9 ms·

The article doesn't way why he was found not guilty, but I'll make my guess. He did nothing to defraud the bank or mislead it. He simply had access to a large

by adekok 10y ago

The article doesn't way why he was found not guilty, but I'll make my guess. He did nothing to defraud the bank or mislead it. He simply had access to a large line of credit, and used it. If the bank wants it's money back, that's a civil matter, not a criminal one. It's their responsibility to ask for it back. This reeks of incompetence on the part of the bank, followed by outright malice. They put an innocent guy in jail in order to pretend that it was his fault that they screwed up.

wheelerwj 10y ago
It does say: I was acquitted a few weeks ago. As far as the law is concerned in Australia at the moment I had no legal obligation to inform the Bank of what was going on. I wouldn't do it again - it wasn't worth a couple of good months with the strippers and some cocaine. The judge said I was dishonest, but we don't live in a society where moral wrongs result in people being locked up behind bars and their liberty taken away from them.
- saycheese 10y ago
  >> "moral wrongs result in people being locked up behind bars and their liberty taken away from them" Imagine what the world would be like if this was true.
  - virmundi 10y ago
    No one would get locked up because there is no such thing as morality? There are only ethical systems setup for a certain goal. At least that is true if there is no deity that a) tells us anything, and/or b) that gives a shit about what it said.
  - arise 10y ago
    Saudi Arabia?
    - rubberstamp 10y ago
      Not even close
  - mcherm 10y ago
    That's pretty much what we do. The difficulty lies in determining what counts as a moral wrong. Some societies have left this in the hands of the judge (or feudal lord). Most modern societies require legislatures to write down the wrongs and have judges enforce them as written. In this fellow's case, society decided that it was NOT a moral wrong. Many people (including the judge) may feel that what this person did (spending money that wasn't his but was available to him because of bank errors) was immoral. But others may feel that it is not ("Hey, he never lied to the bank - that makes it their problem."). As a society, we have decided that we won't let the judges declare something "wrong" unless the legislature had previously criminalized it, and in this case no existing laws applied.
    - abandonliberty 10y ago
      A small but important distinction: The justice system enforces the will of those who empower it. This has likely never been truly democratic. Not long ago it excluded blacks and women. Bias continues today evidenced by incarceration vs crime rates. This is very distinct from implementing democratic justice. Like any organization the justice system is fighting to stay alive - subject to selective pressures and evolution.
johnward 10y ago
Things like this are why it takes me 3 months and numerous trips to the bank to get a home equity loan. I also need to provide proof of what I was going to do with the money. On the plus side I got to witness the loan agent having to use a typewriter in 2016.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  I got a HELOC in the US in 1 trip to the bank and about 30 minutes. Was so easy. No typewriter either.
  - ensignavenger 10y ago
    Many people do it entirely on-line, and the bank sends a notary to their house to do the final paperwork!
    - brianwawok 10y ago
      My mortgage refi was in house... my heloc didn't work out that way.. but would have been cool if it did.
  - johnward 10y ago
    Maybe it was just my credit union then. It seemed excessive. It wasn't more than a car loan which I can do in about an hour.
pktgen 10y ago
> He did nothing to defraud the bank or mislead it. He simply had access to a large line of credit, and used it. If the bank wants it's money back, that's a civil matter, not a criminal one. It's their responsibility to ask for it back. He was drawing on this line of credit, which he knew he was legally obligated to pay back, without ever intending to pay it back. That sure seems like fraud to me. There is a difference between taking out a loan with the intention of paying it back, but not being able to pay it back due to some circumstance (you lost your job, had a medical emergency, business failed, or something like that), and taking out a loan without ever intending to pay it back. One is a civil breach of contract; the other (at least in the US) is criminal fraud.
- scotty79 10y ago
  > without ever intending to pay it back How can you know that? He himself writes that he was waiting for the bank to ask for some money back and intended to deal with it when it comes. Lack of detailed planning for something isn't the same as lack of intention to do something when it happens. Lots of people take loans without precisely knowing where they'll find money to pay them back.
  - notheguyouthink 10y ago
    > Lots of people take loans without precisely knowing where they'll find money to pay them back. Hell, i'd say in almost all cases that is true. How am i going to know if i'll be at my current job long enough to pay back that car loan? Hypothetically i will have a job, and will pay it back, but in reality i have no idea how i'll pay it back. At best, i can accurately predict X months of payments. After that, it's all just educated guesses.
  - raesene6 10y ago
    That's easy, he had no money to pay it back, ergo it's fair to conclude he had no intention of paying it back. It's one thing to go a couple of thousand overdrawn, quite another to spend $2 million when you have no source of income.
    - 10y ago
benmmurphy 10y ago
In some countries (not sure about Australia) it is a crime to take on a loan with no intention of paying it back. This is probably why at the start of the article he says: 'It seems unbelievable but my intention was never to take all the money from the St George Bank and not pay it back.'. Obviously it is very difficult to prove that someone has no intention of paying back a loan.
- 1024core 10y ago
  But he didn't take out a loan. The bank kept giving him money whenever he wanted to withdraw it. That is not a loan. A loan requires explicit agreement and a fixed amount.
  - bryanlarsen 10y ago
    He signed a contract when he opened up the bank account. That contract would have included clauses establishing liability for overdrafts, even if the bank account didn't include an overdraft facility.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Last time I opened a bank account there was only a specific penalty for overdraft, but nothing beyond that in the contract.
    - 1024core 10y ago
      > That contract would have included clauses establishing liability for overdrafts Maybe the contract did not include such a clause? There's a reason why he got acquitted in the end.
      - bryanlarsen 10y ago
        He got acquitted of fraud. That doesn't mean he's still not liable for the $2M unless the bankruptcy court relieves that liability.
      - 10y ago
imgabe 10y ago
It does say he "mistakenly" had this line of credit. At least in the US if $2 million "mistakenly" shows up in your bank account, and you know it's not yours and you spend it anyway, that's a crime. Now, that's not the same as having a line of credit mistakenly opened, but there's some logic to it being a crime.
- DevX101 10y ago
  If $2 million suddenly appeared in your account tomorrow, and you spend it, that's fraud. If you ask the bank for $2 million, they say "Sure!", and you spend it, that's not fraud.
  - imgabe 10y ago
    Clearly, he was acquitted, so the law must have worked out as you say. I'm just pointing out that it's not completely out of left field for there to have been an investigation and trial to determine if he was guilty of a crime.
alasdair_ 10y ago
The article says why he was acquitted: "I was acquitted a few weeks ago. As far as the law is concerned in Australia at the moment I had no legal obligation to inform the Bank of what was going on."
Mathnerd314 10y ago
Court decision: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5834d37ce4b058596cba1abd https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5834d37ce4b058596cba... The reasoning is indeed "The contract stated Mr. Moore could overdraw as the bank allowed; Mr. Moore requested to overdraw and the bank allowed it; therefore Mr. Moore was authorized to borrow funds and there was no deception on the part of Mr. Moore". Apparently the account was set to have a "relationship officer" status, which comes with a default-allow policy, but then had no relationship officer assigned to deny transactions.

by adekok 10y ago

wheelerwj 10y ago

It does say: I was acquitted a few weeks ago. As far as the law is concerned in Australia at the moment I had no legal obligation to inform the Bank of what was going on. I wouldn't do it again - it wasn't worth a couple of good months with the strippers and some cocaine. The judge said I was dishonest, but we don't live in a society where moral wrongs result in people being locked up behind bars and their liberty taken away from them.

saycheese 10y ago
>> "moral wrongs result in people being locked up behind bars and their liberty taken away from them" Imagine what the world would be like if this was true.
- virmundi 10y ago
  No one would get locked up because there is no such thing as morality? There are only ethical systems setup for a certain goal. At least that is true if there is no deity that a) tells us anything, and/or b) that gives a shit about what it said.
- arise 10y ago
  Saudi Arabia?
  - rubberstamp 10y ago
    Not even close
- mcherm 10y ago
  That's pretty much what we do. The difficulty lies in determining what counts as a moral wrong. Some societies have left this in the hands of the judge (or feudal lord). Most modern societies require legislatures to write down the wrongs and have judges enforce them as written. In this fellow's case, society decided that it was NOT a moral wrong. Many people (including the judge) may feel that what this person did (spending money that wasn't his but was available to him because of bank errors) was immoral. But others may feel that it is not ("Hey, he never lied to the bank - that makes it their problem."). As a society, we have decided that we won't let the judges declare something "wrong" unless the legislature had previously criminalized it, and in this case no existing laws applied.
  - abandonliberty 10y ago
    A small but important distinction: The justice system enforces the will of those who empower it. This has likely never been truly democratic. Not long ago it excluded blacks and women. Bias continues today evidenced by incarceration vs crime rates. This is very distinct from implementing democratic justice. Like any organization the justice system is fighting to stay alive - subject to selective pressures and evolution.

johnward 10y ago

Things like this are why it takes me 3 months and numerous trips to the bank to get a home equity loan. I also need to provide proof of what I was going to do with the money. On the plus side I got to witness the loan agent having to use a typewriter in 2016.

brianwawok 10y ago
I got a HELOC in the US in 1 trip to the bank and about 30 minutes. Was so easy. No typewriter either.
- ensignavenger 10y ago
  Many people do it entirely on-line, and the bank sends a notary to their house to do the final paperwork!
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    My mortgage refi was in house... my heloc didn't work out that way.. but would have been cool if it did.
- johnward 10y ago
  Maybe it was just my credit union then. It seemed excessive. It wasn't more than a car loan which I can do in about an hour.

pktgen 10y ago

> He did nothing to defraud the bank or mislead it. He simply had access to a large line of credit, and used it. If the bank wants it's money back, that's a civil matter, not a criminal one. It's their responsibility to ask for it back. He was drawing on this line of credit, which he knew he was legally obligated to pay back, without ever intending to pay it back. That sure seems like fraud to me. There is a difference between taking out a loan with the intention of paying it back, but not being able to pay it back due to some circumstance (you lost your job, had a medical emergency, business failed, or something like that), and taking out a loan without ever intending to pay it back. One is a civil breach of contract; the other (at least in the US) is criminal fraud.

scotty79 10y ago
> without ever intending to pay it back How can you know that? He himself writes that he was waiting for the bank to ask for some money back and intended to deal with it when it comes. Lack of detailed planning for something isn't the same as lack of intention to do something when it happens. Lots of people take loans without precisely knowing where they'll find money to pay them back.
- notheguyouthink 10y ago
  > Lots of people take loans without precisely knowing where they'll find money to pay them back. Hell, i'd say in almost all cases that is true. How am i going to know if i'll be at my current job long enough to pay back that car loan? Hypothetically i will have a job, and will pay it back, but in reality i have no idea how i'll pay it back. At best, i can accurately predict X months of payments. After that, it's all just educated guesses.
- raesene6 10y ago
  That's easy, he had no money to pay it back, ergo it's fair to conclude he had no intention of paying it back. It's one thing to go a couple of thousand overdrawn, quite another to spend $2 million when you have no source of income.
  - 10y ago

benmmurphy 10y ago

In some countries (not sure about Australia) it is a crime to take on a loan with no intention of paying it back. This is probably why at the start of the article he says: 'It seems unbelievable but my intention was never to take all the money from the St George Bank and not pay it back.'. Obviously it is very difficult to prove that someone has no intention of paying back a loan.

1024core 10y ago
But he didn't take out a loan. The bank kept giving him money whenever he wanted to withdraw it. That is not a loan. A loan requires explicit agreement and a fixed amount.
- bryanlarsen 10y ago
  He signed a contract when he opened up the bank account. That contract would have included clauses establishing liability for overdrafts, even if the bank account didn't include an overdraft facility.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Last time I opened a bank account there was only a specific penalty for overdraft, but nothing beyond that in the contract.
  - 1024core 10y ago
    > That contract would have included clauses establishing liability for overdrafts Maybe the contract did not include such a clause? There's a reason why he got acquitted in the end.
    - bryanlarsen 10y ago
      He got acquitted of fraud. That doesn't mean he's still not liable for the $2M unless the bankruptcy court relieves that liability.
    - 10y ago

imgabe 10y ago

It does say he "mistakenly" had this line of credit. At least in the US if $2 million "mistakenly" shows up in your bank account, and you know it's not yours and you spend it anyway, that's a crime. Now, that's not the same as having a line of credit mistakenly opened, but there's some logic to it being a crime.

DevX101 10y ago
If $2 million suddenly appeared in your account tomorrow, and you spend it, that's fraud. If you ask the bank for $2 million, they say "Sure!", and you spend it, that's not fraud.
- imgabe 10y ago
  Clearly, he was acquitted, so the law must have worked out as you say. I'm just pointing out that it's not completely out of left field for there to have been an investigation and trial to determine if he was guilty of a crime.

alasdair_ 10y ago

The article says why he was acquitted: "I was acquitted a few weeks ago. As far as the law is concerned in Australia at the moment I had no legal obligation to inform the Bank of what was going on."

Mathnerd314 10y ago

Court decision: https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5834d37ce4b058596cba1abd https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/5834d37ce4b058596cba... The reasoning is indeed "The contract stated Mr. Moore could overdraw as the bank allowed; Mr. Moore requested to overdraw and the bank allowed it; therefore Mr. Moore was authorized to borrow funds and there was no deception on the part of Mr. Moore". Apparently the account was set to have a "relationship officer" status, which comes with a default-allow policy, but then had no relationship officer assigned to deny transactions.