5 ms·

Every time I've had a fraudulent charge on my account, I've contested it and had the money returned to me. I can only assume that in some cases the bank simply

by maxaf 10y ago

Every time I've had a fraudulent charge on my account, I've contested it and had the money returned to me. I can only assume that in some cases the bank simply bites the bullet and writes this off as a cost of doing business. There's probably an upper limit to their general benevolence. Given enough fraud-like losses stemming from asset seizure, the reasonable action would be to simply block the charges before they can post to the customer's account. My bank does call me every now and again to verify charges on my debit card. Some of these calls make me wonder if the system has a hair trigger, which also means it's probably smart enough to just blanket block anything that looks like an asset seizure. This can't be too difficult, and will save banks money. The incentive to save money is a powerful one and has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting customers.

zacharycohn 10y ago
This is not a fraudulent charge, though. It's perfectly legal, under state law.
- jrowley 10y ago
  Exactly, if a bank blocked the charge it would be conceivable that they could be charged with conspiring with a criminal or some business of that sort. It would be so much easier and safer to just let the police take the money and say 'sorry, there's nothing we can do.'
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  The constitution trumps state law. This is illegal everywhere in the US.
  - snuxoll 10y ago
    Yes, and this would fall under the 4th amendment, but until it makes it to the SCOTUS the practice is going to be alive and well.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      True but it will always be illegal.
      - snuxoll 10y ago
        Yup, but the fun part of constitutional rights being violated is you can continue to do so until the SCOTUS declares said legislation unconstitutional. Checks and balances are great, but they really don't work as well as they should.
- adventured 10y ago
  You've entered into federal territory here. Banks are not regulated or controlled by the Oklahoma State Police, they're regulated by the Federal Reserve, Congress, the Treasury etc. Once the state police start stealing funds from banks, they're very obviously crossing a line that will quickly get the Feds involved on a 'personal' level. It's actually a plus, the big boys in banking (which rule over an increasingly larger share of all banking nationally) will put an end to the state police theft very quickly as the numbers climb. Wells Fargo or JP Morgan, as far as the federal authorities are concerned, are drastically more powerful than the lowly Oklahoma State Police.
  - trhway 10y ago
    >You've entered into federal territory here. ... will put an end to the state police theft very quickly as the numbers climb until of course they make a "profit sharing" deal with federals similar to the one in supposedly DEA related asset forfeitures performed by locals.

by maxaf 10y ago

zacharycohn 10y ago

This is not a fraudulent charge, though. It's perfectly legal, under state law.

jrowley 10y ago
Exactly, if a bank blocked the charge it would be conceivable that they could be charged with conspiring with a criminal or some business of that sort. It would be so much easier and safer to just let the police take the money and say 'sorry, there's nothing we can do.'
cmdrfred 10y ago
The constitution trumps state law. This is illegal everywhere in the US.
- snuxoll 10y ago
  Yes, and this would fall under the 4th amendment, but until it makes it to the SCOTUS the practice is going to be alive and well.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    True but it will always be illegal.
    - snuxoll 10y ago
      Yup, but the fun part of constitutional rights being violated is you can continue to do so until the SCOTUS declares said legislation unconstitutional. Checks and balances are great, but they really don't work as well as they should.
adventured 10y ago
You've entered into federal territory here. Banks are not regulated or controlled by the Oklahoma State Police, they're regulated by the Federal Reserve, Congress, the Treasury etc. Once the state police start stealing funds from banks, they're very obviously crossing a line that will quickly get the Feds involved on a 'personal' level. It's actually a plus, the big boys in banking (which rule over an increasingly larger share of all banking nationally) will put an end to the state police theft very quickly as the numbers climb. Wells Fargo or JP Morgan, as far as the federal authorities are concerned, are drastically more powerful than the lowly Oklahoma State Police.
- trhway 10y ago
  >You've entered into federal territory here. ... will put an end to the state police theft very quickly as the numbers climb until of course they make a "profit sharing" deal with federals similar to the one in supposedly DEA related asset forfeitures performed by locals.