5 ms·

And if it was drained from a bank account, you have recourses to get it back.

ddkwool 5y ago
Not true in the EU, we got scammed into making a bank transfer from Germany to Belgium for a bicycle that never arrived. We contacted the police and bank with all the details, and had to pay our bank about 40 euros to ask the scammer if they would refund the money, they said no and that was it. EU banking laws protected them. On the plus side the website appears to be gone now.
- basisword 5y ago
  Voluntarily transferring money is very different from having it stolen. The bank should protect your money while holding it from theft. They can't protect you from your own decisions on how to use your money.
  - MereInterest 5y ago
    They voluntarily accepted a contract wherein they would transfer money in exchange for receiving a bicycle. No bicycle was received, so this voluntary decision does not mean that the money transfer was voluntary. They did not accept a contract wherein they would transfer money in exchange for nothing. Since they did not accept this contract, this does not make the money transfer be voluntary. Being a victim of fraud is not "voluntary" in any meaningful way.
    - basisword 5y ago
      That's got absolutely nothing to do with the bank. It's between you and the 'merchant'.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > this voluntary decision does not mean that the money transfer was voluntary Voluntary or not is a red herring. The word this discussion is looking for is authorized. The transfer was authorized by the account holder. They were defrauded. But when they made the transfer, then intended to do so. (The situation is murkier with credit card transactions, at least in America, because they chose to accept a role in dispute resolution.) The $625mm drained out of Axie's account wasn't authorized by Sky Mavis. That's a different type of fraud than being ripped off.
    - femto113 5y ago
      In the old American paper check system there was an important but subtle distinction between "fraud in the making" and "fraud in the inducement". If a criminal stole your checkbook and forged a check then an intermediary (like a bank or a grocery store) which cashed a stolen check could be on the hook for the money--if you protested to your bank the transaction could be reversed. However if the criminal simply induced you to write them a valid check (e.g. as payment for a non-existent bicycle) then any intermediary that cashed the check is not on the hook, and the only recourse is to get the money back from the criminal.
- brazzy 5y ago
  Banks won't reverse transfers depiberately initiated by the account holder. You would have had to go through the legal system to get your money back. But that's a different case than money being "drained" from an account by someone else.
  - Symbiote 5y ago
    They sometimes do reverse these transactions, but the amount of money involved here (1 bicycle worth) is probably easy for the scammer to put out-of-reach of the bank very quickly -- withdrawing cash, buying gift cards etc.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Yeah, just like they won't reverse cash transaction. Pay someone on street for something, they take the money and don't give you what you wanted. Go to police, and they won't get your original cash back...
- gowld 5y ago
  That's because you didn't use an escrow service between your account and the seller. If you did, the escrow service would provide some measure of legally-supported reversibility.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  €40 is not the same thing. If you got scammed out of €650 million, you would have gotten better attention. That's the point being made here.
tormock 5y ago
You aren't insured for $650M in a bank account
- granzymes 5y ago
  You have a legal system available, and banks that have to rigorously comply with that system.
  - icelancer 5y ago
    This is true about cryptocurrency as well.
    - gowld 5y ago
      Where will Federal Marshals deliver the summons to the owner of wallet address 0x8723aa67f823dbe785dc923 ?
    - ChrisLomont 5y ago
      What percent of BTC has been stolen? What percent of USD has been stolen? And that shows the difference in how each is protected.
      - rossjudson 5y ago
        Interesting thought. Bitcoin circulates, and you have to wonder how much of it has passed through a fraudulent transaction -- at any time in the past. Someday when it becomes straightforward to walk the entire life of bitcoin backwards, there may be people who want their bitcoin back...because it's stolen property. If A has a TV, B steals the TV and sells it to C, who sells it to D...then the TV is still returned to A, and D is out of luck.
        sfe22 5y ago
        But bitcoin can be mixed, how do you decide which of the next transactions contain your part of stolen bitcoins?

Not true in the EU, we got scammed into making a bank transfer from Germany to Belgium for a bicycle that never arrived. We contacted the police and bank with all the details, and had to pay our bank about 40 euros to ask the scammer if they would refund the money, they said no and that was it. EU banking laws protected them. On the plus side the website appears to be gone now.

basisword 5y ago
Voluntarily transferring money is very different from having it stolen. The bank should protect your money while holding it from theft. They can't protect you from your own decisions on how to use your money.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  They voluntarily accepted a contract wherein they would transfer money in exchange for receiving a bicycle. No bicycle was received, so this voluntary decision does not mean that the money transfer was voluntary. They did not accept a contract wherein they would transfer money in exchange for nothing. Since they did not accept this contract, this does not make the money transfer be voluntary. Being a victim of fraud is not "voluntary" in any meaningful way.
  - basisword 5y ago
    That's got absolutely nothing to do with the bank. It's between you and the 'merchant'.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > this voluntary decision does not mean that the money transfer was voluntary Voluntary or not is a red herring. The word this discussion is looking for is authorized. The transfer was authorized by the account holder. They were defrauded. But when they made the transfer, then intended to do so. (The situation is murkier with credit card transactions, at least in America, because they chose to accept a role in dispute resolution.) The $625mm drained out of Axie's account wasn't authorized by Sky Mavis. That's a different type of fraud than being ripped off.
  - femto113 5y ago
    In the old American paper check system there was an important but subtle distinction between "fraud in the making" and "fraud in the inducement". If a criminal stole your checkbook and forged a check then an intermediary (like a bank or a grocery store) which cashed a stolen check could be on the hook for the money--if you protested to your bank the transaction could be reversed. However if the criminal simply induced you to write them a valid check (e.g. as payment for a non-existent bicycle) then any intermediary that cashed the check is not on the hook, and the only recourse is to get the money back from the criminal.
brazzy 5y ago
Banks won't reverse transfers depiberately initiated by the account holder. You would have had to go through the legal system to get your money back. But that's a different case than money being "drained" from an account by someone else.
- Symbiote 5y ago
  They sometimes do reverse these transactions, but the amount of money involved here (1 bicycle worth) is probably easy for the scammer to put out-of-reach of the bank very quickly -- withdrawing cash, buying gift cards etc.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Yeah, just like they won't reverse cash transaction. Pay someone on street for something, they take the money and don't give you what you wanted. Go to police, and they won't get your original cash back...
gowld 5y ago
That's because you didn't use an escrow service between your account and the seller. If you did, the escrow service would provide some measure of legally-supported reversibility.
reaperducer 5y ago
€40 is not the same thing. If you got scammed out of €650 million, you would have gotten better attention. That's the point being made here.

tormock 5y ago

You aren't insured for $650M in a bank account

granzymes 5y ago
You have a legal system available, and banks that have to rigorously comply with that system.
- icelancer 5y ago
  This is true about cryptocurrency as well.
  - gowld 5y ago
    Where will Federal Marshals deliver the summons to the owner of wallet address 0x8723aa67f823dbe785dc923 ?
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    What percent of BTC has been stolen? What percent of USD has been stolen? And that shows the difference in how each is protected.
    - rossjudson 5y ago
      Interesting thought. Bitcoin circulates, and you have to wonder how much of it has passed through a fraudulent transaction -- at any time in the past. Someday when it becomes straightforward to walk the entire life of bitcoin backwards, there may be people who want their bitcoin back...because it's stolen property. If A has a TV, B steals the TV and sells it to C, who sells it to D...then the TV is still returned to A, and D is out of luck.
      - sfe22 5y ago
        But bitcoin can be mixed, how do you decide which of the next transactions contain your part of stolen bitcoins?