13 ms·

While this is true, it might be costly (as it has been for Citigroup) https://www.ft.com/content/a50cd095-2811-41ab-b783-b09944691019 https://www.ft.com/content

• hyperpape 6y ago
  I can no longer find a good source, but I believe in the Citigroup case, they owed that money, it is just that instead of making a standard monthly payment, they paid a large fraction (maybe even all?) of what was owed. That's quite different from sending money into the ether/random recipient. That makes matters substantially more difficult. Correction: Citigroup didn't owe the money, they were acting on behalf of Revlon, who owed the money.