4 ms·

I'm ambivalent about this one. On one hand, I hate banks. They treated me like shit when I was penniless, now that I have a couple to rub together they won't

by crikli 15y ago

I'm ambivalent about this one. On one hand, I hate banks. They treated me like shit when I was penniless, now that I have a couple to rub together they won't let me cash a check without trying to suck-up their way into some new type of account. Ocean Bank failed to protect their customer's money; I don't to see the difference between the FDIC protection afforded depositors in case of physical robbery and the protection that depositors should have from digital robbery. On the other hand, there's no law, case or otherwise, that makes the bank specifically liable. So the judge has no basis on which to hold the bank accountable. They "should" be liable, but it's an ethics issue, not a legality issue. I'm not about to expect a bank to be ethical. This kind of thing makes me thankful for Wells Fargo. Their fraud/theft detection system is tops and has saved us from fraudulent charges in at least two instances.

ktsmith 15y ago
The article states that the banks automated systems were triggered for suspicious activity and the bank ignored them. One would think that at the very least that would make the bank negligent. Of course there is probably more to it than that.
cheez 15y ago
> They treated me like shit when I was penniless, now that I have a couple to rub together they won't let me cash a check without trying to suck-up their way into some new type of account. Haha, I thought it was just me. "Why are you people being so nice to me all of a sudden???" With regards to the article, I think that they ignored the alarms is important. I once took out $5K cash for a transaction where I had to show some money and an internal this-is-not-normal alarm went off. While it was an inconvenience, I'm glad that the bank did not let me walk out with the money without checking up on me. So I think that the bank from the article was very irresponsible. I hope that the soon-to-be-ex-customer of the bank publicizes this issue with the media even more. This is the only check on their carelessness.
- crikli 15y ago
  > I once took out $5K cash for a transaction where I had to show some money and an internal this-is-not-normal alarm went off. While it was an inconvenience, I'm glad that the bank did not let me walk out with the money without checking up on me. So I think that the bank from the article was very irresponsible. I agree 100%; I know it can be done because I've had similar experiences with WF. We have been traveling and I've gotten phone calls from them within 5 minutes of a transaction saying, "hey, we just want to make sure this is legit." The fact that they ignored the alarms is important and I agree, negligent. But it doesn't look like it was enough for the judge to find them liable and more importantly, make it stick and not get flipped on appeal.
yangez 15y ago
In this case the "physical robbery" parallel would be losing your key to a safety deposit box, and then suing the bank when your stuff is stolen. Don't get me wrong, I don't love banks either, but here the bank's security didn't get compromised.
- Kadrith 15y ago
  I think it may be more like, you lost your key and the person finding it went to the bank. While there they presented ID, per the banks normal process, and even though the presented ID was suspicious the bank allowed the transaction to continue.

by crikli 15y ago

ktsmith 15y ago

The article states that the banks automated systems were triggered for suspicious activity and the bank ignored them. One would think that at the very least that would make the bank negligent. Of course there is probably more to it than that.

cheez 15y ago

> They treated me like shit when I was penniless, now that I have a couple to rub together they won't let me cash a check without trying to suck-up their way into some new type of account. Haha, I thought it was just me. "Why are you people being so nice to me all of a sudden???" With regards to the article, I think that they ignored the alarms is important. I once took out $5K cash for a transaction where I had to show some money and an internal this-is-not-normal alarm went off. While it was an inconvenience, I'm glad that the bank did not let me walk out with the money without checking up on me. So I think that the bank from the article was very irresponsible. I hope that the soon-to-be-ex-customer of the bank publicizes this issue with the media even more. This is the only check on their carelessness.

crikli 15y ago
> I once took out $5K cash for a transaction where I had to show some money and an internal this-is-not-normal alarm went off. While it was an inconvenience, I'm glad that the bank did not let me walk out with the money without checking up on me. So I think that the bank from the article was very irresponsible. I agree 100%; I know it can be done because I've had similar experiences with WF. We have been traveling and I've gotten phone calls from them within 5 minutes of a transaction saying, "hey, we just want to make sure this is legit." The fact that they ignored the alarms is important and I agree, negligent. But it doesn't look like it was enough for the judge to find them liable and more importantly, make it stick and not get flipped on appeal.

yangez 15y ago

In this case the "physical robbery" parallel would be losing your key to a safety deposit box, and then suing the bank when your stuff is stolen. Don't get me wrong, I don't love banks either, but here the bank's security didn't get compromised.

Kadrith 15y ago
I think it may be more like, you lost your key and the person finding it went to the bank. While there they presented ID, per the banks normal process, and even though the presented ID was suspicious the bank allowed the transaction to continue.