It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Australian Bank Uses Police as Strong Arm Men to Recover Cash from Faulty ATMs

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:27 AM
link   
news.ninemsn.com.au...

This week here in Australia, thousands of customers of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) had a pleasant surprise when withdrawing cash from the CBA's automated teller machines.

A computer glitch meant that these customers received hundreds of dollars more than they had requested.

Now the bank wants recover the money erroneously issued, and is using the Police to threaten customers with jail sentences of between 2 and 10 years if they fail to return the cash.

The basis for their legal argument is that an ATM is a machine and cannot consent to giving out the extra cash.

Others believe the mistake is the same as if the bank had opened a window and thrown the cash outside and into the public domain.

Either way, since the bank claims they know who got what and how much etc, why are they not sending letters to those customers asking for the return of the funds? Why are they taking a direct hard-line approach and getting the Police involved?

What do you think?




posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by eonpeon
 


Because they know legally there's nothing the banks can do about it and are using scare tactics; of course the bank does'nt know how much each customer got or which customers received a wndfall!!!

Customers have a moral duty to hand back the money but they don't have a legal duty.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by eonpeon
 


Because they know legally there's nothing the banks can do about it and are using scare tactics; of course the bank does'nt know how much each customer got or which customers received a wndfall!!!

Customers have a moral duty to hand back the money but they don't have a legal duty.


If this was an English bank, after what they did to our economy, I would put that cash straight in my pocket. Thwy also had a moral duty to not take millions of pounds in bonuses when they did nothing to deserve it and I have no doubt in my mind its the same in Oz.

Fair play guys, keep the money. Banks deserve every bit of bad luck they get.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 08:52 AM
link   
The ATM's, including Commonwealth, St George, Suncorp, Westpac, ANZ and more all take tabs on the customer and how he or she uses the machine.

It was a glitch in the system, yes, but a glitch that was measureable and the same glitch across the board. All customers got the same amount of extra cash and it was calculated by the bank.

The banks know exactly who has the extra cash, and unless it is handed in they have every right to send the police because they have committed a felony.

Simple.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   
They actually do have a legal duty to return the money. They can and will be prosecuted by the law. I've seen it before. I've actually read a court brief about a few of these. I've actually seen the law it breaks and it is a criminal offense not to give it back. It would be the same as finding money on the street. If you find money on the street you are required by law to hand it in to a police station. Some people do, some people don't. But you are required by law to do so. Just as this faulty machine has given extra money it wasn't supposed to. They ARE required by law to give it back.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


I think you'll find if the money dropped on to the pavement then the customer picked it up there's a legal glitch.

The bank has to prove beyond a doubt the customer took more than he/she requested, that would be a tough one.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by DaRAGE
 


I think you'll find if the money dropped on to the pavement then the customer picked it up there's a legal glitch.

The bank has to prove beyond a doubt the customer took more than he/she requested, that would be a tough one.


Most Australian ATMs have the grip system, whereby the ATM grips the money with about 2 pounds of force.

The customer has to pull the money from the grip mechanism, so there is no way the money can fall to the pavement.

Not to mention the on-board cameras that record your every move.
edit on 21/02/2011 by IIIiIIIIIIiIII because: Added information.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
A couple of questions.

Who made the mistake?

Who is being held responsible for that mistake?

If I were a bank teller(person) and give someone too much money who is responsible for that mistake?

Funny how the machine makes a mistake, yet will not be held accountable for that mistake. IMO the manufacturer of the machines is at fault here.

Using public funds to protect private corporate interests seems like a conflict of interest to me. A conflict of interest that seems to be more apparent everyday, and ever increasing in frequency.

If the machines cannot do the job then maybe they shouldn't be doing the job.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by badmatty
A couple of questions.

Who made the mistake?

Who is being held responsible for that mistake?

If I were a bank teller(person) and give someone too much money who is responsible for that mistake?

Funny how the machine makes a mistake, yet will not be held accountable for that mistake. IMO the manufacturer of the machines is at fault here.

Using public funds to protect private corporate interests seems like a conflict of interest to me. A conflict of interest that seems to be more apparent everyday, and ever increasing in frequency.

If the machines cannot do the job then maybe they shouldn't be doing the job.




The machines are all connected to a network.

It was a computing error, possibly a short-lived virus.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by IIIiIIIIIIiIII
 


Thanks for that answer.

I'm still wondering who or what is at fault, and who will be held responsible?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join