So am I, but I still want someone who steals from me prosecuted and my money returned.
It wasn’t over $100K in overdraft fees
The $107,416 overdraft included the money the couple spent.
If I deposit $100K in a bank account with a balance of $1000, write a single check for that $100K and then that $100K deposit is reversed after the bank paid out on the check, I will have a $99K overdraft plus whatever the overdraft fee is.
As **Leaper **said, there is no way to hide the fact that the money went into your account, and now isn’t there anymore. Putting it in a Swiss account would be akin to withdrawing the cash in $100 bills and burying it in your backyard - even if the bank physically can’t find the money, they know you were its last known destination.
Sure… But would they know how it left the account? I’m wondering if the account holders could plausibly claim they know nothing about the money, coming in or going out, and whether there’s a way to get it out that the bank couldn’t prove they were involved in.
There probably isn’t a way. But I thought it would be interesting to ask.
This is not the only article that stated it that way. Maybe the first reporter stated it incorrectly & wire services ran with it but the article(s) specifically state overdraft fees, not overdrafted by that amount, which is what you’re referring to.
If the bank ever makes an error on my account (in their favor) can I sue them? Recover extra penalties/damages?
If not, why not … and why can they, if the situation reversed?
Bank error in their favor, you bet your ass they’ll invest it for interest in the meantime. Do you get that money?
If not, why not?
The article I quoted (which I forgot to link in my earlier post) doesn’t say “fees” - it says:
Funny thing -thisrefers to a “$107,416 overdraft fee” as reported in the Williamsport Sun-Gazette which actually says “the withdrawl (sic) caused a $107,416 overdraft”. I guess reporters don’t know the difference between an “overdraft” and “overdraft fees” nowadays But I suspect the Sun-Gazette has it right since it’s the local paper. ( and that’s what makes sense)
Well, arranging a wire transfer to a Swiss bank account requires some paperwork. As this couple doesn’t seem to also be an international banking law firm, I doubt they could pull it off anonymously. The low rent way to go would be to go to a mall on Friday and purchase something. Go home and disguise yourself then go back to the mall and do a shopping/cashback spree. On Monday, report the card stolen.
But it’s too big a coincidence. The cops and the bank would be all over you like white on rice.
This is a pretty garbled understanding of the situation. The couple isn’t being punished because of the bank error. They are in trouble because they went nuts and spent it all. We don’t know what would have happened if they had temporarily put it into an easily liquidated investment and paid it back when asked.
We’re on the same page that it should be they were overdrafted by that amount & not had overdraft fees of that huge amount…OTOH, what some banks charge you for an overdraft these days! :eek:
Back in the days of scrambled porn, the very softcore “Escapade” channel had a movie where this kind of thing was the “plot.” He would tell women how much money he had in his account, and their clothes would just fall right off.
:dubious:
(“That’s not how any of this works.”)
Agreed. Arguably, if they had put the money into some interest bearing investment, then they could have returned the principal when the bank realized their error but made a legitimate claim to keeping the interest, since it’s not their fault the bank put the money in their account.
The problem lies with not returning something which you know is not yours when the rightful owner demands its return.
In a broader legal sense, though, how far does this “Finder does not mean keeper” principle apply?
If I order food at Burger King, and the absentminded staff give me two Whoppers instead of just one, am I committing a crime if I eat the extra Whopper? Yes, it’s only a four-dollar mistake as opposed to a $100,000 error, but the principle is the same.
What I meant was the bank will never be the loser. The wronged depositer and the thieves will lose. The banks ass is covered.
I’m actually not clear on what the crime is that they are being accused of. Anyone know that? On its face, it seems like the banks problem, and not the recipient of the erroneous deposit.
A local article says they were charged with theft and receiving stolen property.
I don’t think it’s either-or. It’s the bank’s problem because they presumably had to pay the money to the correct recipient whether they got it back or not, and it’s the couple’s problem because they owe money to the bank and now the state wants a pound of flesh too.
My response was to a thread above yours, but a couple of others snuck in before I hit “Enter”. I should have quoted…
That said, I can’t think of any way to move the money without leaving an audit trail, but then perhaps that’s why I’m not a criminal mastermind!
Banks are insured against theft, but not mistakes.
The answer is “maybe”. Most bank agreements have an arbitration clause, so while you may not be able to take the bank to court you can file an arbitration claim. I’ll leave the rest of the answesr to the lawyers.
Technically, probably (IANAL), but as the judge said when I was arrested for flashing, de minimis non curat lex. :eek:
The customer goes to the manager at the grocery store, and says “the cashier gave me the wrong change.” The manager points haughtily at a sign saying “All Errors Must Be Reported to the Cashier At the Time of Sale”, and says, “sorry, there’s nothing to be done.”
“OK”, says the customer. “I just thought I would mention that the cashier gave me three dollars too much.”
Regards,
Shodan
Wait! You were arrested for flashing & the judge said, “We don’t worry about the little things”…& you repeat that story??? 
:eek:
Wooooooooooosh!