LogFAQs > #927280470

Kyuubi4269 posted...

If somebody gives you cash, it's reasonable to assume it's for you.

If you were not expecting a $100,000 deposit into your bank account, then it very much is not reasonable to assume that it's intended for you, rather than a mistake on the bank's part. It's never reasonable to assume something that has so much precedent for not being true.

HornedLion posted...

You cant punish the hamster, he has no grasp of the matter.

Except these "hamsters" are actually sentient human beings who can absolutely be expected to have a grasp of the matter. They therefore have a responsibility to act appropriately, and immediately spending $100,000 they knew wasn't theirs is not acting appropriately.

likehelly posted...

it's a bank. these mistake should not happen, and if they do, should be covered by the bank because it's a f***ing bank where these mistakes shouldn't f***ing happen

As nice an idea as that is, mistakes are still going to happen, regardless of what safeguards are in place. If you start placing 100% of the responsibility on the bank for covering losses on this scale, that's going to result in the bank finding whatever lower-level employee was most directly responsible for the error and taking the loss out of their pay. Given that this is likely to be 2-3 years' worth of pay, that means banks won't be able to find anyone to work those positions because of the risks involved and/or will have to dramatically increase their wages to compensate, neither of which are particularly conducive to the bank being able to function.

These mistakes shouldn't happen, no, but they do, and the safeguards in place to mitigate their impact include the legal protocols for finding money like this. The only reason there's any problem at all here is because the couple decided to say "I guess this is our money now they can't catch us," instead of contacting the bank to figure out what happened. Had they followed protocol, everything would have been fine.