6 ms·
So bank fell for a con and now Bob has to pay?
by forgotpwd16 4y ago
So bank fell for a con and now Bob has to pay?
- PKop 4y agoYes because how would it look different if Bob was playing both the victim and the scammer?
- zepolen 4y agoThe house always wins.
- lmz 4y agoBob's mistake was sending the money "back" to someone other than the original sender. I'm sure you can appreciate how this appears no different to the sending bank vs. e.g. sending it to your cousin who conveniently lives in another country.
- DangitBobby 4y agoI don't see why that should be Bob's problem. Don't give out loans without proof of identity.
- lmz 4y agoIt's not about the loan at that point. It could be a wrong account number, or a wrong amount (e.g. https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/01/australia-crypto-com-accidentally-sent-woman-6000000-17281234/ https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/01/australia-crypto-com-accident... ) and Bob would still be liable if Bob moved the money out and was unable to return it.
- shawabawa3 4y agoBank fell for a con issuing a fraudulent loan Bob fell for a con by transferring money to someone So even if the loan is forgiven to bob (which it should be), the bank could argue that those funds that were transferred were bob's own money, not the loan
- DangitBobby 4y agoNegative. Bob did not initiate a loan, and did not have the money to give.