Sydney Woman Arrested for Spending Money from Bank Error

cuteseal on 05/05/2016 - 16:47
Last edited 05/05/2016 - 16:53

I've seen a few posts on here where people have had amounts appear in their bank accounts and have wondered whether they should keep it or give it back. Looks like it's definitely looked upon as fraud…

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-05/woman-arrested-at-sydn…

Apparently a Sydney woman either found 4.6 million in her bank account, or was able to overdraw her account by 4.6 million back in 2012 and has been arrested for fraud after trying to leave the country.

According to the police prosecutor, the money was accessed through an overdraft facility, mistakenly attached to a Westpac savings account.

In addition to a charge of obtaining financial advantage by deception, she was also charged with knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime.

Bottom line, from the article:

Sydney City Police Detective Inspector Sean Heaney said if members of the public find money in their accounts that should not be there, or they have an ability to overdraw on an account that they should not have, they should not spend the money.

He said exploiting an error made by the bank amounted to stealing.

"The money doesn't belong to you, you know that, don't go spending it, it's going to cause you some trouble with the police.

Financial

Comments

  • CyberMurning on 05/05/2016 - 16:53
    +4

    Young rich pretty bit not too smart….

    • Scrooge McDuck on 06/05/2016 - 10:42
      +5

      Bloody oath!

      Between July 2014 and April 2015, Ms Lee allegedly overdrew on numerous occasions, totalling $4,653,333.02.

      However, prosecutor Marc Turner strongly opposed bail saying Ms Lee had applied for an emergency Malaysian passport recently, just weeks after a warrant was issued for her arrest in March.

      Even though Sydney City Local Area Command's CBD fraud unit started their investigation in 2012, they only issued the warrant on March 4, 2016.

      She could've made it, but she stayed in the country for almost a year after her windfall. ><

      • Pacify on 06/05/2016 - 21:23
        +2

        Oh my god, what an idiot. A year? Why… did she stay. What was she thinking LOL

    • momov3 on 06/05/2016 - 17:16
      +17

      She WAS smart. She spent it all and they have a rat's chance recovering it from her. The worst is she can declare bankruptcy the same way the unscrupulous companies who lose their investors' funds do. They declare bankruptcy never to pay the investors what they lost. Too bad she didn't fly home and stay in Malaysia permanently, they would not have been able to touch her. The silly girl came back, now her passport is confiscated and she will be detained until justice is done.

      • Ayanami on 07/05/2016 - 01:59
        +5

        But she's going to go to jail for a long time…

        • FutureTech on 07/05/2016 - 09:26

          Not necessarily. Depends on whether the justice finds her guilty, or decides that it's a civil matter. If it's latter she won't go to jail for one day.

        • sareth on 07/05/2016 - 11:12
          +6

          On what charges? It wasn't theft, the money was given to her - mistakenly or not, if someone hands you a $100 note and then says "backsies", you don't have to give it back.

        • jenkemjunkie on 07/05/2016 - 13:17
          +5

          @seanmurphy1994:

          if I accidentally make a transfer to a wrong account, the bank even says no takebacks!!

          We won't ever 'really' know what happened because the police like to trump charges to use as bargaining chips later down the line for a plea deal and the banks would be using the bests sophists to spin the situation in their own favour.

        • johnno07 on 07/05/2016 - 14:52
          +3

          @seanmurphy1994: Fraud. The charges are fraud.

        • sareth on 07/05/2016 - 16:27
          +2

          @johnno07:

          She'll get off easily then, since she didn't do anything fraudulent to acquire the money.

        • ninetyNineCents on 07/05/2016 - 17:18
          +5

          @seanmurphy1994:

          It is theft, she took money that's not hers and never was. If you find a wallet and you don't try and return it, ignoring names and details, that's also theft by finding.

        • sareth on 07/05/2016 - 17:25
          -2

          @ninetyNineCents:

          Sure, but that's not what happened here. It is not theft by definition, since she did not take anything. Money was gifted to her.

        • ninetyNineCents on 07/05/2016 - 17:26
          +3

          @seanmurphy1994:

          Your wrong , it wasn't gifted to her intentionally, she has no document to support it was gifted by anyone. When you take something that's not yours that's theft,

        • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2016 - 17:40
          +9

          @ninetyNineCents: She didn't find a wallet, she found money in her wallet that someone had put there.

        • WhatWouldBiggieDo on 07/05/2016 - 18:41
          +4

          You guys are crazy if you think this doesn't amount to fraud. She spent money that wasn't rightfully hers. And if you want to see the potential penalties for getting caught, look at this article:

          http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/coast-mum-facing-j…

        • Gnosh on 07/05/2016 - 19:22
          +12

          @antt:

          If millions of dollars appeared in her account I would agree with you.
          However the bank LOANED her money - she has to pay it back. How is this theft, whether glitch or not?

        • Gnosh on 07/05/2016 - 19:23
          +2

          @ninetyNineCents:
          She borrowed it. There's a difference.

        • ninetyNineCents on 07/05/2016 - 19:39
          +2

          @grimes:

          Sorry Grimes i agree, i was just trying to point out that it was most definitely not a gift, as seanmurphy tried to claim.

        • WhatWouldBiggieDo on 07/05/2016 - 20:34

          @grimes: the bank didn't loan her the money. She was accidentally given an unlimited overdraft, without any checks being done on whether she had the capacity to repay etc. It was incorrectly made available to her.

        • danyool on 07/05/2016 - 21:30

          @voolish: Gold!

        • illumination on 07/05/2016 - 22:00
          +16

          @antt:

          I'm not sure why you insist this is fraud. There isn't much difference between this and my credit card with a $15k limit. If I spend that $15k and can't pay back, are you telling me I'm going to be done for fraud too because the "money isn't mine"? Yes, a credit check may have been done on me, but the key part of this is that this overdrafted was granted to her.

          I agree with all the others here that say no crime has been committed. She just owes the bank (a lot of) money.

        • Gnosh on 07/05/2016 - 23:21
          +2

          @illumination:
          You've hit the nail on the head

        • secondstory on 08/05/2016 - 00:13
          +4

          @illumination:

          So she borrowed an insanely large amount of money - having spent every cent (on something that probably doesn't offer return of any sort) and tried to leave the country on an emergency passport.

          I think it might the leaving part.. If you borrow money from a bank you are in an agreement that you are going to pay it back (and with interest). Running from paying that back sounds like fraud to me.

          I mean she might have had intentions to come back or have a return payment plan at the ready but there is no proof and this is not a small amount by any means. Given the circumstances, its unlikely she had good intentions. Seems like they did know about it for a long time but didn't arrest her until it was pretty certain she was trying to leave the country (in a hurry, which could raise suspicions). It's reasonable for police to stop her but I don't know how solidly they can prove she didn't intend to return the money. She's probably been granted bail because of that.

        • secondstory on 08/05/2016 - 00:38
          +1

          @seanmurphy1994:
          Firstly we don't know how or by what means the overdraft/bug became available to the account. It could have been intentional from an acquaintance working internally or could just be a glitch..

          Consider this: Someone is walking through a jewelry store turns away his handbag for a moment. He looks back and realises that somehow a tonne of obvious store merchandise has somehow been crammed/dropped into his handbag but there is noone around. He knows it's there. He know its not his. Does this mean it has been given to him? Is it right for him to knowingly walk out of the store quietly taking as his own "gift" then pawning it for cash?

          Article states/updated: "she was also charged with knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime."

        • secondstory on 08/05/2016 - 00:41

          @grimes:

          It would be theft if she tried to run without paying it back.

        • massafiri on 08/05/2016 - 11:23
          +2

          @illumination: This doesn't even compare; a bank wouldn't give 4.2m credit to someone who they believe cannot service it. The banks did not approve of such an overdraft, and she knew that. She was willingly and knowingly exploiting a bug for her own personal gain - this makes it fraud.

        • frinik on 08/05/2016 - 12:39
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents: My childhood was a lie. Finders keepers was never really a thing!? O_o

        • abh_gup on 08/05/2016 - 14:32

          @grimes: I agree, partially.
          If i found this, I'd use a bit of it, even donate some, then notify the bank know that I really needed it and to commence a loan within minimal interest rate and max term, with no credit checks or financial evidences, etc.

          Alternatively, donate a BIG chunk to a deductible charity. Then leave the bank to sort it out, or snatch it back from the helpless cause if they want to.

        • Serapis on 08/05/2016 - 23:06

          I'd say ONLY between 5 to 10 years (charge is MAX 10 years) given that she tried to fly out and can be shown she wasnt just plain ignorant / stupid by transferring money to other accounts + due the size of the debt. Though why she would fly to Malaysia, I have no idea since Australia has a bilateral extradition treaty with Malaysia…

          Regardless of what peoples' opinions are, this is recognised as offence under the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) PART 4AA - FRAUD

          192C Obtaining property belonging to another

          (1) For the purposes of this Part, a person
          "obtains property" if:
          (a) the person obtains ownership, possession or control of the property for himself or herself or for another person…
          (2) A person does not commit an offence under this Part by obtaining or intending to obtain property belonging to another unless the person intends to permanently deprive the other of the property.

          192D Obtaining financial advantage or causing financial disadvantage
          (1) In this Part,
          "obtain" a financial advantage includes:
          (c) keep a financial advantage that one has,
          whether the financial advantage is permanent or temporary.

          192E Fraud
          (1) A person who, by any deception, dishonestly:
          (a) obtains property belonging to another, or
          (b) obtains any financial advantage or causes any financial disadvantage,
          is guilty of the offence of fraud.

          Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

          Essentially 2 elements to fraud, deception and dishonesty

          1. Deception - This is the probably the hard part for prosecution

          From what I have found however:
          "merely remaining silent may constitute a deception where a representation can be spelt out from that silence."

          "Deception is the intentional inducing in another of a state of mind which the accused knows does not accord with fact. It has been said that deliberate deception is one of the two most obvious forms of dishonesty. A deception may be by words or by conduct. Therefore, someone obtaining a meal in a restaurant having no means to pay for it is guilty of obtaining the meal by deception. The representation as to payment is a continuing one until payment is made or some new arrangement is entered into. The term "reckless" has been considered in relation to an offence of obtaining by deception."
          -> Could potentially link this to her exploiting bank's overdraft facility

          1. Dishonesty - lol srsly… she wired money out, splurged the money and tried to fly off when police were onto her…
        • juki on 09/05/2016 - 00:16
          +1

          @seanmurphy1994:

          i think the police detective means if someone hands you a note without saying anything, using that note to purchase crap is stealing. There is no "agreement" to say it's yours. It's one opinion and i believe in some countries legislation saw it differently, why would the people carefully managing our money and brought out of debt by governments make mistakes ;)

          dura lex sed lex (nothing to do with condoms)

        • nobro25 on 09/05/2016 - 01:11

          @ninetyNineCents: Is it theft if someone puts cash into your wallet and then out of nowhere 4 years later demand a return and a lawsuit.

        • ninetyNineCents on 09/05/2016 - 07:57

          @nobro25:

          The bank loaned her the money, all loans must be paid back.

          If someone put money in your account by a transfer mistake then it is theft if you spend it. Either way you lose.

        • shamid202 on 09/05/2016 - 09:58

          @ninetyNineCents: I agree that money doesnt belong to her but finding a wallet? its more like putting a wallet in your pocket.

        • ninetyNineCents on 09/05/2016 - 10:06

          [@shamid202](/comment/3677953/

          If your going to play word games why don't we just pretend it was payment for a lotto winning.

          She's a thief she knows it that's why she tried to escape on that plane.

        • drpants on 09/05/2016 - 10:57
          +1

          @ninetyNineCents:
          But is it fraud? She was accidentally given unlimited overdraft and used it. Say I have a $1000 overdraft limit and somehow managed to borrow $1500 instead I have to pay back, that's not fraud..

          She sure will have to pay it back, but I very much doubt it's fraud.

    • abh_gup on 08/05/2016 - 14:39

      It is NOT up to us to comment on a pending legal case regarding the appropriateness.
      Seems like there are many smart self made solicitors on a bargain forum! haha

      • Serapis on 08/05/2016 - 23:33
        +2

        Nothing wrong with discussing it unless you are on the jury bench, defense, prosecution or the judge presiding over this.

        Judging from the comments here, some may be solicitors, have legal experience or are law / juris doctor students.

    • [Deactivated] on 09/05/2016 - 09:52

      "Young rich pretty bit not too smart…."
      my type of gal

    • suicine94 on 09/05/2016 - 12:54

      without the top down tilt angle, contact lens, makeup, camera filters not pretty.

      • CyberMurning on 09/05/2016 - 14:39

        correct. dont trust photos

    • CyberMurning on 05/05/2016 - 17:35

      nope. english name is christine. in sydney not melb.

      some photos
      http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/student-given-46m-in-westpac-overd…

      • scrimshaw on 05/05/2016 - 17:40
        -6

        Her eyes… I can see forever!

        Seriously thought that looks like that photo has been enhanced with some beautifying feature or it was taken with Purikura.

        • CyberMurning on 05/05/2016 - 17:41

          well dont trust photos every smart phones now has those beauty feature try yourself haha

        • sparkles on 06/05/2016 - 15:17

          @eisniwre: She's wearing weird contacts, probably bought with part of the $4m. Anyway, what an IDIOT. She should be thrown in the clink for pure stupidity for a) spending all that dough, and b) not doing a runner much earlier. Ultimately, she made the gross error on spending on depreciating stuff and sunk costs, if she'd purchased real estate she would be in an entirely different position right now.

        • GarrusVakarian on 07/05/2016 - 08:03
          +2

          @sparkles: buy up half of sydney and flee to the cayman's

        • secondstory on 08/05/2016 - 00:46

          @sparkles:

          All my thoughts exactly.

  • airzone on 05/05/2016 - 17:36
    +1

    According to smh, spent around $1m on handbags…

    Criminal or not, she will have a pretty big debt to pay to the bank.

      • airzone on 05/05/2016 - 18:03

        Oh, and the 4.6m price tag she comes with. How do you even start to pay that off? If she pays from now until 85 years old, with no interest, then it's nearly $6k per month…

        • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2016 - 11:23
          -3

          well she is pretty…

          Net win for society I think

        • CandyMan on 06/05/2016 - 19:54

          pay it back with community service :)

        • airzone on 07/05/2016 - 10:15

          @The Land of Smeg: If you think so… I suspect those pics have been altered

        • [Deactivated] on 07/05/2016 - 10:36
          +2

          @airzone: Damn, no way to pay back the debt then!

      • amkssg on 05/05/2016 - 23:24
        +8

        In other articles, it has been clarified that there is most likely nothing criminal in this case.
        She did not obtain the money by deceit, nor was money accidentally deposited in her account. Therefore, there is no crime committed. The only issue is that she needs to repay the debt.

        • cuteseal on 06/05/2016 - 00:15
          +1

          I don't quite get this though… couldn't it be argued that she did obtain the money by deceit?

          I mean she knowingly exploited a loophole for her personal gain.

          If a bank left their vault open and unguarded and she walked out with 4.6 million that would certainly be classed as theft.

        • amkssg on 06/05/2016 - 00:45
          +22

          @cuteseal: I do get your point. I think it's more morally wrong than legally wrong. From a legal standpoint, she just over-drafted her account, just like anyone else can.

          An overdraft is technically a "loan with interest". So, the bank kept loaning her more money and thus profits from charging interest on the loan. She just kept taking on new loans and the bank continued approving her "loan application".

          Unlike your example, she didn't actually steal any money. WESTPAC technically loaned her $4.6 million. So, the issue in this case is that she has to pay back the loan.

        • cuteseal on 06/05/2016 - 00:50

          @bsmksg: Ah I see your point, thanks for explaining.

          I suppose at some point they tried to reclaim the "loan" and she wouldn't hence the warrant for her arrest. Lol…

        • amkssg on 06/05/2016 - 00:55

          @cuteseal: Exactly. The way I see it, they are taking her to court as she is unable to pay back the "loan" (and has no intention of paying back the "loan").

          I may be completely wrong, I am guessing based on the information presented.

        • Slippery Fish on 06/05/2016 - 06:41

          @cuteseal: if she walked out with 4.6 Mil she could make it back as a weight lifter.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 06/05/2016 - 10:24
          -2

          @Slippery Fish:

          Because weightlifters earn a lot of money… ¬_¬

        • StewBalls on 06/05/2016 - 10:47
          +2

          She did not obtain the money by deceit, nor was money accidentally deposited in her account. Therefore, there is no crime committed.

          Spot on! I'm no lawyerologist, but I can't see that she has breached any common or statute law. Therefore it appears to be an entirely civil matter between her & the bank.

          My take on this is pretty much the same as yours, I don't think the bank has a hope in hell of recovering their money, and the whole media cash-for-comment name-&-shame thing is strategic misdirection precisely because they know the stuff-up is entirely theirs from a legal perspective.

          Personally, I hope she gets away with it; if I were her, I'd declare bankruptcy & tell them to get stuffed… :)

        • Gershom on 06/05/2016 - 10:58

          @bsmksg: You are completely wrong. They have charged her with criminal offences. They wouldn't waste their time if it was a civil case.

        • Scrooge McDuck on 06/05/2016 - 11:57
          +2

          @Gershom:

          They wouldn't waste their time if it was a civil case.

          You're assuming the NSW Police have perfect judgement and foresight. ¬_¬

        • Brianqpr on 06/05/2016 - 12:51

          That's quite a big issue!

        • EnALup on 06/05/2016 - 13:38
          +4

          Bank is playing with words now. How can anyone spend if its an overdraft. She had that much money in her bank in credit.

          I also read this on MSN:
          She appeared at Waverley Local Court on Thursday charged with dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime.

          But Magistrate Lisa Stapleton was not convinced with the latter charge and granted her bail.

          "It's not proceeds of crime. It's money we all dream about," she told the court on Thursday.

        • Slippery Fish on 06/05/2016 - 13:54
          -1

          @Scrooge McDuck: lol if your strong enough to lift 4.6Mil there is likely alot of ways to get cash..

        • amkssg on 06/05/2016 - 16:07
          +2

          @Gershom:
          She has not been charged with criminal offences. Please get your facts right.
          Yes, she had to face a court magistrate on criminal charges, HOWEVER…

          To quote:

          Magistrate Lisa Stapleton questioned the strength of the case on Thursday, suggesting that Ms Lee had not committed a crime because the credit was made available to her by the bank.

          Source: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/christine-lee-lived-high-life-afte…

        • dazweeja on 06/05/2016 - 23:14
          +2

          @bsmksg:

          I'm not sure where in the process you think that criminal charges are laid but it's before you attend court on criminal charges ;)

        • amkssg on 06/05/2016 - 23:22

          @dazweeja: I do see what you are saying. There has actually been quite a bit of discrepancy in the news reports, and it's unclear as to whether or not she has actually committed any offence.

        • picket23 on 07/05/2016 - 01:50
          +4

          @bsmksg:
          Err, no one knows if she has committed an offence… That's the point of taking it to court, to find out… You know the whole guilty or not guilty bit at the end…

        • amkssg on 07/05/2016 - 02:16

          @picket23: That wasn't the point I was trying to make.
          What I was trying to say is that the news reports have been so wishy washy (and often conflicting) that I have no idea what the real facts of the case are, or what the offences are.

        • Gershom on 07/05/2016 - 09:01

          @bsmksg: You just contradicted yourself. Of course she's been charged, just hasn't been found guilty yet.

        • amkssg on 07/05/2016 - 13:38

          @Gershom: Yup, I just realised i screwed up.

        • No ONE on 07/05/2016 - 14:45

          @cuteseal:

          If a bank left their vault open and unguarded and she walked out with 4.6 million that would certainly be classed as theft.

          That's a very poor analogy, open vault and unguarded means take what you want; it's free and take what you need. Why would leave your vault open and unguarded if you don't want people to take it.

        • ninetyNineCents on 07/05/2016 - 17:21

          @bsmksg:

          She did steal the money, she took money that was not hers, it doesn't matter that it was a bank error. Another example might be when you hand a fifty adm wait for change from a shop after buying something. The shop attendant can't just keep the money because you GAVE it to them. Life doesn't work that way, if it did everyone would be required to give exact payment, the entire pay extra and await change system would be unworkable.

        • ninetyNineCents on 07/05/2016 - 17:28

          @cuteseal:

          Would you be saying the same, if you made a typo and transferred to her account or someone else and they spent it what would you call it ?

        • amkssg on 07/05/2016 - 20:51
          +2

          @ninetyNineCents: As I mentioned above. This all boils down to technicalities.
          She did not steal any money, or take money that does not belong to her.
          The bank "loaned" her $4.2 million. If I read it correctly, there was never ever $4.2 million dollars in her bank account. The bank never did deposit any money into her account.

          A better anology would be: You applied for a $10 million loan, the bank approves it, then realises that the loan was approved by accident. The bank then sues you for "stealing money, for taking money that is not yours".

        • ninetyNineCents on 08/05/2016 - 07:50
          -2

          @bsmksg:

          Sorry I was following the pretend argument that the bank erroneously placed money in her account, even though that was completely untrue. For both circumstances it's still theft, depriving the owner of their money.

        • Serapis on 09/05/2016 - 00:06

          @bsmksg:

          Excerpt from Thomson Reuters Criminal Law NSW 2016, Re: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

          "Deception is the intentional inducing in another of a state of mind which the accused knows does not accord with fact. It has been said that deliberate deception is one of the two most obvious forms of dishonesty. A deception may be by words or by conduct. Therefore, someone obtaining a meal in a restaurant having no means to pay for it is guilty of obtaining the meal by deception. The representation as to payment is a continuing one until payment is made or some new arrangement is entered into. The term "reckless" has been considered in relation to an offence of obtaining by deception."

          She sorta exploited an overdraft facility without the intention or ability to pay it back as per facts:
          - wiring it overseas
          - trying to escape

          This is more in line with the proven restaurant analogy, she ate at the restaurant without having a means to pay for her meal knowingly. Dishonesty follows this and as she obtained money and used it to gain a financial advantage, high chance it would be seen as fraud.

          I believe there is a high chance she would be convicted of fraud under PART 4AA of the Crimes Act, provided prosecution do their job properly. The part where it was the bank's error to allow her this exploit may play a part in reducing her sentence but that's about it.

        • amkssg on 09/05/2016 - 17:30
          +1

          @Serapis: http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/student-given-46m-in-westpac-overd…

          The above article (and some others) seem to imply otherwise.
          However, do note that there appears to be new charges being laid after the above article was published.
          She apparently was given bail, but was later arrested on immigration issues.

          Let's just wait and see what happens.

        • Serapis on 10/05/2016 - 10:50

          @bsmksg:
          Here’s another example in NSW, the behaviour has been deemed as Fraud under s192E in the past, guy was found to have committed fraud and using criminal proceeds in the Supreme court NSW:

          http://www.sydneycriminallawyers.com.au/blog/st-george-custo…

          The issues with that SMH article are:

          1. Not that I have a bad opinion of magistrates but I have no idea why THAT magistrate is commenting on an active case, it is highly unprofessional and something even NSW DPP wouldn’t really do

          2. Also with the magistrate, the case is not likely going to stay in local courts anyway being a fraud charge, will likely go to District/Supreme court after committal, in which case actual judges take over. So again, not sure why THAT magistrate is commenting.

          3. SMH regularly spouts BS they know nothing about, I wouldn’t rely on their opinion on anything.

          NSW DPP is likely to go after her with everything on this one. Doesn't send out a good message if people get away with these things so my opinion is she will serve time behind bars. Even though people HATE banks, it doesn't disguise a crime (though I'm guessing this is what her defence would bank on).

    • t_c on 05/05/2016 - 21:22
      -1

      "Criminal or not, she will have a pretty big debt to pay to the bank."

      Not as big as dicks.

    • momov3 on 06/05/2016 - 17:17
      +2

      Sounds like the Malaysian Prime Minister Najib's wife…..no different!

  • aboabo on 05/05/2016 - 18:21

    "Looks like it's definitely looked upon as fraud…"

    This info should be on the bank's website, right?

    • Janko on 05/05/2016 - 20:31
      +1

      I don't think the bank would admit mistakes can happen like this.

      • regenade on 06/05/2016 - 22:37
        +2

        Yes only Big 4 Australian Banks with big egos. I have never seen any of the Big 4 ever putting their head down for mistakes. Why do the legal system still side with them, Banks should be punished very heavily for their mistakes.

        • GarrusVakarian on 07/05/2016 - 08:05
          +2

          A friend of mine had an account with Westpac awhile back. He closed it when they accidentally debited $450k from his account. They corrected it after a couple of weeks but he just couldn't trust them anymore and just closed the account

  • StewBalls on 05/05/2016 - 20:00
    +7

    Her Legal Aid lawyer…

    LOL, just lol…

    • airzone on 05/05/2016 - 20:03
      +6

      Her Westpac card probably got declined when she went to pay a barrister.

      • StewBalls on 05/05/2016 - 20:06
        +4

        $4.6 million mistakenly given to her by her bank and spent much of it on handbags…

        …but she invested so wisely; we'll all be smirking on the other side of our faces when LV is declared legal tender! ;)

        • Scrooge McDuck on 06/05/2016 - 10:27
          +1

          we'll all be smirking on the other side of our faces when LV is declared legal tender! ;)

          If only; I know a guy at the markets with a LOT of counterfeit currency.

        • ProjectZero on 09/05/2016 - 12:30

          She spent it on the wrong currency… should've spent it on eneloops.

  • airzone on 05/05/2016 - 20:08
    +11

    Here's an interesting ethical dilemma for you. Take the following hypothetical situation (based on this girl's experience)

    1) Bank mistakenly gives you $4.6m
    2) Bank doesn't contact you immediately to make right. Actually they aren't chasing very hard for 2 - 3 years
    3) It's the bank's mistake, therefore your only real repercussion (per her case) is that you will need to pay back the $4.6m
    4) Would you invest this money in a way that it could be reasonably quickly accessed and returned, however try to make some money off it - e.g. interest, real estate, etc? No term deposits, no risky stocks, no handbags

    • charzy on 05/05/2016 - 20:21
      +18

      4.6million at 4% per annum return in savings account = $184,000 p/a interest. I could live off that for a few years.

      • Flowerbomb on 05/05/2016 - 21:50

        So if she's declared bankrupt, she obviously still needs to pay the debt yeah? So if she gets a graduate pay of 50k, must she give the entire 50k to the bank?

        • charzy on 05/05/2016 - 22:20

          She'll have to liquidate everything to pay off as much as possible I'll imagine. However if she has already bought 1 mil worth of bags to send to her family, then declares bankruptcy, that's a different story.

        • abh_gup on 08/05/2016 - 23:26

          she may appeal for bankruptcy, then plead mercy and finally lose oz residency rights, that's all.
          maybe it is all the bank's fault.

      • Scrooge McDuck on 06/05/2016 - 10:29
        +1

        4% per annum return in savings account

        Where?

        ING dropped their rate to 3 %. :/

        • charzy on 06/05/2016 - 11:20
          +1

          I haven't been up to date with savings, figure I quoted may have been a year or two ago.
          Ubank is 3.37 atm. Still a lot if you have 4.6mil lol.

        • nobro25 on 09/05/2016 - 01:13

          @charzy: That's 3.37 per cent with bonus and capped at $200,000 any more and the rates drop.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join