| That’s not necessarily how that works. | |
| Posted by: ShowGoer 12:22 am EST 02/06/24 | |
| In reply to: Wouldn’t the bank be liable - dramedy 08:04 pm EST 02/05/24 | |
|
|
|
| If a bank mistakenly gives funds over to someone who somehow clones a bank card, or who engages in identity theft by trying to pass themselves off as someone else in person, then it’s on the bank to help the authorities try to catch that individual; and whether they do or they don’t, it would be their responsibility to absorb the costs. If on the other hand someone has possession of a black check which they deposit at an ATM, and then withdraws the funds and closes that account, not only might there be no way to catch the culprit, but the bank’s position could be (possibly rightly) ‘and that’s why you don’t leave blank checks lying around’. It’s obviously a crime, no question - but in this case the crime is technically stealing something from an office, as opposed to directly stealing from a bank; so, as with other stolen property, there’s a chance that any recovery may be more the responsibility of the police than the bank, who in this instance didn’t necessarily fall down on the job. |
|
| reply | |
|
|
|
| Previous: | Wouldn’t the bank be liable - dramedy 08:04 pm EST 02/05/24 |
| Next: | re: That’s not necessarily how that works. - Ijest22 02:11 pm EST 02/06/24 |
| Thread: |
|
Time to render: 0.016931 seconds.