Technology Gone Wrong Or Idiot of the Day?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
How does something like this even happen? I can see one or twice...but two dozen times over a two year period?

Sally is discovering she has almost no chance of getting back a penny of the $40,000 transferred in error. The recipient took the money, spent it, and is refusing to repay it. Nationwide says there is nothing it can do – and won't tell Sally who the recipient is because of data protection rules.
Click to expand...
 
She's an idiot but I feel bad for her. The person that took her money should be forced to pay iit back at the very least. It's this kind of low level dishonesty that really makes me lose faith in mankind.
 
She shoudl get a court order for the persons information, and sue the person for the amount, lost interest and court costs.
 
I don't feel bad. Who doesn't check their statements to look for $1500 USD. [H]ard lesson to learn but it was learned nonetheless.
 
ButchCassidy said:
I don't feel bad. Who doesn't check their statements to look for $1500 USD. [H]ard lesson to learn but it was learned nonetheless.
Click to expand...

She worked for the money it's hers, end of story. This is no different than finding some guys wallet and pocketing the money. And fuck off with the '[H]ard lesson' you sound like a 12 year old.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Auto-complete FTL? :)

nutzo said:
She shoudl get a court order for the persons information, and sue the person for the amount, lost interest and court costs.
Click to expand...
The story states the person is refusing to give it back because they already spent it. So I'm sure they know who it is, besides it's not in America... they're not as sue happy over there :D

I do find it funny though that if you get incorrectly paid via auto-deposit or what not the entity can "reach in" and take the money back even if there isn't enough money there (you withdrew it) and then you get slapped with overdraft fees, but if it's a person doing the deposit it can't be done. Either way there should be some sort of e-receipt of the transaction each time it occurs that shows exactly where her money went.

That said I often don't check my bank account, I let my work deposit my paycheck each month, and then when I do get a quarterly statement I'm usually pleasantly surprised at how much money I have
 
I can't believe this can even happen, I can't even order an item online if even one minor detail is wrong like mistyping my zip code, but yet here HSBC and Nationwide allowed the transfers to take place even though the name of the one receiving the payment and the account number were different. That to me is idiotic. It is partially her fault for not noticing it for so long, but this is clearly negligence by the bank for not checking if the destination account name and number match.
 
Sue happy or not, at least in the US that sounds like potential fraud or theft on the part of the recipient. The fact that the recipient made sure to pull it out as cash and spend it indicates that they had a pretty good idea that something was wrong and took steps to profit from it.
 
ButchCassidy said:
I don't feel bad. Who doesn't check their statements to look for $1500 USD. [H]ard lesson to learn but it was learned nonetheless.
Click to expand...

And I'll bet you believe this kind of BS with all of your little black heart, until something like this happens to you. Then totally different ballgame, right?

I'm shocked there aren't laws in the UK that cover this sort of thing. The dude spending someone else's money would be strung up on fraud charges if it happened in the US.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ButchCassidy said:
What I am saying is why wouldn't you verify that a newly setup direct deposit was actually working after you setup it up?
Click to expand...
sometimes it actually helps to read the article...the bank doesn't provide monthly statements and more banks are getting ready to only provide e-statements in three month intervals.
 
She could have prevented this by 1)making sure she typed in the right account number, as numbers don't lie and 2)being responsible enough to make sure her monthly deposits were coming in correctly, at least for the first couple of months. She was ignorant with her money and paid the price for it. I feel terrible for her, but yes, she could have prevented this quite easily. Still, this does not excuse the recipient of that money for spending it instead of reporting it like he should have.

/thread
 
mope54 said:
sometimes it actually helps to read the article...the bank doesn't provide monthly statements and more banks are getting ready to only provide e-statements in three month intervals.
Click to expand...

You bring up a good point, and the bank should be held accountable to at least some degree.
 
I don't feel sorry for the lady. She should've check her account regularly. As for the receiver... sure it's dick thing to do, but SCORE!!!!
 
Dwango said:
And I'll bet you believe this kind of BS with all of your little black heart, until something like this happens to you. Then totally different ballgame, right?

I'm shocked there aren't laws in the UK that cover this sort of thing. The dude spending someone else's money would be strung up on fraud charges if it happened in the US.
Click to expand...

Man you guys are ruthless on this forum. I've been told I lack empathy sometimes but to state that I have a "little black heart" because I don't feel bad for someone who deposits $1500 USD into someones elses account for over two years with out checking out her statements at least once, now that's just mean.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mope54 said:
sometimes it actually helps to read the article...the bank doesn't provide monthly statements and more banks are getting ready to only provide e-statements in three month intervals.
Click to expand...

It sure does

"The answer may lie in the widespread switch to paperless statements, where an account can only be viewed online. Sally did not see a bank statement from Nationwide for the entire period the money was going astray."

"If there is a wider lesson in Sally's story, it is not to agree to paperless statements. In November 2012, RBS/NatWest became the first bank to stop posting monthly statements, instead opting for statements every three months."

3 months, not 2 years.
 
First - She typed in the wrong account number..Twice. For something this important to not double check the number you are typing in is supremely stupid.

Second - This went on for 2 years before she noticed...Let that sink in for a moment..TWO YEARS. Not two months, two years. If you don't notice $1500 a month missing out of your bank account, that is a level of obliviousness and irresponsibility that is just indescribable.

Sorry, but no I don't feel pity for her. All the white knights around here can just kiss off on this one. The level of stupidity and obliviousness displayed by this woman is simply staggering. Sure the recipient is a douchebag for not reporting it, but after two years blame falls squarely on the woman and her husband.
 
NeoNemesis said:
She worked for the money it's hers, end of story. This is no different than finding some guys wallet and pocketing the money. And fuck off with the '[H]ard lesson' you sound like a 12 year old.
Click to expand...
Do you work for a bank or are you just another self entitled participation trophy winner with zero accountability? This is completely different than finding a guy's wallet and pocketing the money. It's more like donating your family's christmas gifts to toys for tots by mistake then demanding they return the donation back.

He's right. The bank is not going to side with her. She let it go for 2 years.

2 years. Just in case you didn't understand that. She didn't check her statements for that long.

I work for in Online Banking for a rather large bank here in the USA. Legally, this woman would be fucked if she agreed to the terms and conditions when she signed up for online banking had this occurred in the USA. Every bank has their own rules on how far back you can dispute something. She can not under any circumstances retrieve the money from the person she paid mistakenly. Her only hope is to go to court with the bank itself to determine if the error was with the bank's website, but even then the court's likely won't side with her (or at least not for the entire amount) because SHE LET IT GO FOR 2 YEARS. I cannot say for certain since this took place in England, but her chances are not good.

This is one very hard lesson for this person. She did not monitor her accounts properly for 2 solid years. Her money is her responsibility. She could have checked online banking and electronic statements, she could have gone into a branch, she could have called her bank's customer service number. Having zero accountability for this mess is her fault.

Had this been only a few months of issues, its likely there would be something that could be done.

After reading this article, I am so thankful my bank does not allow transfers between different accounts under different account holders, between our bank or otherwise, on our website. I am sure this is one of the many reasons why.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mope54 said:
sometimes it actually helps to read the article...the bank doesn't provide monthly statements and more banks are getting ready to only provide e-statements in three month intervals.
Click to expand...

If she didn't have a paper statement mailed to her, then she likely had e-statements where the statement is available online for viewing.
If she didn't have them online for viewing, she most likely still had access to view the account she was INTENDING to transfer to online.
If she didn't have access to view previously mentioned account online, she could have called her bank, gone into a branch or something.

SHE DID NONE OF THAT FOR 2 YEARS.

Article said:
It was a sickening, gut-wrenching moment when, one evening in October 2012, Sally Donaldson checked her bank account and realised she had made the silliest financial mistake of her life.
Click to expand...
She checked her bank account, therefore she did have access to the account she intended to transfer to.

Sometimes it helps to read the article.;)
 
CaptNumbNutz said:
He's right. The bank is not going to side with her. She let it go for 2 years.
Click to expand...
No, he's wrong and you're wrong.
The bank and the law already side with her. The bank can't return the money to her because the account that it was incorrectly deposited into doesn't have the funds. The bank, however, unequivocally stated that it is her money, she is entitled to it, and she is free to file a civil suit to reclaim it.

CaptNumbNutz said:
If she didn't have a paper statement mailed to her, then she likely had e-statements where the statement is available online for viewing.
If she didn't have them online for viewing, she most likely still had access to view the account she was INTENDING to transfer to online.
If she didn't have access to view previously mentioned account online, she could have called her bank, gone into a branch or something.

SHE DID NONE OF THAT FOR 2 YEARS.


She checked her bank account, therefore she did have access to the account she intended to transfer to.

Sometimes it helps to read the article.;)
Click to expand...
Since you claim to work in the banking industry perhaps you'd like to explain how someone can check the statement of someone else's account.
 
What I don't get is, if some regular person accidentally puts money into somebody elses account, the person can keep it. If the bank or some company accidentally does it, the person that gets the money has to inform the bank, and give it back, or it's a crime.

I don't get it.
 
UrielDagda said:
What I don't get is, if some regular person accidentally puts money into somebody elses account, the person can keep it. If the bank or some company accidentally does it, the person that gets the money has to inform the bank, and give it back, or it's a crime.

I don't get it.
Click to expand...
This may help clear it up: in neither situation can the person who receives the funds legitimately keep them.
 
NeoNemesis said:
You're a dick if you actually believe this. She worked for the money it's hers, end of story. This is no different than finding some guys wallet and pocketing the money. And fuck off with the '[H]ard lesson' you sound like a 12 year old.
Click to expand...

No. She transferred it to the wrong account. It's her fault. The big factor is that it went on for YEARS. Yeah, if she caught it within a month or two she should have some recourse to get her cash back, however not keeping track of your finances for years? No excuse. It's just a tough break if you lose out.

Also, she had online access to the account she was transferring from and checked it regularly. Any reasonable person would notice that type of cash missing right away. By not complaining or taking action, the bank can rightfully assume that the transfers were done intentionally and correctly by her.
 
LodeRunner said:
Sue happy or not, at least in the US that sounds like potential fraud or theft on the part of the recipient. The fact that the recipient made sure to pull it out as cash and spend it indicates that they had a pretty good idea that something was wrong and took steps to profit from it.
Click to expand...

Nope.

A) Fraud has implied trickery. As defined by criminal law, fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual. So unless the recipient duped her into filling in the wrong account number or whatnot, it's not fraud. The information implied by the article is that it's a completely random person (who happens to be an asshat, but that's another topic), who started getting money transfers without any planning or intervention by the recipient. So no, not fraud.

B) In criminal law theft is the taking of another person's property without that person's permission or consent with the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. Considering the rightful owner was transferring the money directly into her account, the fact that it went on for years (any reasonable person would notice this in 1-2 months), and the fact that the first owner of the money had online access to confirm these transactions over that time, any court would be hard pressed to define it as theft.

I've bought goods at a store in a sealed box and found extras when I got home. I've had box of 10 oatmeal packages actually contain 12 by mistake, was I a thief for not reporting it? Any reasonable person would say no, and not because of value. If I took 1 cent from your pocket without your knowledge most people would rightfully call me a thief. Theft implies direct action by the benefiting party to make the gain, the value of the item is irrelevant except in the scale of theft (ie. grand theft). Not reporting something is a asshat move, but it's not theft.
 
no, canna, all of those examples you listed are varying degrees of theft and if someone proceeded with a civil claim against you they would prevail and if the state wanted to prosecute you for doing something illegal it could and would prevail.

once you check your ATM balance and see that there's an extra $1500 dollars (or open your oatmeal packages and find extras) you know they don't belong to you and are legally required to return them to the proper owner. whether someone will prosecute you for oatmeal or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether you have actually "stolen" them (you have).
 
What a dumb bitch. What the recipient did wasn't right, but i don't think she should be able to sue him/her for letting such a colossal mistake slide for two years. Let this be a lesson to her about personal responsibility. It would be a damn shame for her to get that money back, because it teaches that you can run around in life making huge fuck-ups without consequence.
 
I can understand not checking the account monthly after you set up the transfer, but not checking the first one to make sure everything went through correctly is mentally numb.

And the chick who spent the money is a dick.
 
mope54 said:
no, canna, all of those examples you listed are varying degrees of theft and if someone proceeded with a civil claim against you they would prevail and if the state wanted to prosecute you for doing something illegal it could and would prevail.

once you check your ATM balance and see that there's an extra $1500 dollars (or open your oatmeal packages and find extras) you know they don't belong to you and are legally required to return them to the proper owner. whether someone will prosecute you for oatmeal or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether you have actually "stolen" them (you have).
Click to expand...

No, because intent to deprive someone of those items is not present. Int both cases you listed the receiver did not intend to deprive the other party of something, the other party gave them the items. Just as if you buy something at a yard sale and there is something else valuable inside that the owner did not intend to sell it's the owners fault for not checking that they weren't giving you something extra in the transaction. A skilled lawyer could make the argument either way, it's a gray area.
 
I'm not going to sit here and argue with layperson's about mens rea (you two are wrong about what you're saying about it, but it's incidental to the discussion) but suffice to say it doesn't apply in a civil case and even if you were correct about it once the person discovers that unaccounted for funds have been deposited into an account and *that person decides to keep that which is not his or hers* that would be sufficient to prove a guilty mind.

Once someone takes a box of cereal home and finds that it has extra packages *and decides to keep and/or eat them despite knowing that he or she did not pay for them* that would be sufficient to prove a guilty mind.

Once you bring your trinket home from the garage sale and happen to find a hundred dollar bill in it or the title to the seller's car, those items were not sold to you and were never intended to be sold to you and if you kept them with this knowledge you can and would be convicted of a number of varying degrees of theft and/or fraud charges.

True, the simple act of receiving money into one's bank account doesn't result in theft, nor does unknowingly walking out of the grocery store or away from someone's garage sale table with excess items in the box constitute theft, but once someone else's property enters your possession without full consent you are responsible for making an attempt at returning it.

There are various degrees of theft ranging from theft by receiving stolen property, theft by receiving property lost by mistake, all the way up to forceable theft--robbery.

Here's a recent case in Philidelphia describing this exact scenario:
“Simply having money put into your account accidently doesn’t exclude you from the law,” one policeman says.

Bucci is now being charged with two felonies, theft of property lost and receiving stolen property.
Click to expand...
-- http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/20...0-mistakenly-deposited-into-his-bank-account/
 
I say idiot of the decade. There were SO many times and ways this should have been caught. It's entirely her own darn fault.
 
this woman is tragically stupid. how does she manage to feed herself, or even breathe, on a daily basis?
 
LurkerLito said:
I can't believe this can even happen, I can't even order an item online if even one minor detail is wrong like mistyping my zip code, but yet here HSBC and Nationwide allowed the transfers to take place even though the name of the one receiving the payment and the account number were different. That to me is idiotic. It is partially her fault for not noticing it for so long, but this is clearly negligence by the bank for not checking if the destination account name and number match.
Click to expand...

i was going to post this
its the banks fault for not checking the account name with the account number and make sure they match up

it should never of happened in the first place
im not not a sue happy person but i think the woman is with in her rights to sue the bank
the bank should then take that money from the person who incorrectly received the the money

last i checked at lest in the US with bank errors IT IS NOT YOUR MONEY
 
If you can give me one single rational reason why I should spoon feed you something you should be able to figure out yourself, I'd give a fuck about doing it.
 
So, what you're saying is that if someone takes money from someone else, it's equal to someone having their life taken from them?
 
See, I'm just going to ignore your attitude, and attack your stupid, emotionally-driven opinion with logical, rational thought.
 
Ok, I am going to go out on a limb here and say that EVERONE that is on [H] bitching and groaning about who is right or wrong...... ALL sound like a bunch of babies. Its a news article and everyone is intitled to their own fking opinion. k? Seriously no matter how much you guys argue, your not going to convince the other party of your feelings. Read the article and make your own assesment and go on with your life. It sound like congress in this fking thread. Move on..... holy shit.
 
You think we shouldn't express our opinions? Perhaps you shouldn't read the thread, if you know you aren't going to like what you read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top