When a company screws up like this, THEY need to eat it

[WelshBloke]

And there are civil penalties for misappropriating funds. She didn't "steal" from the bank, the bank just dumped the money into her account. She didn't commit fraud to get the money, the bank just dumped the money into her account. There are non-criminal ways to re-appropriate the money back to the bank. I'm guessing if I overpaid a bill and requested the money back and got the run-around, that billing company wouldn't be arrested and charged with theft and fraud.

I'm going to guess that if she had just left the money in the account it was paid into and just spent a reasonable amount from that and when contacted by the bank gone "What $1.2M? Oh that! Wow. Of course you can have your money back." she wouldn't have had criminal charges.

I think that its hard to say that she didn't steal it as she knowingly moved funds that weren't hers to a place where the owner couldn't get to them in order to deprive the legitimate owner of their property.

 

[WelshBloke]

I agree with that to a large extent - she clearly let avarice get the better of her and was just trying to get something out of this situation, so it's hardly surprising she's in legal trouble. I don't have a great deal of sympathy. But I still feel a bit conflicted because of how rarely it plays out that way when it's the other way round, i.e. when the 'little guy' makes an error and the bank or other big instutution ruthlessly takes advantage of it. That happens all the time, indeed financial institutions have at times made a formal policy out of doing such things on an industrial scale - as in the lead-up to the financial crisis or the mis-selling of PPI. It's rare for anyone to go to jail in those cases.

Oh yeah I totally get the "fuck the bank" attitude and I feel it a bit myself, its just best to try to look at things logically to avoid getting legally fucked!

 

[MrSquished]

I agree with that to a large extent - she clearly let avarice get the better of her and was just trying to get something out of this situation, so it's hardly surprising she's in legal trouble. I don't have a great deal of sympathy. But I still feel a bit conflicted because of how rarely it plays out that way when it's the other way round, i.e. when the 'little guy' makes an error and the bank or other big instutution ruthlessly takes advantage of it. That happens all the time, indeed financial institutions have at times made a formal policy out of doing such things on an industrial scale - as in the lead-up to the financial crisis or the mis-selling of PPI. It's rare for anyone to go to jail in those cases.

This is exactly the issue. She definitely knew what she was doing and should pay a price - but as you say put the shoe on the other foot and usually nothing happens. Look at what happened to those that fleeced their entire economy with their financial derivatives and sub-prime mortgage crisis. Certainly nothing criminal.

 

[nickqt]

I agree with that to a large extent - she clearly let avarice get the better of her and was just trying to get something out of this situation, so it's hardly surprising she's in legal trouble. I don't have a great deal of sympathy. But I still feel a bit conflicted because of how rarely it plays out that way when it's the other way round, i.e. when the 'little guy' makes an error and the bank or other big instutution ruthlessly takes advantage of it. That happens all the time, indeed financial institutions have at times made a formal policy out of doing such things on an industrial scale - as in the lead-up to the financial crisis or the mis-selling of PPI. It's rare for anyone to go to jail in those cases.

Look at Rick Scott, former Governor of Florida, current Senator from Florida.

Lots and lots of active, intentional fraud against Medicare/Medicaid...you know, the Federal Government, and every single US taxpayer.

Paid a fine, got $350,000,000 as compensation for his hard work in defrauding Medicare/Medicaid.

He's also currently running for President.

But hey, this lady got a whole $1m put into her account and she spent it...put her in fucking prison stat.

I'm going to guess that if she had just left the money in the account it was paid into and just spent a reasonable amount from that and when contacted by the bank gone "What $1.2M? Oh that! Wow. Of course you can have your money back." she wouldn't have had criminal charges.

I think that its hard to say that she didn't steal it as she knowingly moved funds that weren't hers to a place where the owner couldn't get to them in order to deprive the legitimate owner of their property.

Yeah, she misappropriated the shit out of money and broke a contract while doing it. I fully support the bank getting every single cent back. I don't believe charging her with "fraud" and "theft" is appropriate.

Minus the bank fucking up, this woman never "commits" fraud or theft. That's why I find the criminal charges to be ridiculous.

 

[pcgeek11]

Why is she held responsible for this. It's not her screw up. She should be able to keep that cash. And because she black she get the racist treatment. Shame.

Yeah, That is the reason.

 

[Dulanic]

Unless you're a company then you fight to keep it. I'm not making a point for or against her choices, but isn't it odd how it's different when it's a company?

Citibank can't get back $500 million it wired by mistake, judge rules | CNN Business

After committing one of the "biggest blunders in banking history," Citibank won't be allowed to recover the almost half a billion dollars it accidentally wired to Revlon's lenders, a US District Court judge ruled.

www.cnn.com

 

[pmv]

Unless you're a company then you fight to keep it. I'm not making a point for or against her choices, but isn't it odd how it's different when it's a company?

Citibank can't get back $500 million it wired by mistake, judge rules | CNN Business

After committing one of the "biggest blunders in banking history," Citibank won't be allowed to recover the almost half a billion dollars it accidentally wired to Revlon's lenders, a US District Court judge ruled.

www.cnn.com

Isn't the complication there that they owed that money anyway? It was an unintended early repayment of a debt, no? That means it's not quite the same thing. Though it seems complicated, as being repaid early (for a debt where there's a danger it won't get repaid at all) is of financial value in itself, so there was an unearned benefit involved for those lenders, so maybe it is a little-bit the same after all...basically different standards are always applied to human beings than to corporations. Corporations are just expected and permitted to behave like sociopaths.

 

[Vic]

Unless you're a company then you fight to keep it. I'm not making a point for or against her choices, but isn't it odd how it's different when it's a company?

Citibank can't get back $500 million it wired by mistake, judge rules | CNN Business

After committing one of the "biggest blunders in banking history," Citibank won't be allowed to recover the almost half a billion dollars it accidentally wired to Revlon's lenders, a US District Court judge ruled.

www.cnn.com

That's an entirely different circumstance. Creditors are entitled to accept repayment of loan proceeds, even if the debtor (or their agent in this case) unintentionally repays sooner than expected or required.

Back on topic (and replying to no one in particular), the crime here occurred when she intentionally sought to keep funds that she knew did not belong to her and that she was not entitled to. This isn't rocket science.

 

[Vic]

Isn't the complication there that they owed that money anyway? It was an unintended early repayment of a debt, no? That means it's not quite the same thing. Though it seems complicated, as being repaid early (for a debt where there's a danger it won't get repaid at all) is of financial value in itself, so there was an unearned benefit involved for those lenders, so maybe it is a little-bit the same after all...basically different standards are always applied to human beings than to corporations. Corporations are just expected and permitted to behave like sociopaths.

This isn't sociopathy, it's simple property law. That assuming equal access to the courts (which of course doesn't happen), would apply equally to everyone.

 

[pmv]

This isn't sociopathy, it's simple property law. That assuming equal access to the courts (which of course doesn't happen), would apply equally to everyone.

Not really. Corporations will obey the law insofar as it is better for their bottom-line to do so than not. If, say, the legal fine for breaking a regulation is less than the additional profit that can be gained by doing so, they will ignore the regulation (edit - also factoring the effect of reputational damage with consumers, if that is releveant...but still it comes back to that bottom line). That sort of amoral self-interested calculation is how a sociopath thinks. They don't make decisions based on morality, they seek to maximise profits. That's the only purpose of a corporation.

 

[snoopy7548]

I would have invested it all in dank stonks, then gladly returned the $1.2 million (while keeping my $100 million in gains!)

 

[cytg111]

I would have invested it all in dank stonks, then gladly returned the $1.2 million (while keeping my $100 million in gains!)

Interesting point... Would she be able to keep the winnings if it turned that way?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Interesting point... Would she be able to keep the winnings if it turned that way?

Probably would've offered her a job

 

[interchange]

Exactly. It was a gift to her. The most that should happen is her tax obligations.

@pcgeek101 is right on this one. She shouldn't be responsible for correcting the problem herself, but the money is not hers. Transferring and spending it is theft.

 

[nOOky]

I would have invested it all in dank stonks, then gladly returned the $1.2 million (while keeping my $100 million in gains!)

If it went into an interest bearing checking she probably made about .06 cents at current savings rates

 

[blackangst1]

That's Australia not America doofus.

You didnt read the article.

 

[HomerJS]

Here's my move. Immediately transfer money to the highest earning guaranteed account(s). Start earning interest and wait to be contacted. When contacted respond by saying "I'll check and get back to you". After a few days tell them you found the money. Give them original amount and keep the interest.

 

[interchange]

And there are civil penalties for misappropriating funds. She didn't "steal" from the bank, the bank just dumped the money into her account. She didn't commit fraud to get the money, the bank just dumped the money into her account. There are non-criminal ways to re-appropriate the money back to the bank. I'm guessing if I overpaid a bill and requested the money back and got the run-around, that billing company wouldn't be arrested and charged with theft and fraud.

And to reiterate, the very first thing I said was, "It wasn't her money, so she didn't have a right to spend it". No where am I arguing that she should get to keep the money.

Very stupid, because it's just a headache when it comes time to give the money back.

But, the hypotheticals aren't about the person, they are hypotheticals. The whole point of me bringing them up is that had this happened in different circumstances, it wouldn't be an immediate "arrest that person and charge them with felonies!" that we see here. And that's simply because the person in this situation isn't rich. If she were, like I said, we wouldn't be reading about it.

Yes, the person has rights, and so does the bank.

The person is absolutely liable for every dollar she misappropriated. But that the state is going to press criminal charges because the bank fucked up on their end of the contract is, in my opinion, ridiculous. You can bet that if she had misappropriated funds with the bank and the bank told her to fuck off, the bank wouldn't currently be facing criminal charges because the person fucked up on their end of the contract.

Let me say again: It wasn't her money, so she didn't have a right to spend it.

We are an over-criminalized society for sure, although this is still a criminal act. How much of a punishment is just would require more knowledge of her mental state and actions. I think the likelihood is that it will end up being excessive. But that does not mean the remedy is to let criminal acts pass without consequence.

 

[BoomerD]

Bottom line, it is a felony to spend money erroneously deposited into your account. Happens quite a bit.

If the Bank Accidentally Deposits Money in Your Account, Don’t Spend It (lifehacker.com.au)

We don't play by Australian rules here...

(even if the same rules do apply...)

 

[blackangst1]

We don't play by Australian rules here...

(even if the same rules do apply...)

You didnt read it either. It talked specifically about a specific American case.

 

[Moonbeam]

We are an over-criminalized society for sure, although this is still a criminal act. How much of a punishment is just would require more knowledge of her mental state and actions. I think the likelihood is that it will end up being excessive. But that does not mean the remedy is to let criminal acts pass without consequence.

Because people have no idea why criminal behavior exists or that what prevents most people from it is fear, we will continue to rely endlessly on being a criminal society with the only answer that seems rational to prevent individual property ri*hts to be punitive threat. We will continue in perpetuity to be a society of rampant criminality.

criminal behavioris the product of the theft of self respect resulting from being put down as children. The pain of that experience is the last thing we want to enter consciousness.

He who sleeps on the road loses either his hat or his head. A saying.

 

[woolfe9998]

Bottom line, it is a felony to spend money erroneously deposited into your account. Happens quite a bit.

If the Bank Accidentally Deposits Money in Your Account, Don’t Spend It (lifehacker.com.au)

Yes, exactly. It's spending the money which is what gets you into legal trouble. If you really want to be unethical and have a chance to keep this money which doesn't belong to you, you let it sit for a good long while, probably 6 months or more, to give the bank the opportunity to correct the error before you consider spending it. This woman was both unethical and a total idiot.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Woman arrested for refusing to return $1.2million deposited in her bank account by mistake

This is bunk all the way through. They messed up and the citizen is being demonized.

damn!! dude@!! Are yuo serious?? Thee is no way that money is hers.....no way!

 

[JEDIYoda]

IANAL but I imagine the prosecution will have to prove bad faith... I also imagine it wont be hard... But of course the individual has rights.

nO THE INDIVIDUAL HAS NO RIGHTS IN THIS CASE! The people who owned the money was Charles Schwab and this woman had an account with Charles Schwab and when you have an account with companies like Charles Scvhwab you sign a contract and in that contract is states that any money deoposited in your account that is in error is NOT your money and must be returned!

 

[JEDIYoda]

It is a sad commentary on our educational system that people do not know what criminal activity is.....