I know that this is a troll throwaway comment, so forgive me in advance for responding to it. But:
If you have ever actually been lied to by a bank, it's likely that there's some law that penalizes that lie. You can probably have the situation corrected. Personally, no bank has ever lied to me. Expected me to read documents carefully? Yes. Lied? No.
I voice unpopular opinions on my own account, novel, I know.
edit: banks are regularly fined for lying, cheating, stealing or laundering. Some of it is "legitimately" the cost of doing business. Some is quite obviously nefarious. JP Morgan was fined 13B for lying about mortgage risk and bundling knowingly dangerous securities[1] I removed the first link as it was proven to be, well, a lie. However, I think there is enough evidence of banks lying not spend ages posting links.
I actually took a deeper look and it is possible you are correct. However, the article you liked indicated that, even though it was a public charity and was hacked, The UK's main abortion provider is to appeal against a £200,000 fine imposed. So it seems, for some bizarre reason, the fine was levied agains the BPAS.
Jeffery stated that after a few days it was resolved and posted his bank account. Given the article you linked was from 2012 and he had a 3 year sentence, it is quite possible he is the same person posting as /u/jamesjuk. I have removed the link above.
However, it does seem that the bank froze his assets and lied to him. It remains unclear whether he has restitution leading to his assets being frozen.
Man just the idea of frozen assets freaks me out. Like I got people to feed here, how is someone just going to block my access to funds. That's why LTC and BTC are so appealing to me. Its like I'm god with my money.
You replied to someone asking if you had been lied to by a bank, by linking stories that...don't involve you. Or banks lying to customers.
The first link clearly indicates an accidental accounting error, the second talks about banks being negligent in conducting due diligence. The difference between "you knew this was false" and "you should have known this was false" is more than a merely pedantic distinction.
banks are regularly fined for lying, cheating, stealing or laundering.
Untrue. Banks are regularly fined for a variety of things, but there is a material distinction between failing to properly vet clients, some of whom (as it turned out) were laundering drug money, and knowingly laundering drug money. You link to stories about the former, yet describe it as the latter. If your case is strong, it can be made without inaccuracy.
I guess you could try and focus on the LIBOR scandal, but that's a pretty weak tea. It also didn't involve banks lying to customers (which was what was originally asked). Besides, by many estimates, benefited customers (who got lower interests rates on balance than they should have done) at the expense of wealthy investors. Terrible, no doubt, but not really the same thing as knowingly aiding criminals.
To be precise, JP Morgan agreed to settle a case in which another bank they purchased did insufficient due diligence. The charges in the article you link speak of negligence, not lying.
In the other case, I assume you know the difference between errors and deceit, so I'll withhold any comment on that.
I didn't mean to say I thought your account was a throwaway. Just the comment -- in other words, I found it thoughtless, seeking of thoughtless upvotes, and still do.
Banks practicing willful fraud as the subjects of this press release did remains a fairly rare phenomenon.
Except for the LIBOR scandal, of course. And the ISDAfix mess. But those only involved most of the world's largest banks, and combined, likely only affected anybody seeking credit, anywhere, for any reason.
I've have had banks lie to me and to my parents, and more than once. There are certainly laws, but unless it's on record, it's very difficult to prove. Nowadays I ask for written confirmation of everything they tell me in presence or on the phone.
An example where you cannot avoid lying to a bank: if you move to the UK, banks require a proof of residence in the form of an electricity bill or similar with your name and new address on it. But the electricity company requires a UK bank account in order to send you the first bill. How do you break the loop? The easiest way is to fake an electricity bill.
The easiest way is not to go to a bank that has its head up its arse (pardon my french)
Case in point: I opened a bank account with Lloyds, and I just showed them my work contract (but apparently the only information they needed was my passport)
I know very well that some banks are terribly unfriendly to recently relocated people... and the whole system is quite fucked up, example: Three.co.uk rejected a contract for a 14£(fourteen)/month mobile contract with me, after a credit check (that was back in December, after I already got salary after relocating, paid my bills, etc.)
Now the situations changed... but I find it terribly laughable how a company has a whole set of people and systems to prevent fraud for the whopping incredible amount of 14£ (after a month, if I don't pay they could simply cut off my service)
fraud prevention is obviously serious business...
Comments
One of the rules I live by: if I have to lie to a bank in order to accomplish a thing, I do not do that thing.
If only banks had such a compunction.
I know that this is a troll throwaway comment, so forgive me in advance for responding to it. But:
If you have ever actually been lied to by a bank, it's likely that there's some law that penalizes that lie. You can probably have the situation corrected. Personally, no bank has ever lied to me. Expected me to read documents carefully? Yes. Lied? No.
I voice unpopular opinions on my own account, novel, I know.
edit: banks are regularly fined for lying, cheating, stealing or laundering. Some of it is "legitimately" the cost of doing business. Some is quite obviously nefarious. JP Morgan was fined 13B for lying about mortgage risk and bundling knowingly dangerous securities[1] I removed the first link as it was proven to be, well, a lie. However, I think there is enough evidence of banks lying not spend ages posting links.
[1]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/21/e...
He was given a 200K fine and lied to the world about it.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/07/abortion-servic...
https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/3dtx6y/did_a...?
I actually took a deeper look and it is possible you are correct. However, the article you liked indicated that, even though it was a public charity and was hacked, The UK's main abortion provider is to appeal against a £200,000 fine imposed. So it seems, for some bizarre reason, the fine was levied agains the BPAS.
Jeffery stated that after a few days it was resolved and posted his bank account. Given the article you linked was from 2012 and he had a 3 year sentence, it is quite possible he is the same person posting as /u/jamesjuk. I have removed the link above.
However, it does seem that the bank froze his assets and lied to him. It remains unclear whether he has restitution leading to his assets being frozen.
The fine was levied against the BPAS for failing to secure the data properly.
The incident drew the attention of the Information Commissioner's Office who found BPAS's security didn't meet the legal requirements.
Man just the idea of frozen assets freaks me out. Like I got people to feed here, how is someone just going to block my access to funds. That's why LTC and BTC are so appealing to me. Its like I'm god with my money.
You replied to someone asking if you had been lied to by a bank, by linking stories that...don't involve you. Or banks lying to customers.
The first link clearly indicates an accidental accounting error, the second talks about banks being negligent in conducting due diligence. The difference between "you knew this was false" and "you should have known this was false" is more than a merely pedantic distinction.
Untrue. Banks are regularly fined for a variety of things, but there is a material distinction between failing to properly vet clients, some of whom (as it turned out) were laundering drug money, and knowingly laundering drug money. You link to stories about the former, yet describe it as the latter. If your case is strong, it can be made without inaccuracy.
I guess you could try and focus on the LIBOR scandal, but that's a pretty weak tea. It also didn't involve banks lying to customers (which was what was originally asked). Besides, by many estimates, benefited customers (who got lower interests rates on balance than they should have done) at the expense of wealthy investors. Terrible, no doubt, but not really the same thing as knowingly aiding criminals.
The parent almost certainly meant you broadly as a third person pronoun akin to something like, If [one has] ever actually been lied to by a bank
I disagree. Banks often lie and it is well public.
To be precise, JP Morgan agreed to settle a case in which another bank they purchased did insufficient due diligence. The charges in the article you link speak of negligence, not lying.
In the other case, I assume you know the difference between errors and deceit, so I'll withhold any comment on that.
I didn't mean to say I thought your account was a throwaway. Just the comment -- in other words, I found it thoughtless, seeking of thoughtless upvotes, and still do.
Banks practicing willful fraud as the subjects of this press release did remains a fairly rare phenomenon.
Except for the LIBOR scandal, of course. And the ISDAfix mess. But those only involved most of the world's largest banks, and combined, likely only affected anybody seeking credit, anywhere, for any reason.
I've have had banks lie to me and to my parents, and more than once. There are certainly laws, but unless it's on record, it's very difficult to prove. Nowadays I ask for written confirmation of everything they tell me in presence or on the phone.
Were you born after 2008? Or what?
I have. On more than a few occasions by Santander.
I longer bank with them.
An example where you cannot avoid lying to a bank: if you move to the UK, banks require a proof of residence in the form of an electricity bill or similar with your name and new address on it. But the electricity company requires a UK bank account in order to send you the first bill. How do you break the loop? The easiest way is to fake an electricity bill.
The easiest way is not to go to a bank that has its head up its arse (pardon my french)
Case in point: I opened a bank account with Lloyds, and I just showed them my work contract (but apparently the only information they needed was my passport)
I know very well that some banks are terribly unfriendly to recently relocated people... and the whole system is quite fucked up, example: Three.co.uk rejected a contract for a 14£(fourteen)/month mobile contract with me, after a credit check (that was back in December, after I already got salary after relocating, paid my bills, etc.)
Now the situations changed... but I find it terribly laughable how a company has a whole set of people and systems to prevent fraud for the whopping incredible amount of 14£ (after a month, if I don't pay they could simply cut off my service) fraud prevention is obviously serious business...
but you cannot trust a consumer for 14£, really?
'The easiest way' is not the same as 'you cannot avoid lying'. If you are happy about taking an easy way when it involves crime, you are scum.
one time I forged an eyeglasses prescription
now that my soul is under new management, I no longer feel remorse for anything I do