9 ms·
I understand that the other account holder's sentiment might have been "it's the bank's money" at first, but I don't understand how someone could accept money t
by derangedHorse 7y ago
I understand that the other account holder's sentiment might have been "it's the bank's money" at first, but I don't understand how someone could accept money that effectively belonged to someone else and was only given to that other account-holder by mistake. It's effectively stealing in my eyes. Barclay's is also at fault here because at the very least they should have reimbursed Teich the full amount. He did make a mistake, but it was a mistake that should have been caught by the bank if they just made sure the recipient's account aligned with all the information specified by Teich.
- Bostonian 7y agoStealing from a bank is no more defensible than stealing from an individual. Banks have people behind them -- shareholders, creditors, and employees.
- rowanG077 7y agoYes it is. Just like stealing 1000 dollars from a billionaire is more defensible then stealing 1000 dollars from someone on welfare. The damage done on the former is nigh unnoticeable while the damage on the later would probably include starving without help.
- merpnderp 7y agoIf the law doesn’t protect everyone equally, then people start gaining a strong incentive to not follow the law. We can see the results of this currently all around the world with countries rioting and on fire.
- rowanG077 7y agoHuh? Why do you bring the law into it? No one ever said anything about that.
- jakelazaroff 7y agoIn many cases protecting people equitably makes more sense. For example, some countries assess fines based on one’s income: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Classic quote: “The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.”
- macinjosh 7y agoEquity is, in effect, code for treating some people different than other people due to immutable facts about reality. That's wrong. Equality is right. Enforcing equity is illegitimate use of the government and is an out right attack on everyone's personal liberties. I don't care if someone is rich, poor, white, brown, gay, straight, etc. The government treating someone differently (in anyway) due to who they are is wrong. End of story.
- jakelazaroff 7y agoA strict view of equality can actually lead to the law treating people differently due to who they are. Consider a flat fine for speeding: pragmatically, that means that someone living paycheck to paycheck has to obey speed limits whilst a millionaire does not. That is wrong.
- merpnderp 7y agoYou have a strange definition of "differently". A millionaire doesn't get to speed, that's just ridiculous. They'll be stopped, inconvenienced, and have points on their license, and eventually lose the legal right to drive. Treating people differently through some arbitrary definition of difference is wrong. Either we're all equal in front of the law or some animals are more equal than others. And the kind of justice you're peddling is what has set countries across the world on fire recently; the uneven application of the law. [Edit] I don't think I was clear. Everywhere we see special cutouts in the law, all that happens is that the more capable less scrupulous people capture those cutouts. The best we can hope to do is to treat everyone exactly the same in front of the law.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- tedivm 7y agoNo one here was talking about the law, as legality and morality are two distinct things.
- macinjosh 7y agoYou're disgusting. Stealing is stealing.
- rowanG077 7y agoPlease don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say either of those cases isn't stealing.
- dang 7y agoPlease don't post personal attacks, regardless of how wrong the other person is or you feel they are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- Turing_Machine 7y agoYou're seeing "the bank" as a faceless entity, when in fact "the bank" (not sure about this particular bank, but in general) is owned by shareholders, some of whom are almost certainly disabled old ladies whose dead husband put their retirement savings in bank stocks because those were considered to be a safe investment. If enough people steal from "the bank" under your theory, the old blind lady winds up eating cat food and not being able to pay her rent because the bank is no longer profitable. That doesn't sound quite as "defensible", now, does it? Note that things like banks and insurance companies (another favorite whipping boy) do tend to have their stocks owned by things like retirement funds, precisely because they are considered low-risk investments with a safe (albeit small) yield.
- rowanG077 7y agoI'm not seeing the bank as a faceless entity. My point about the comparison with two people should clue you in on that. Your theory about if enough people steal from "the bank" doesn't hold any water since if that happens it's proven that the government will swoop in and save the bank as happened in the 2008 financial crisis. That's not even to say the vast options banks have to detect stealing if it would become such a huge problem. A person on welfare has little option. It's simple to me. a single person stealing from a bank incurs a lot less suffering then a single person stealing from a welfare recipient. The damage done is simply not even comparable.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Turing_Machine 7y ago> I'm not seeing the bank as a faceless entity. Yes, you absolutely are. > it's proven that the government will swoop in and save the bank as happened And you're also apparently seeing "the government" as a faceless entity with an unlimited amount of cash. When the government "swoops in", it's at the expense of every single taxpayer. I'm boggled that people are incapable of understanding this, or are in such denial about it that they feel the need to mod me down rather than debating the point.
- lscotte 7y agoThis is simply wrong. $1000 is $1000. Period.
- scarejunba 7y agoObviously untrue. Money has diminishing marginal utility. That doesn’t necessarily justify a theft but $1000 isn’t identical utility to all.
- rowanG077 7y agoI'm not sure what your point is. Of course $1000 is $1000 dollars. That doesn't mean the relative value of $1000 is the same for all people.
- Aeolun 7y agoFor the law. Ethically I do not think this is true.
- dang 7y agoPlease don't take HN threads further into flamewar. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- user5994461 7y agoPretty sure that by British law, they have to transfer back the money that was erroneous transferred to them.
- dfawcus 7y agoA lot of the banks have contract terms which allow them to correct erroneous transfers (i.e. incorrect deposits to ones account without ones approval), so waiting for a court order would not be necessary. Maybe Barclays do not include such a term?
- matthewheath 7y agoThey do. S1(1) of the Theft Act 1968[1] covers this. -- [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/definition-of-theft http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/crossheading/def...
- gambiting 7y agoIt took the guy 2 years and nearly 50 thousand pounds to get it back. The law can say whatever, but if there's no enforcement then what are you going to do? There's a good chance you can get away with it, but yes, the guy had an extraordinarily bad luck of sending the money to someone who had zero morals. I'm sure(hope?) that most people would give the money back.
- josh5555 7y agoThe police are too busy investigating tweets that hurt people's feelings and offensive comedians. Also, TV license compliance. Priorities.
- gambiting 7y agoIn addition to that - the person who kept the money had literally no punishment for doing this. It is my understanding that they simply had to give it back and that's it. Even if they only kept it in a savings account for 2 years that would have generated a non-insignificant amount of interest(so they benefited financially from their crime) yet there is absolutely no punishment for it.
- austhrow743 7y agoDoes stealing baffle you similarly?