, you have a duty to report it, even if the mistake is in your favor.

You have to have some common sense - if you suddenly get thousands in your bank account that should not be there, you know someone is going to be looking for it.

Legally, they are in deep doo, because they knew it wasn't theirs and so shouldn't have touched it.

Morally, banks are thieving bastards themselves, so I have no problem with people ripping them off, especially when it is a result of their own fucking incompetence. They are going to have to learn to do their job properly at some point, so why not let this be a lesson, eh? But the government won't see it the way I do.

If you know it's a mistake, you have a duty to report it, even if the mistake is in your favor.

You have to have some common sense - if you suddenly get thousands in your bank account that should not be there, you know someone is going to be looking for it.

But is it a moral duty, or is it a written law that it must be reported?

I honestly don't know. I mean, they're being charged with theft and conspiracy, but is it really that?

Report it immediately, because if you acted as though the money was yours, you could be charged with felony theft.

Legally, they are in deep doo, because they knew it wasn't theirs and so shouldn't have touched it.

Morally, banks are thieving bastards themselves, so I have no problem with people ripping them off, especially when it is a result of their own fucking incompetence. They are going to have to learn to do their job properly at some point, so why not let this be a lesson, eh? But the government won't see it the way I do.

You stand a better chance trying to keep thousands from a drug dealer. The bank and the legal system are much better at thieving and fucking people over.

But is it a moral duty, or is it a written law that it must be reported?

I honestly don't know. I mean, they're being charged with theft and conspiracy, but is it really that?

Call it self-preservation - neither a moral duty or written law.

But is it a moral duty, or is it a written law that it must be reported?

I honestly don't know. I mean, they're being charged with theft and conspiracy, but is it really that?

Legally and morally the right thing to do is to report the error. It is not your money. Pretending it is yours to spend is wrong.

Oh, and I'd take the money for safe keeping, so my funds don't co-mingle with theirs and I'd put it in a separate account for 'safe-keeping' until the bank asked for it back.

I'd then use it to get margin to short the bank. ('Cos this is last summer).

This is exactly the sort of things that banks do all the time, so they can't fucking complain as long as I close out and hand it back when asked.

And the bank didn't notice until the couple tried to buy a house in Orlando.

Methinks the bank wasn't looking that hard.

Oh, and I'd take the money for safe keeping, so my funds don't co-mingle with theirs and I'd put it in a separate account for 'safe-keeping' until the bank asked for it back.

I'd then use it to get margin to short the bank. ('Cos this is last summer).

This is exactly the sort of things that banks do all the time, so they can't fucking complain as long as I close out and hand it back when asked.

I think opening up a second account specifically for the error funds would alert the bank to the error.

You stand a better chance trying to keep thousands from a drug dealer. The bank and the legal system are much better at thieving and fucking people over.

No, I understand that. Hell, these fucks will hire the government to hold a gun to your head if the mood strikes them. So obviously you have to do what they say.

I'm just saying that I see nothing wrong in principle with stealing from a bank.

Last time I gave it back.
However, that was much harder than one would expect. I was getting money which was obviously supposed to be a welfare grant - but it was not intended for me.
The institute responsible for such things however had no idea how to handle people that did not want their money. It took me 3 months and two actual visits to one of their offices to get them to stop sending me money and get instructions on how and where to return it - and those were in an impersonal letter starting with "as you may have noticed you received money that was not intended for you"

WELL DUH !

And then, over one year later, I got a note from the bank stating they accidentally transferred money to me and I could please send it back. I got annoyed.

So perhaps next time I WILL keep it.

I think opening up a second account specifically for the error funds would alert the bank to the error.

I wouldn't open it with that bank.

Legally and morally the right thing to do is to report the error. It is not your money. Pretending it is yours to spend is wrong.

From the details though, it seems as if the bank really didn't care that the money was missing. One would think that the second the couple withdrew such an amount, some flags would show up.

After all, it's not like they walked in there with guns and demanded the money. The withdrew it and the bank gave it to them. That's pretty far from theft.

From the details though, it seems as if the bank really didn't care that the money was missing. One would think that the second the couple withdrew such an amount, some flags would show up.

After all, it's not like they walked in there with guns and demanded the money. The withdrew it and the bank gave it to them. That's pretty far from theft.

It doesn't matter. They took money that they knew for a fact wasn't theirs and spent it as though it was. How is that not stealing?

Last time I gave it back.
However, that was much harder than one would expect. I was getting money which was obviously supposed to be a welfare grant - but it was not intended for me.
The institute responsible for such things however had no idea how to handle people that did not want their money. It took me 3 months and two actual visits to one of their offices to get them to stop sending me money and get instructions on how and where to return it - and those were in an impersonal letter starting with "as you may have noticed you received money that was not intended for you"

WELL DUH !

And then, over one year later, I got a note from the bank stating they accidentally transferred money to me and I could please send it back. I got annoyed.

So perhaps next time I WILL keep it.

That's ridiculous. We could have been reading about The Alma Mater on MSNBC!:)

It doesn't matter. They took money that they knew for a fact wasn't theirs and spent it as though it was. How is that not stealing?

The bank is the caretaker of the money, and the bank knowingly gave it to them even after it was brought to their attention; if the couple is telling the truth. Technically the bank stole from themselves.

Maybe the couple could be charged with receiving stolen property?;)

Last time I gave it back.
However, that was much harder than one would expect. I was getting money which was obviously supposed to be a welfare grant - but it was not intended for me.
The institute responsible for such things however had no idea how to handle people that did not want their money. It took me 3 months and two actual visits to one of their offices to get them to stop sending me money and get instructions on how and where to return it - and those were in an impersonal letter starting with "as you may have noticed you received money that was not intended for you"

WELL DUH !

And then, over one year later, I got a note from the bank stating they accidentally transferred money to me and I could please send it back. I got annoyed.

So perhaps next time I WILL keep it.

Well, that's different. You're under no obligation to expend any effort in seeing the error corrected beyond alerting those responsible. I certainly wouldn't waste any of my time making sure it got corrected after I'd notified them and had them acknowledge their mistake. But you didn't quit your job and move to Florida after discovering the error. You had the sense to know that the money wasn't yours and that, sooner or later, someone would notice.

It doesn't matter. They took money that they knew for a fact wasn't theirs and spent it as though it was. How is that not stealing?

They claim to have tried to alert the bank about its mistake, but the bank did not care.

Assuming they really did try to alert the bank (in a serious way, not a "I saw a little rounding error, do you want it back" manner) and it did not care, the money became theirs. The bank after all gave it and said it did not want it back when asked.

Well, that's different. You're under no obligation to expend any effort in seeing the error corrected beyond alerting those responsible. I certainly wouldn't waste any of my time making sure it got corrected after I'd notified them and had them acknowledge their mistake.

I considered not doing that either; but the deposits kept coming in. That made me.. uncomfortable ;)

They claim to have tried to alert the bank about its mistake, but the bank did not care.

Assuming they really did try to alert the bank (in a serious way, not a "I saw a little rounding error, do you want it back" manner) and it did not care, the money became theirs. The bank after all gave it and said it did not want it back when asked.

I sincerely doubt the bank did not care about a $174,000 error. Banks can, and do, often brush aside computing errors in favor of the customers, but in the absence of evidence, I'm tempted to side with the bank saying they were never notified, since that is the side that is logical.

I considered not doing that either; but the deposits kept coming in. That made me.. uncomfortable ;)

Well, you should continue to notify them as they repeat the error, but I definitely would not have expended the effort to actually go to them to try and get it corrected.

I sincerely doubt the bank did not care about a $174,000 error. Banks can, and do, often brush aside computing errors in favor of the customers, but in the absence of evidence, I'm tempted to side with the bank saying they were never notified, since that is the side that is logical.

Indeed. I would place the burden of proof that they alerted the bank and it said "keep it" on them - not on the bank.
But it is mentioned in the article that they claim they did - and as such condemning them as if they did not is unfair.

I sincerely doubt the bank did not care about a $174,000 error. Banks can, and do, often brush aside computing errors in favor of the customers, but in the absence of evidence, I'm tempted to side with the bank saying they were never notified, since that is the side that is logical.

But why wouldn't the bank catch the error when the couple is withdrawing all of this money? I'm sure such a hefty withdrawal has to go through a manager or higher anyway.

But why wouldn't the bank catch the error when the couple is withdrawing all of this money? I'm sure such a hefty withdrawal has to go through a manager or higher anyway.

Banks, despite outward appearances to the contrary, are run by very stupid people.

But why wouldn't the bank catch the error when the couple is withdrawing all of this money? I'm sure such a hefty withdrawal has to go through a manager or higher anyway.

It doesn't say they ever tried to withdraw a large sum of money. Regardless, it's irrelevant. They took money they knew wasn't theirs and spent it as though it was. Again, in the absence of evidence that they notified the bank and were rebuffed, I have to assume that the bank did not just brush off a $174,000 accounting error, because that makes no sense.

After all, it's not like they walked in there with guns and demanded the money. The withdrew it and the bank gave it to them. That's pretty far from theft.

you seem to be conflating larceny with robbery. You shouldn't.

But why wouldn't the bank catch the error when the couple is withdrawing all of this money? I'm sure such a hefty withdrawal has to go through a manager or higher anyway.

because to a bank, a $175,000 withdrawl is minor. It's not really that much money.

because to a bank, a $175,000 withdrawl is minor. It's not really that much money.

It is to pay out cash. A safe would need to be opened - and it would possibly have to be announced in advance (time-lock).
To transfer it is indeed peanuts.

The bank is the caretaker of the money, and the bank knowingly gave it to them even after it was brought to their attention; if the couple is telling the truth. Technically the bank stole from themselves.

larceny requires intent. So no, they did not. Moreover a bank does not OWN the money in accounts, they merely, as you say, are the caretakers of it. Technically if the bank, with intent, gave money they were safeguarding to someone else, it wouldn't be larceny, it'd be embezzelment.

It is to pay out cash. A safe would need to be opened - and it would possibly have to be announced in advance (time-lock).
To transfer it is indeed peanuts.

well when they say they "withdrew it", perhaps I'm in error in assuming they did it in CASH. I'd assume a cashier's check or something.

As much as I'd like to keep it I'd probably notify the bank. Let 'em know I've found a 175 000 dollars that is probably theirs. Then I'd expect a large reward for being a good citizen. Something in the 175 000 dollar range perhaps :p

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28793620/

Short article.

Do you think the couple should be punished, or is it strictly the bank's fault?

What would you do with such an error?

If it's okay in Monopoly, it should be okay in real life.

http://therawfeed.com/pix/bank_error_in_your_favor.jpg

EDIT: I officially hate New Manvir. Beating me to the punch and whatnot. :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28793620/

Short article.

Do you think the couple should be punished, or is it strictly the bank's fault?

What would you do with such an error?

$175,000!!! :eek: Good night! Do you know what I could buy with that kind of money?! I could buy a Townhouse or a Condo outright, without having to get a mortgage! Then after I spend $110,000 on that I could use the rest to support myself for at least a year while I look for a job.

$175,000!!! :eek: Good night! Do you know what I could buy with that kind of money?! I could buy a Townhouse or a Condo outright, without having to get a mortgage! Then after I spend $110,000 on that I could use the rest to support myself for at least a year while I look for a job.

where the hell do you live where $175k would buy you a townhouse/condo and money to live on for a year?

where the hell do you live where $175k would buy you a townhouse/condo and money to live on for a year?

North Carolina. Townhouses/Condo in my area tend to run from anywhere between $110,000 to $150,000.

We've seen plenty of moralistic answers.

Now I shall wallow in the depths of my not-so-secret immorality and say this: if the bank didn't fix it, and it remained there, the couple should have taken out large sums, albeit, normal large sums, over a period of time and squirrelled it away elsewhere. Or better yet, withdrew a large sum, used the cash to pay for a big ticket item that they needed, and do this over a period of time in order to convert the money into assets for their home.

...and yes, I've been told I'd make a great criminal mastermind. Or I would if I wasn't lazy.

It's theft.

If someone accidently leaves money on your kitchen table, would you keep it? And, if you said 'yes', could you really justify that as not being stealing?

We've seen plenty of moralistic answers.

Now I shall wallow in the depths of my not-so-secret immorality and say this: if the bank didn't fix it, and it remained there, the couple should have taken out large sums, albeit, normal large sums, over a period of time and squirrelled it away elsewhere. Or better yet, withdrew a large sum, used the cash to pay for a big ticket item that they needed, and do this over a period of time in order to convert the money into assets for their home.

...and yes, I've been told I'd make a great criminal mastermind. Or I would if I wasn't lazy.

Money laundering?

Uh, yeah. They stole money that didn't belong to them.

Now I shall wallow in the depths of my not-so-secret immorality and say this: if the bank didn't fix it, and it remained there, the couple should have taken out large sums, albeit, normal large sums, over a period of time and squirrelled it away elsewhere. Or better yet, withdrew a large sum, used the cash to pay for a big ticket item that they needed, and do this over a period of time in order to convert the money into assets for their home.

No accountant worth their salt would have missed that for more than a pretty short period of time...if you suddenly see your credits suddenly increase by $175,000 with no corresponding changes on the debit side, that's usually when you raise the red flag. That is, of course, unless you're complicit with the scheme and find ways to conceal it...of course, those ways are actually quite difficult for this kind of situation.

Remember, a white-collar criminal is only as good as their accountant.

'stealing' from incompetent banks strikes me as the right thing to do. they are pretty much outlaw institutions anyway.

I think I'd notice a 6-figure change in my bank account - it'd be rather hard to miss, in fact. I would get the problem fixed by bringing it to the attention of my banking institution.

$175,000!!! :eek: Good night! Do you know what I could buy with that kind of money?! I could buy a Townhouse or a Condo outright, without having to get a mortgage! Then after I spend $110,000 on that I could use the rest to support myself for at least a year while I look for a job.

Where the hell do you live? Buttfuck, Idaho? Houses aren't that cheap.

EDIT: Should've read down futher, methinks.

larceny requires intent. So no, they did not. Moreover a bank does not OWN the money in accounts, they merely, as you say, are the caretakers of it. Technically if the bank, with intent, gave money they were safeguarding to someone else, it wouldn't be larceny, it'd be embezzelment.

Thank you for your clarifications. Stealing is all the same to me:)

If it's okay in Monopoly, it should be okay in real life.

http://therawfeed.com/pix/bank_error_in_your_favor.jpg

I lol'd. I concur as well.

It's theft.

If someone accidently leaves money on your kitchen table, would you keep it? And, if you said 'yes', could you really justify that as not being stealing?

But is that reprehensible under law? To me that example is more of a moral issue. Morally it would be stealing. Under law it was someone misplacing their cash.

Happened to me once. I deposited $300, and it turned into $3000. I told the bank about it. But, honestly I don't know how I would have reacted if the number of extra zeroes tacked on had been larger.

'stealing' from incompetent banks strikes me as the right thing to do. they are pretty much outlaw institutions anyway.

Well, considering you're not stealing from the bank but from the bank's customers...

But is that reprehensible under law? To me that example is more of a moral issue. Morally it would be stealing. Under law it was someone misplacing their cash.

no, under law it's stealing. Taking that which you know does not belong to you, knowing you do not have the permission of the owner to take it is larceny.

In most states, even finding money on the street you are legally obligated to report it to the police, so they may make efforts to return it to the rightful owners. If they can't, then you can keep it.

Failing to do so is, yes, a crime.

Well, considering you're not stealing from the bank but from the bank's customers...

and anyone who had the bank lose their money would be well within their rights to sue the pants off the bank for it.

EDIT: I officially hate New Manvir. Beating me to the punch and whatnot. :)

VICTORY!!! *Evil Laugh*

and anyone who had the bank lose their money would be well within their rights to sue the pants off the bank for it.

as well as the person who took it. It's called "conversion"

no, under law it's stealing. Taking that which you know does not belong to you, knowing you do not have the permission of the owner to take it is larceny.

I should have been clearer, I meant that proving it under law would be fruitless. In that situation if the person is immoral, the law wouldn't have much application unless the person that lost the money has solid proof the immoral person took it.

But now quick question Neo, What if the couple did make attempts to return the money, but the bank paid no attention? Would that be considered permission to take it? I'm not saying this is the case, but I'm curious.

In most states, even finding money on the street you are legally obligated to report it to the police, so they may make efforts to return it to the rightful owners. If they can't, then you can keep it.

Failing to do so is, yes, a crime.

No shit? I learned something new today. :)

as well as the person who took it. It's called "conversion"

i'm using rights in the moral rather than legal sense. the law can go fuck itself.

i'm using rights in the moral rather than legal sense. the law can go fuck itself.

*inb4 rights don't exist outside of a legal sense*

and anyone who had the bank lose their money would be well within their rights to sue the pants off the bank for it.

That's true. However, they didn't lose any money, they simply miscredited the account for an improper amount. It was the withdrawal of that money that took it improperly from the bank; you only own what you put in and have earned on your money and no more.

Really, for most purposes a bank is no different from me giving someone else money for safekeeping. It's more secure and reliable, for sure, but fundamentally no different and that's precisely where banks originated. By pooling money, you can do more with it and give people an incentive to invest with you. I wouldn't take more money than I gave them, so why should it be acceptable to do so to a bank? As hard as it might seem to believe, bank employees and managers are people too and all the money they manage belongs to someone somewhere in one form or another.

From the details though, it seems as if the bank really didn't care that the money was missing. One would think that the second the couple withdrew such an amount, some flags would show up.
Well no, it wouldn't. From what the bank could see they had withdrawn $175k and their balance was greater than that. No worries.
After all, it's not like they walked in there with guns and demanded the money. The withdrew it and the bank gave it to them. That's pretty far from theft.
If I owe you $10 and accidentally give you a $100 bill, does that make the extra $90 yours? No? Then it's certainly stealing. Maybe not theft, exactly. I know there are difference between things like theft and robbery and that other one.....larceny, but I can't always remember what.
i'm using rights in the moral rather than legal sense. the law can go fuck itself.
It's the moral course of action to steal from an immoral institution? Isn't that one of those becoming the monster you fight sort of things? What worth are morals if they can be abandoned to hurt the immoral?

i'm using rights in the moral rather than legal sense.

Ohh, I see. You should have informed me that you were speaking gibberish.

Thats bullshit, the bank has noone but themselves to blame...In fact, I think they owe him bail money for doing this to him...

Id be pissed if im gettin around Go, get the bank error in my favor...And then told I have to go straight to jail and not get my $200....bullshit, lol...

If I owe you $10 and accidentally give you a $100 bill, does that make the extra $90 yours? No? Then it's certainly stealing. Maybe not theft, exactly. I know there are difference between things like theft and robbery and that other one.....larceny, but I can't always remember what.

And here's another thing: if I fuck up and do something like that, there's a decent chance I might be fired or worse because there's no way I can necessarily prove that it wasn't intentional. Now, with an error this big it's certainly the most plausible explanation, but if for example I were under $90 on my register at work I'd be severely punished if not outright fired.

And here's another thing: if I fuck up and do something like that, there's a decent chance I might be fired or worse because there's no way I can necessarily prove that it wasn't intentional. Now, with an error this big it's certainly the most plausible explanation, but if for example I were under $90 on my register at work I'd be severely punished if not outright fired.

I wasn't thinking of someone on a till, but that is certainly the case.


Well, I might be ok since I work for my parents, but that's just me ;)

That's true. However, they didn't lose any money, they simply miscredited the account for an improper amount. It was the withdrawal of that money that took it improperly from the bank; you only own what you put in and have earned on your money and no more.

Really, for most purposes a bank is no different from me giving someone else money for safekeeping. It's more secure and reliable, for sure, but fundamentally no different and that's precisely where banks originated. By pooling money, you can do more with it and give people an incentive to invest with you. I wouldn't take more money than I gave them, so why should it be acceptable to do so to a bank? As hard as it might seem to believe, bank employees and managers are people too and all the money they manage belongs to someone somewhere in one form or another.

i don't recall denying that some people elsewhere also own that amount of money. what i am saying is that the bank, and only the bank, is responsible for the fuck up, and that as part of the price of their fuck up is that they now need to come up with the money to pay both parties. if they don't want to do so, they should try to suck less.

If I owe you $10 and accidentally give you a $100 bill, does that make the extra $90 yours? No? Then it's certainly stealing. Maybe not theft, exactly. I know there are difference between things like theft and robbery and that other one.....larceny, but I can't always remember what.

very basic definitions. "theft" and "stealing" mean the same thing, and neither have really a LEGAL definition. The two general terms are larceny, and robbery.

Larceny is the taking of someone elses property, without permission, with the intent to deprive that person of their posession of it. In other words, if I accidentally take something of yours, thinking it's mine, it's not larceny. No intent to deprive you.

Robbery is larceny committed force, or threat of force.

Taking your wallet is larceny. Hitting you over the head to knock you out, then taking your wallet, is robbery. Pointing a gun at you and saying "give me your wallet" then taking your wallet is robbery.

It gets a little hazy around things like purse snatching, and how much force is "enough" because, by definition, you can't TAKE anything without the application of SOME force (so the law usually equates force with "violence").

Then there are other things like embezzelment, uttering, larceny by trick, carjacking (essentially the robbery of a car).

Id be pissed if im gettin around Go, get the bank error in my favor...And then told I have to go straight to jail and not get my $200....bullshit, lol...

real life isn't a board game. And in real life, when you take something you know is not yours, that's larceny.

It's the moral course of action to steal from an immoral institution? Isn't that one of those becoming the monster you fight sort of things? What worth are morals if they can be abandoned to hurt the immoral?

if it is moral to hurt the immoral (in particular situations), then clearly it wouldn't be abandoning morality when you did it...

very basic definitions. "theft" and "stealing" mean the same thing, and neither have really a LEGAL definition. The two general terms are larceny, and robbery.

Larceny is the taking of someone elses property, without permission, with the intent to deprive that person of their posession of it. In other words, if I accidentally take something of yours, thinking it's mine, it's not larceny. No intent to deprive you.

Robbery is larceny committed force, or threat of force.

Taking your wallet is larceny. Hitting you over the head to knock you out, then taking your wallet, is robbery. Pointing a gun at you and saying "give me your wallet" then taking your wallet is robbery.

It gets a little hazy around things like purse snatching, and how much force is "enough" because, by definition, you can't TAKE anything without the application of SOME force (so the law usually equates force with "violence").

Then there are other things like embezzelment, uttering, larceny by trick, carjacking (essentially the robbery of a car).

*absorbs knowledge*
Ah, NSG, how much you teach me. With any luck I'll retain some of this knowledge and be able to out-lawyer my law student friend now and then.
if it is moral to hurt the immoral (in particular situations), then clearly it wouldn't be abandoning morality when you did it...
Bah, curse your superior reading comprehension.

What I meant was that it hardly seems moral to hurt some person or institution on the basis that it is immoral. Is it ok to steal from other thieves, or drug dealers or some such?

if it is moral to hurt the immoral (in particular situations), then clearly it wouldn't be abandoning morality when you did it...

this is as bad as that "first principles of the universe" bullshit.

real life isn't a board game. And in real life, when you take something you know is not yours, that's larceny.

http://christian-dating-service-plus.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/christian-dating-rules.JPG


Psh...Says you...

this is as bad as that "first principles of the universe" bullshit.

Hey, calling the first principles of the universe bullshit violates the first principles of the universe! Ayn Rand, writings, sexy, etc

i don't recall denying that some people elsewhere also own that amount of money. what i am saying is that the bank, and only the bank, is responsible for the fuck up, and that as part of the price of their fuck up is that they now need to come up with the money to pay both parties. if they don't want to do so, they should try to suck less.

No, because under no circumstances could you justify doing that...no ethical or honest person could seriously claim that they didn't know there was something wrong when $175,000 suddenly appeared in their account. The fact is, they basically took the money and ran, and for that matter were stupid enough to quit their jobs despite only getting enough money for a couple years' poverty-line expenses.

Nothing about their behavior suggests a mistake. It clearly shows they were aware not only of the error but its illegality and chose to do it anyways and for that they need to be treated like the criminals they are.

No, because under no circumstances could you justify doing that...no ethical or honest person could seriously claim that they didn't know there was something wrong when $175,000 suddenly appeared in their account. The fact is, they basically took the money and ran, and for that matter were stupid enough to quit their jobs despite only getting enough money for a couple years' poverty-line expenses.

Nothing about their behavior suggests a mistake. It clearly shows they were aware not only of the error but its illegality and chose to do it anyways and for that they need to be treated like the criminals they are.

But that comes back to the question of whether they really did try and inform the bank.

Would they still be criminals if the bank never corrected the problem after being informed?

What I meant was that it hardly seems moral to hurt some person or institution on the basis that it is immoral. Is it ok to steal from other thieves, or drug dealers or some such?

is it ok to fight back against those that are attacking you? yes, obviously, unless we accept the most absolutely hardcore of pacifist stances. thus we all already agree that there are certain sorts of immoral actions that someone can engage in that morally justify us hurting them to some extent.

my specific claim with the banks is that it is at least not wrong for them to lose their shit when they lose people's money.

They should apply for TARP so they can pay it back. Then we don't have to prosecute them.

But that comes back to the question of whether they really did try and inform the bank.

Would they still be criminals if the bank never corrected the problem after being informed?

If they tried to inform the bank, they wouldn't have withdrawn it, quit their jobs and bought a house in Florida because the error would have been corrected immediately and even before informing them would have done the ethical thing and left the errant sum alone until it was corrected. Banks don't screw around when it comes to fixing those mistakes. Even if the bank didn't correct the problem after being informed, which is an impossible hypothetical, they would still be guilty because the money simply does not belong to them.

The only way it could be legal is if the bank allowed them to collect the error. Otherwise, it's theft and nothing more. What's sad, though, is if a wealthy CEO did this I bet everyone defending these two would be screaming for punishment. but if someone who's not wealthy does it it appears to somehow be okay. Apparently for some people theft is justified if you meet a certain income level.

my specific claim with the banks is that it is at least not wrong for them to lose their shit when they lose people's money.

People make mistakes. It happens, and if someone makes a mistake that is illegitimately in your favor it's your obligation to right that wrong. The only time the bank itself could be at fault is if the error was so large that it literally made it impossible to fulfill the obligations they had to their customers.

Apparently for some people theft is justified if you meet a certain income level.

well, I think there's a good reason for that though...I mean, a CEO does it, and he's just lining his already hefty pockets with more money...

A person of lower income does it, and its a lucky break to live like the aforementioned CEO...It comes down to hoping to have his standard of living one day i think...

It clearly shows they were aware not only of the error but its illegality and chose to do it anyways and for that they need to be treated like the criminals they are.

lots of things are illegal that shouldn't be. nobody who does those thing, even knowing full well that they are illegal and even doing their best to avoid detection, deserves to be punished for them. they deserve to have the law changed.

well, I think there's a good reason for that though...I mean, a CEO does it, and he's just lining his already hefty pockets with more money...

A person of lower income does it, and its a lucky break to live like the aforementioned CEO...It comes down to hoping to have his standard of living one day i think...

That's fine, but stealing is stealing no matter the perpetrator. We're not talking some starving orphan stealing an overpriced loaf of bread, we're talking people who were already relatively financially secure taking money and spending it for their own purposes (and honestly, if you can afford to give $25,000 of it to charity you're not doing that poorly to begin with).

Plus, the irony is that they will be poorer regardless of whether or not they go to jail. Quitting your job now basically guarantees unemployment, especially since they were dumb enough to move to Florida, one of the worst hit parts of the country in this recession. Not only will they be unemployed but the value of their property will keep falling...it's poetic justice, really.

well, I think there's a good reason for that though...I mean, a CEO does it, and he's just lining his already hefty pockets with more money...


Do you think just anyone can lose hundreds of billions of dollars so quickly? Nope. It takes real skill. Look at Ken Lewis, CEO of BAC. He knew his company wasn't losing money fast enough, so he cleverly ran out and overpaid for Countrywide and Merril in order to lose money even faster. (Vikram Bandit at Citibank was winning the race until then).

Admit it. You wouldn't have thought of that. You would have just lost money at the old fashioned rate. There is no way you could have taken so much from the shareholder and taxpayer so quickly.

These people deserve every penny they make (take!). They have a rare skill.

lots of things are illegal that shouldn't be. nobody who does those thing, even knowing full well that they are illegal and even doing their best to avoid detection, deserves to be punished for them. they deserve to have the law changed.

So you're going to equivocate stealing $175,000 of money you don't own with possessing marijuana or prostitution? That doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

People make mistakes. It happens, and if someone makes a mistake that is illegitimately in your favor it's your obligation to right that wrong. The only time the bank itself could be at fault is if the error was so large that it literally made it impossible to fulfill the obligations they had to their customers.

in so far as banks are legitimate institutions, they have additional obligations far in excess of the obligations held by the rest of us. among those obligations is to be damn sure of what they are doing and where the money in their care is going. the best way to make sure of this is to make them bear full responsibility for what happens to it. if doing this is too hard for them, perhaps they should try their hand at an easier line of work. we, on the other hand, have no such obligation to help the bank.

holding the opposite to be true - that the bank is to be blameless for their errors while the people are to be punished for profiting from them, is to say that the people are to be slaves to the rich and powerful.

Do you think just anyone can lose hundreds of billions of dollars so quickly? Nope. It takes real skill. Look at Ken Lewis, CEO of BAC. He knew his company wasn't losing money fast enough, so he cleverly ran out and overpaid for Countrywide and Merril in order to lose money even faster. (Vikram Bandit at Citibank was winning the race until then).

Admit it. You wouldn't have thought of that. You would have just lost money at the old fashioned rate. There is no way you could have taken so much from the shareholder and taxpayer so quickly.

These people deserve every penny they make (take!). They have a rare skill.

lmfao...No, I wouldnt, Id have just went mad with spending on shit for me, lol...

But, in all seriousness, Im not saying its right, just that I can see the reasoning behind treating the two crimes differently...

is it ok to fight back against those that are attacking you? yes, obviously, unless we accept the most absolutely hardcore of pacifist stances. thus we all already agree that there are certain sorts of immoral actions that someone can engage in that morally justify us hurting them to some extent.

my specific claim with the banks is that it is at least not wrong for them to lose their shit when they lose people's money.

How are banks attacking people?

How are banks attacking people?

they aren't, at least not literally. the self-defense part was just a counter example to the claim that hurting something on the basis of it being immoral is itself immoral.

banks making errors are violating their obligations as banks. thus they should bear costs for doing so. them being out the money they lost is exactly the sort of cost we can and should impose on them for it.

where the hell do you live where $175k would buy you a townhouse/condo and money to live on for a year?

You could buy this 8 bedroom, 2 bath (http://realestate.yahoo.com/Michigan/Detroit/1641-webb-st:91a512e6a2f871f65d8ed2171376bb3) house in Detroit for a whole $20,000 and then live a couple of years.

You could buy this 8 bedroom, 2 bath (http://realestate.yahoo.com/Michigan/Detroit/1641-webb-st:91a512e6a2f871f65d8ed2171376bb3) house in Detroit for a whole $20,000 and then live a couple of years.

i want to make a detroit joke about that last part...

but yeah, it'd be pretty doable most places. even more so if you leave the country.

How are banks attacking people?

To be fair, they have been stealing everybody's money recently.

To be fair, they have been stealing everybody's money recently.

more openly than usual, even

they aren't, at least not literally. the self-defense part was just a counter example to the claim that hurting something on the basis of it being immoral is itself immoral.

banks making errors are violating their obligations as banks. thus they should bear costs for doing so. them being out the money they lost is exactly the sort of cost we can and should impose on them for it.
It just strikes me as childish to demand money from a bank for a misplaced decimal point. And what if the slip up is on a big investment and the bank can't afford to make up the difference?
To be fair, they have been stealing everybody's money recently.

I'm sure.

It just strikes me as childish to demand money from a bank for a misplaced decimal point. And what if the slip up is on a big investment and the bank can't afford to make up the difference?

then the bank better hope they have good insurance?

then the bank better hope they have good insurance?

Unless it's a small bank, I don't think you can get that much insurance.

It just strikes me as childish to demand money from a bank for a misplaced decimal point. And what if the slip up is on a big investment and the bank can't afford to make up the difference?


If the bank makes a big 'ooops' on an investment, management pays themselves a bonus and takes the deficiency out of the taxpayers hide. Then pay themselves a bonus again, for being so clever with taxpayer money.

This is literally what has happened.

Of course, to get the money, they had their puppet Henry Paulson, threaten congress with martial law.

I count this as stealing.

If the bank makes a big 'ooops' on an investment, management pays themselves a bonus and takes the deficiency out of the taxpayers hide. Then pay themselves a bonus again, for being so clever with taxpayer money.

This is literally what has happened.

Of course, to get the money, they had their puppet Henry Paulson, threaten congress with martial law.

I count this as stealing.

Which is hardly a misplaced decimal, but I'll assume you just cut the wrong part out of that quote.

Which is hardly a misplaced decimal, but I'll assume you just cut the wrong part out of that quote.

Failure to monitor credit risk, inability to do sums, it's the same thing.

Well, considering you're not stealing from the bank but from the bank's customers...
I'm pretty sure all banks are required to have FDIC insurance, which covers account holders for $250,000. So, assuming that the $175,000 really was taken from people who had their money with the bank (as opposed to it just being a slice of the bank's profits), then the "wronged" parties would be well and covered.

I agree with Free Soviets and Lacadaemon on this. Stealing from a bank is not morally wrong. Especially a US bank, and especially given recent events.
If I benefited from a bank error, however, I'd probably chicken out and give it back. The exception, of course, would be for very small amounts ($200, for instance, I could probably get away with pretending I just didn't know), or for very large amounts (if I ever see $500,000+ in my account, I'm gonna get it in cash and disappear. Fuck the consequences, that's enough to get a new name and place somewhere else).

Failure to monitor credit risk, inability to do sums, it's the same thing.

No, no it absolutely isn't.

If I had a bank error in my favor, I would...collect $200! And if I got there by rolling doubles, I'd roll again!

If they didn't know it was wrong, they would not have withdrawn the money and taken off.

I agree with Free Soviets and Lacadaemon on this. Stealing from a bank is not morally wrong. Especially a US bank, and especially given recent events.
If I benefited from a bank error, however, I'd probably chicken out and give it back. The exception, of course, would be for very small amounts ($200, for instance, I could probably get away with pretending I just didn't know), or for very large amounts (if I ever see $500,000+ in my account, I'm gonna get it in cash and disappear. Fuck the consequences, that's enough to get a new name and place somewhere else).

yeah, like with the law more generally, it's more a matter of what you can probably get away with.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28793620/

Short article.

Do you think the couple should be punished, or is it strictly the bank's fault?

It doesn't matter that it's the bank's fault - it's still theft.
Say we're both have identical bags but with one difference - yours contains $5000 whereas mine contains $5. We meet for coffee. At the end I stand up to go. "Is this my bag?" I ask. "Yup" you say, and off I go with your bag, and your $5000.
Does that now entitle me to claim that $5000 is now mine?

or for very large amounts (if I ever see $500,000+ in my account, I'm gonna get it in cash and disappear. Fuck the consequences, that's enough to get a new name and place somewhere else).
...And instead of a cashier with money, there will come a pack of cops, who will taze you 15 times, cuff, throw headfirst into the truck and drive to the prison. The bank knew all along, it was a joint operation with the feds to catch and jail people who would withdraw half a million discovered on their account without explanation.

It doesn't matter that it's the bank's fault - it's still theft.
Say we're both have identical bags but with one difference - yours contains $5000 whereas mine contains $5. We meet for coffee. At the end I stand up to go. "Is this my bag?" I ask. "Yup" you say, and off I go with your bag, and your $5000.
Does that now entitle me to claim that $5000 is now mine?

Well, that's an unfortunate event, but the burden of proof would be on me to prove that it was in fact my bag you took. Now you would be morally obligated to do the right thing, but if you decided not to, by law I would most likely be screwed.

Now if you said "Is this my bag?" and I said yes, and you tell me that no it isn't there's $5k in there and I said "Yeah right", wouldn't that totally turn things around? Now isn't it down to strict morals?

If they didn't know it was wrong, they would not have withdrawn the money and taken off.

Haha. Teacher logic.

yeah, like with the law more generally, it's more a matter of what you can probably get away with.

I'll make a capitalist of you yet my man. You obviously have the natural inclination and ability.

I call bullshit. Having dealt with bank errors -- in which, actually, a teller stole $3k from me and I had to threaten to take it to state banking commission to get it straightened out, nothing happened until I put it in a registered letter. That, and when I got back one of the checks with a teller's stamp from my "empty atm envelope" and was able to identify who'd taken the money deposited into my account out, all hell broke loose and I had my money back in less than 24hrs after being dicked around for 20 days.

You also only have something like 21-30 days to put it in writing or they don't want to hear it.

Oh and the icing on the cake was when they told me that I needed to ask my employer to reissue my paychecks etc. and I told them, "You have the copy of my deposit record in your computer, and the photocopies of my pay stubs. YOUR employee stole it out of my account, YOU deal with it or you'll be reading all about it in the newspapers, seeing it on the consumer help reports on the local news channels, and hearing from the state attorney general!"

Again, amazingly, it was all rectified in 24 hrs after that.

Haha. Teacher logic.
No, just logic. Perhaps immoral justification of theft makes some immune to it.

Again, amazingly, it was all rectified in 24 hrs after that.

See, being nice doesn't pay, all it does is get you dicked around. You can be nice to your friends and family sure, but in other situation, just act like you own the damn place and they're damn lucky that you visit their establishment.

I would not recommend this approach in any place that serves food or drinks though.

No, just logic. Perhaps immoral justification of theft makes some immune to it.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

You know, in spite of all, this just made me worried.

Using, like pretty much everyone, multiple accounts, I regularly get bonuses from my brokerages. Random internal lotteries, deal volume bonus, deposit size bonus, gifts for old clients, commissions for referrals, spread rebates, special deals, whatever they thought would attract or keep clients, and companies in this business are rarely creative about the form. This gets mixed up among interest, dividends, swaps, automated deals, main losses and profits. Usually you can learn what you got the extra money for, but by 2007, I lost track of this. It's never more than a couple grand, usually less, and on the more volatile markets, that's random noise from clicking the button a minute earlier or later.

Among that, I'm absolutely sure, are also some accounting errors. Not dozens, of course. More like hundreds. More precisely, there is always an amount of error due to processing delays, but small ones are part of life, they aren't visible, total out to zero anyway, and aren't considered such. Visible spikes can be compensated at client request if they cause client loss, are usually ignored if they cause small company loss (note that small in this business doesn't mean the same as in a mart), or fixed if they'd result in significant company loss. Or, if they're never noticed, they're never fixed.

And there must be some that haven't been fixed.

So... can I be charged with theft when I withdraw the funds?
Or, a better question is, in your belief, should I be charged with theft for not bothering to find and correct these mistakes?

Well, that's an unfortunate event, but the burden of proof would be on me to prove that it was in fact my bag you took. Now you would be morally obligated to do the right thing, but if you decided not to, by law I would most likely be screwed.
nope. By law I would be screwed cause there's no way that I could justify taking your property even by mistake when I would know as soon as I opened the bag that it was not mine.
Now if, using the identical bag example again, my bag had $5000 and yours had $5001 then I could justifiably argue that upon opening it I didn't know it was not my bag. It would still be technically stealing if I claimed it for my own but I'd seriously doubt police or a court would bother pursuing me over it.
Returning to the my bag has $5, your has $5000 example there's no way that I could pretend not to know that it's not my bag when I open it.
That's the important bit, which relates to the OP bank error: Before I open the bag (and before they checked their bank balance) we weren't technically stealing anything. But upon seeing the money we knew it wasn't ours. If we did anything other than return it, we're now stealing.

...And instead of a cashier with money, there will come a pack of cops, who will taze you 15 times, cuff, throw headfirst into the truck and drive to the prison. The bank knew all along, it was a joint operation with the feds to catch and jail people who would withdraw half a million discovered on their account without explanation.
Fortunately, that's entrapment. So, after suing the fuck out of the bank, state, police department, federal government, teller and anyone else I can think of, I would collect my winnings and...
Disappear, as I was going to do earlier.

Haha. Teacher logic.

No, just logic. Perhaps immoral justification of theft makes some immune to it.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.


What word, theft? Taking something that doesn't belong to you?

Or logic? Knowing that each action has a reasonable consequence that derives from said action?

Or immoral? Doing something you know is wrong because you are self centered and don't care about harming others?

Or justification, meaning explanation?

Maybe it's immune, meaning unaffected by.

No, I think whatever word you think I don't understand I've got a good grasp of.

Fortunately, that's entrapment. So, after suing the fuck out of the bank, state, police department, federal government, teller and anyone else I can think of, I would collect my winnings and...
It's only entrapment if you can prove it was. And you only stand a chance if it's not a COVERT operation. How do you know this one wasn't?

Also, entrapment is a weak defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment). You wouldn't be able to prove subjective entrapment, and police would be able to disprove it, because you've already posted your intent here! :eek:


Unless you're protected - how many proxies are you behind? :gas:

It's only entrapment if you can prove it was. And you only stand a chance if it's not a COVERT operation. How do you know this one wasn't?

Also, entrapment is a weak defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment). You wouldn't be able to prove subjective entrapment, and police would be able to disprove it, because you've already posted your intent here! :eek:


Unless you're protected - how many proxies are you behind? :gas:
I don't need proxies, I've got better protection. No, Mr. Strumpfpuppe, not condoms; that doesn't even apply here.
I've got connections.
/Insert ominous music here/

I've got connections.
/Insert ominous music here/ gdZp28k#Rt
+++

ERROR
>ATDT 46837638
NO CARRIER

>ATDT 46837638
NO CARRIER

>ATDT 46837638
NO CARRIER

ALL CONNECTIONS LOST

Money laundering?

Sounds clean. :D

No accountant worth their salt would have missed that for more than a pretty short period of time...if you suddenly see your credits suddenly increase by $175,000 with no corresponding changes on the debit side, that's usually when you raise the red flag. That is, of course, unless you're complicit with the scheme and find ways to conceal it...of course, those ways are actually quite difficult for this kind of situation.

Remember, a white-collar criminal is only as good as their accountant.

Oh of course. Got to cover all your bases. Which is why I said, I would if I wasn't lazy, which I am.

Now then... my immorality side...

I wouldn't have said theft and larceny so much as wilful blindness. The problem started because of the bank, and they simply didn't question it. It would be like buying a really snazzy top of the line HD-TV from a friend of a friend out of the back of his mini-van without questioning why it was such a great deal.

After all, the couple didn't force the bank to give them the money; they didn't conspire to get the money. They had no previous intent regarding the money until they saw it. To me, theft says you need the intent to steal. They were wilfully blind to it. After all, the bank is responsible for the money it controls, right?

Returning to the my bag has $5, your has $5000 example there's no way that I could pretend not to know that it's not my bag when I open it.
That's the important bit, which relates to the OP bank error: Before I open the bag (and before they checked their bank balance) we weren't technically stealing anything. But upon seeing the money we knew it wasn't ours. If we did anything other than return it, we're now stealing.

Hence why I said this:
Now if you said "Is this my bag?" and I said yes, and you tell me that no it isn't there's $5k in there and I said "Yeah right", wouldn't that totally turn things around? Now isn't it down to strict morals?

My point being if I was told about it, and didn't bother to do anything about it, well it's my loss. Unless you hang around and bother the piss out of me until I find the problem.:p

Which Is why I said it comes down to basic morals.

For some reason, sudden money turns people into idiots (http://www.snopes.com/luck/walkout.asp).

For some reason, sudden money turns people into idiots (http://www.snopes.com/luck/walkout.asp).
Or truthful, or so the legend tells us.

It depends on the error. if the error was mine, I didn't put in the decimal, then no. if the error was the banks, then it depends on the bank and their policy on handling errors.

It doesn't matter. They took money that they knew for a fact wasn't theirs and spent it as though it was. How is that not stealing? because the bank put that money under their account number. thus labeling it theirs.

It doesn't say they ever tried to withdraw a large sum of money. Regardless, it's irrelevant. They took money they knew wasn't theirs and spent it as though it was. Again, in the absence of evidence that they notified the bank and were rebuffed, I have to assume that the bank did not just brush off a $174,000 accounting error, because that makes no sense.the article did state they withdrew a large sum of money. they even quit their jobs and moved to a different state.
they withdrew the money, quit their jobs and moved to Florida.

I would... however, keep the money in the account and inform the bank of their mistake. however long it takes for them to correct, I would collect the interest on that $174,000 and my bank will award me 10% of the amount of the mistake. :p