NZ hunts accidental millionaires

Source: BBC

Police in New Zealand are searching for a couple who disappeared after a banking blunder deposited NZ$10m (£3.9m, US$6m) in their account.

The couple had applied for a NZ$10,000 overdraft but received NZ$10m in their business account instead, part of which they withdrew, local media report.

They are said to have run a service station in Rotorua, North Island.

Police believe the couple have left the country and Interpol has been alerted for assistance.

The deposit was made by the Australian bank Westpac, which has about 10 million customers.

Police said that part of the money had been recovered, without specifying the amount.

"The individuals associated with this account are believed to have left New Zealand and police working through Interpol to locate those individuals," said Detective Senior Sergeant David Harvey of New Zealand Police.



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8060681.stm

---

I guess we could call this "Reverse TARP"

As the old saying goes, "Take the money and run!"

Maybe they're on some tiny Pacific island sipping mai-tais with Ken Lay right about now

What they have done hurts other deposit holders.

They are going to end up in prison. Stupid people.

> What they have done hurts other deposit holders.

No it doesn't.
If anything it *helps* other deposit holders as it will probably lead
to a better system of checks *before* throwing money around the place.

They did not embezzle the money (as bankers have done).
They did not make fraudulent claims (as both bankers & loan clients have done).
They did not plead excuses for incompetently wasting money (as bankers have
done) in the expectation of the state bailing them out.

They simply benefitted from the incompetence of the bank and treated it
as the windfall that it was.

Damn right I hope they get away with it!
:woohoo:

n/t

:eyes:

Allow me.

You are either a thief or are in favor of theft. These people took money that not only wasn't theirs but they knew wasn't theirs. That makes them thieves in my book. The fact that you are rooting for them speaks volumes about your own morality.

If, in the unlikely event, that they get away with this crime there will be losers. First the poor SOB who screwed up. They probably have a family to support and just had their career ruined. Do you think that they are going to get another job in banking? Second the stockholders and eventually the customers of this bank. The stockholders include little old ladies and pension funds. The customers are just regular old Joes looking to get decent service for their dime. If you don't think that this cost will be passed on the customer you don't understand business. Just ask smokers about what happened to the price of a pack of cigarettes after the tobacco companies agreed to pay 300 plus billion back in 1998. Who do you think paid for it?

This is a New Zealand bank. The last time I looked, the US hadn't bailed out New Zealand banks so rooting against all banks for the sins of some is painting a pretty broad stroke don’t you think?

30 years ago my mother made a 2,000 dollar deposit in Citibank. They credited her with 20,000 dollars. I was jointly on the account. We watched it for about 6 weeks before they corrected the error but we didn't touch it. I guess you think we were suckers right?

15 years ago she died. For the next 3 months Social Security deposited money in her account. Again I didn't touch it. If I had, would that have been theft or OK because they were incompetent? Is it cool to steal from some and not others or is it just wrong?

If I receive money that isn't mine, I return it. I probably wouldn't have let it sit in my account until they noticed it, though. I would have notified the bank and Social Security immediately.

However, the entire financial system is becoming more corrupt and predatory... almost a criminal enterprise (see my post below). And corrupt politicians are legalizing acts that should be illegal, while criminalizing acts that should be legal. And it's all being done via a system that runs on bribery and corruption. The "justice" system is becoming a complete joke. And the "corrections" system is becoming a profit-making machine that needs bodies to feed it.

In such a scenario the lines begin to blur. Once the people lose faith in the entire system and view it as little more than a criminal enterprise, all the rules you and I value may no longer apply. If a criminal steals from a man, and leaves the man's property out in plain sight, is the man a thief if he retrieves his property? Was the fictional character, Robin Hood, a thief? Were the rebels who fought in our Revolutionary War criminals? Sometimes the usual rules don't apply.

I have no idea what these gas station owners had in mind - maybe they're just knuckle-draggers who have no sense of morality or decency. And I agree with what you did with your accounts and would do the same myself. But I get the feeling, based upon your insulting reply to the poster above, that you can't envisioning a scenario in which the rules we both value might no longer apply. I can. And I think we're moving in that direction. A plutocracy rife with political corruption leads to anarchy.

In the first case my mother called Citibank and they told her that she was wrong. She got pissed off and wasn't willing to fight with them. Eventually they figured it out. It was her account and not mine.

In the second case I was busy. She was dead, I was working 50 plus hours a week and handling her estate. I couldn't be bothered, plus, honestly, I wanted to see how long it would take them. Eventually she got a letter politely saying that their records showed that she was dead. I called up on that, or the next day, and got a woman who politely explained that the last three payments needed to be returned. When I told her that I understood and that the money was sitting in the account that they had credited I could tell that she was pleasantly surprised. Within a day or two the money was gone.

Please don't say that the entire financial system is "corrupt and predatory". It's got problems but as I said earlier not all companies are that way. I don't know a thing about any New Zealand bank but to lump them together with US banks is wrong.

I don't understand the analogy about a criminal stealing property and the victim retrieving it back. Unless you can show that the thieves had 6 million in US funds stolen in fees or excess interest I fail to see where they had justification in stealing that amount from the bank.

Robin Hood is not relevant.

Please don't compare the US revolution to some goomers who stole money. The "Patriots" put their asses and their property on the line. These assholes took off with 6 million big ones. I don't see them feeding the poor. I don't see them at all.

As to my "insulting reply" it was in direct response to Nihil who lumped all bankers together and expressed admiration for criminals. If I lumped all African-Americans together I would rightly be torn a new one. I am a retired banker and I never ripped off anyone although I'm sure that, that statement would be disputed by unhappy customers.

Now your reaction makes more sense. I know some good people who are in banking.

You appear to be missing the broader point that I (and others in this thread) are trying to make: Corruption often leads to gross injustices which can lead to anarchy. And when everything is in a state of upheaval, sometimes the "criminals" really aren't criminals at all (hence the reference to the American Revolution, etc.). Although this particular crime probably isn't a very good example of that, your response to Nihil left the impression that you were ruling out any scenario in which the usual rules might no longer apply.

So that's the gist of it.

Most of us honor the founding fathers but if they had lost the war (and they could have) they would be little known traitors and criminals who were hung. Many of them sacrificed everything they had for a cause they believed in. The Confederates may have been fighting for an unjust cause but they believed in their cause. Most are little known except perhaps Lee and his image has been sanitized with time. I know there are times when the law should be broken. Daniel Ellsberg risked prison by leaking the Pentagon papers. He was on the right side of history.

I think we both agree that this isn't a good example. What have these New Zealander's given up? They remind me more of Mark Rich then Nathan Hale.

Your opinions have been noted and subsequently discarded.

> Please don't compare the US revolution to some goomers who stole money.

> The "Patriots" put their asses and their property on the line.

> Please don't say that the entire financial system is "corrupt and predatory".

> I am a retired banker and I never ripped off anyone although I'm sure that,
> that statement would be disputed by unhappy customers.

These show your level of education (and understanding).

Have a nice sleep.

You make an interesting point when you raised the issue of your mother's social security. When I was a student, I worked part time in a legal service agency that provided legal assistance to the poor. You don't know how many times government funds were deposited by mistake into peoples' accounts, usually in the form of over-payments. When the mistake was discovered guess what happened? The government went after the money, aggressively. Some people were smart enough to know it wasn't their money and put it aside in a separate account waiting for the issue to be resolved. Others thought it was Christmas. They ended up getting taken to court, most of the time losing, and getting put on installment plans that garnished their wages until it was paid back.

If something doesn't belong to you, it is never rightfully yours.

should be sacked and blacklisted from the profession - he or she obviously cannot do their job and need to find a line more suited to their lack of talents; their trainer should also be fired, as well as the person in charge of overall training.

In addition, I would withdraw my money immediately from this institution and find one that can add and subtract correctly.

Eventually, the bank should fail; why would anyone want to do business with such a lot of louts?

Banks who are doing their business and employees who are doing their jobs should prosper. The rest should exit.

And no, I'm not kidding. At all. What part of fiduciary responsibility do these suit-wearing bastards not understand?

The person who made the error probably should be fired but I think they should at least talk to them first.
Firing the trainer and the person in charge of training seems a bit premature. Do you know that they did a bad job training? Maybe they did a good job and the person who screwed up just screwed up. Maybe you should look at they other people they trained before ruining two more lives.
The bank, Westpac, has about 10 million customers. So one screw up on one transaction by one employee out of, probably, over a billion a year is enough for you to condemn the bank. I think you should reconsider.

"What part of fiduciary responsibility do these suit-wearing bastards not understand?"
What's with that? Do you have an issue with people who wear suits? How about pantyhose?

On a slightly different note:

The article said "Westpac Bank has recovered some of the money which had been inappropriately withdrawn." I wonder how much these goomers really got a hold of. Notice the term "inappropriately withdrawn". You just don't go into a bank and ask to withdraw 10 million big ones in cash. I bet you it was in the thousands, probably not even the tens of thousands, let alone millions. They noticed the money on May 5th and took off about May 7th.

In all three banks, a mistake of more than $1000 was termination for the employee, their trainer, and their supervisor. Of course, back then, the standard time for transactions at the drive in was 45 seconds. And yes, someone really was out there with a stopwatch.

You also had to learn to ten-key with your non-dominant hand, so that you could write, count, or perform other tasks at the same time.

Yes, I do have an issue with suits. In my ten years in the industry, every major mistake was made by a man. Period. Women were simply more competent in their jobs.

So all I'm suggesting is simply standard practice from a couple decades ago. Nothing radical. When people have your finances in hand, they have a fiduciary responsibility to get it right. Every time.

> You are either a thief or are in favor of theft.

Wrong. Try again.

> These people took money that not only wasn't theirs but they knew wasn't theirs.

These people took money that was in *THEIR* account which, by definition, is *theirs*.

They may well have guessed that some wanker in a bank made a mistake but so what?
It had passed into their account with no fault of their own.

They were not frauds, they were not embezzlers. They weren't even derivative traders.
They merely profited from the total incompetence of others.

If you do not consider that "good business sense" then you weren't a banker as
that is the basis of that industry.

To summarise your subsequent pleading:

1) Who gives a shit about the stockholders? Your emotional plea for "little old ladies"
is just pure bullshit. The majority stockholders of every single major bank (and most
minor banks) are institutions indulging themselves in the time-honoured game of
"betting in the casino with someone else's money". Fuck 'em.
(Alternatively, get a grip and recognise that the scale of the "missing" money is
totally inconsequential compared to the daily profit of the bank.)

2) The customers will largely respond with variations on the theme of
"Lucky bastard! Wish it happened to me!".

3) I don't give a toss about apocryphal tales of "how 'honest' I was in the past".
In general, they are about as true as a politician's election promise.

You're probably one of those people who thinks copying DVDs and movies is wrong because they told you it is. Has it even occurred to you that the price your paying has nothing to do with fair commerce? They've been robbing you for years and when the citizens find a way to introduce competition (if it's not less expensive it's worth copying, 'stealing'), they have a huge campaign to tell people how terribly wrong it is and how they should feel guilty about it, their hand in your back pocket the entire time.
Banks have been ripping people off for a hundred years, and you call these people thieves? You need to receive a more worldly education, that your sense of morals may start to see the bigger picture.
Otherwise, go back to church and do what you're told - happy in your saintliness - while the rest of the world goes on without you.

- Raston

More people need to learn the difference between right and wrong.

Yep and that probably included you before you retired.

See... this is what happens when corrupt politicians declare that some forms of thievery are legal (allowing banks to steal trillions from working people via bail-outs, predatory loans, usury interest, predatory fees). The lines become blurred. So if the banks aren't thieves, are these people really thieves? The only difference I can see is that a few corrupt politicians (who were bribed to do so) made it "legal" for banks to steal trillions - but they didn't make it legal for no-name little people to steal millions (and certainly they would have if there had been sufficient pay-off). So whether something is "legal" or "illegal" basically comes down to whether corrupt politicians have been paid off. In other words, there is really no solid, moral foundation for determining who is a thief and who isn't. It all becomes relative. The lines become blurred.

Said another way... if banks are able to literally OWN politicians and steal our money (and clearly that's what is happening), is a common man who does what the banks do (only on a MUCH smaller scale) really a thief? And if you determine that both are thieves, should there be consequences for the gas station owner when there will be absolutely ZERO consequences for the bankers? No? Then is the common man really a thief?

And yes, I realize this didn't occur in the US; I'm just referring to the general principles involved in deciding who is a thief, and who isn't. The point is, gross political corruption (as we have been enduring for the past 8 1/2 years) has consequences. It's called anarchy.

because they were robbing the banksters, & a lot of folks thought "good on them!"

when those at the top are obviously crooked, fewer & fewer below them respect the rules. it's just the way things evolve.

It passed with 75 senators and 263 members of the house voting for it not to mention 1 idiotic President signing it. Both McCain and Obama voted for it.

None of them had the time to read it not that they would have bothered. If they had read it they might have understood what they were supporting and they couldn't complain later on when the provisions of this disaster became public.

...as in a measly 536 people (minus the very few good ones).

from us as their reward. It would almost be refreshing to see one of their fuck ups actually COST them something while a couple of "commoners" win for a change.

"TARP" spelled backwards.

Hey! Our PRAT funds are here! Let's skedaddle!!!
I'm with you!!!

I was thinking the exact same thing. And it's a nice word to describe the situation, as least for the bank.

Are they telling us that our great money teacher "Monoply" is wrong?

it only seems karmatic for them to get away after accidentally ripping a bank off. sucks when the tables are turned.

lol

I hope they get away but I doubt they will.

Is the logic any different than banksters up there in Mainhattan collecting godzilla-size boneys for "work" they didn't do
or don't deserve? Let 'em keep de monet.

I hope they get away too.

they can start working Wall Street.

you have to give it back. No such thing as finders keepers, unless you add to that the word "close your peepers". This world could help them get away if it wanted to. A lot of people hid that murderer "Rudolph" in the mountains for years.

Of course, what's the fun of having the money, if you have to hide it and not spend it?

And even then, you have to make a good faith effort to find the rightful owners. At least, that is the law in the US. Thus, I bet they may be getting a free trip to the pokey.

last night i had a dream where my bank account (presently very close to the zero line) was credited with $21 million (remember the exact number, you see!).

While i wish that was true, it is a surprise that i see a news like this ..

run folks run ... or at best, spend it like a millionaire!

and "prat" - I love it! :rofl:

Would you?

Interesting question! I'll have to ponder what I'd do in that situation.


(200 posts! woo-hoo!):headbang:

The area they are in has more grey edges than the Bankers here are in-and they were rewarded. Frankly, it is hard for me to chastise them.

At one point I followed the rules. That really hasn't worked for me or few others.

Good luck-drink one for me, mate:rofl:

thinking about a hard working couple, grease under their nails, laughing and jumping for joy at the thought of what must have seemed like their good fortune.

Then I remembered what lengths agencies will go to - any - to hunt down and prosecute anyone who takes money from a "reputable" lending institution...

it won't have a happy ending (for the couple, anyway). Only in the movies. *sigh*

considering you've got illicet/illegal "goings on" in the banking industry. Mafia-like, if you will...

WWJD? I dunno....

:shrug:

when/once you 'find' them do you say, "welcome to the 'team' ? :shrug:

I could understand if this was in the States, but not NZ, where the government is still considered honest, but if this had happened here, I'd excuse it.

In the US we allow people who order torture resulting in deaths to walk free, give them a pension and allow them to lie daily on television without even an honest person putting forth the other point of view. Insurance salesmen who bankrupt the country and their managers get millions of taxpayers dollars in bonuses for selling so much, which made the extent of the problem so much worse, but the bonuses better. Oh, and the reason for the torture? So the "terrorists" would confess to doing business with Saddam, even though they didn't, so that Cheney could invade and make tons of money through no bid contracts.