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

      • oak on 06/05/2016 - 13:13
        +3

        It's an overdraft account - so she would be paying more than 4% interest. She would have needed to find an account that earned more than she was accruing - and even if she did, the amount would be minimal.

    • amkssg on 05/05/2016 - 23:18
      +8

      To clarify the facts, the bank did not "mistakenly gave her $4.6m".
      The $4.6 million was an overdraft. There was NEVER $4.6 million in her bank account, nor did the bank accidentally deposit any money into her account.

      There is no ethical dilemma in this case.

      • airzone on 05/05/2016 - 23:34

        Take the following hypothetical situation

        • amkssg on 05/05/2016 - 23:37
          -2

          Take the following hypothetical situation (based on this girl's experience)

          The hypothetical situation isn't the girl's experience.

      • cuteseal on 06/05/2016 - 00:02
        +1

        Yeah in this case it's pretty clear cut that she exploited a loophole for infinite money without the intention to pay it back.

        Interestingly, earlier this morning The Age / SMH portrayed it as if 4.6 million appeared in her bank account but they have since revised the article…

        • ATangk on 06/05/2016 - 09:42
          +2

          If they have since revised the article, many people have already been misled about the story. I didn't know it was overdraft until I read about it here. Too eager to get news out without fact checking I suppose.

        • cuteseal on 06/05/2016 - 10:07

          @ATangk: Yeah initially it read as if it was a bank error and they deposited 4.6 million into her account. Now I think it's alleged that she had an unlimited overdraft facility and withdrew/spent a total of 4.6 million over multiple transactions.

        • ninetyNineCents on 07/05/2016 - 17:22
          +4

          It's a shame the papers you mention can't be charged for lying to the public and mis presenting the facts.

    • zzymurgy on 06/05/2016 - 11:14
      +2

      Firstly you wouldn't have the benefit of hindsight.

      And secondly it was a line of credit, not a pile of cash.

      But, if you were thinking clearly enough and you knew you'd have to pay it back (probably with interest) eventually, real estate would be a pretty nice way to make it grow. You could buy an entire apartment building, and you could even use the equity to buy and keep other properties.

      • airzone on 06/05/2016 - 12:53
        +1

        Yeah I know about the overdraft thing, which is why the hypothetical is based on the experience, not "if you were her".. Hypothetical is cash in the account.

        Agree that the money needs to be paid back, but I would dispute the interest. Since there is no loan contract in place, the repayment would be strictly dollar for dollar and any costs (direct and opportunity) incurred by the bank was payment for their mistake. Consider you see someone drop $50 on the street, you pick it up, and they claim it back, you give them $50 - not plus interest.

        • zzymurgy on 06/05/2016 - 15:49
          +1

          I agree, but when the bank finds out, and sues for lost opportunity costs, you're going to spend a lot of that money on lawyers.

        • airzone on 06/05/2016 - 21:33
          +2

          @zzymurgy: Just use your overdraft facility :)

    • massafiri on 08/05/2016 - 11:30

      Our legal system can take "proceeds of crime" away from criminals.

      In this case, you've obtained the money fraudulently (yes, it's fraud if you stumble upon 4.6m and play it off like it's your money), and any investments you made would go into the legal system as proceeds of crime.
      The bank might even profit off your savvy investing.

  • Marcsie on 05/05/2016 - 20:32

    Dumb and Dumber :)

    • Flowerbomb on 05/05/2016 - 21:53
      +9

      What's dumb is spending 1m on Hermes bags to impress peers on Facebook she doesn't even know.

      Why didn't she buy a nice apartment in 2012 in Surry hills or north shore, by 2015 the price would have gone up by 30%. The peril of buying branded goods to impress others.

      • CyberMurning on 05/05/2016 - 22:04

        any link to that picture of her with hermes?

        • Flowerbomb on 05/05/2016 - 22:10

          Nah no link, that was my assumption. Hermes is the cream of the crop of all branded bags, so given her "windfall" and love for bags. Hermes would definitely be the top of her list at >20k per bag.

        • jenkemjunkie on 07/05/2016 - 13:21

          @Cronut:

          chances are it was just your garden variety LV, Prada, Gucci etc…it's all about conspicuous consumption and getting too 'esoteric' with the brands doesn't get the same wow factor as someone noticing your LV bag coz everyone knows LV and LVs soooooo expensive…

          kind of like how the general public thinks rolexes are 'like the cream of the crop'

      • WT on 06/05/2016 - 10:32
        -1

        If she were smart she could have invested in real estate in '12, sold in '15, given the money back to the bank and pocketed an easy mil

        • Scrooge McDuck on 06/05/2016 - 10:50
          +5

          she could have invested in real estate in '12, sold in '15,

          Anyone could make a lot of money if they knew the future.

          Do we know what the overdraft rate on her account is? What we're talking about here is an unlimited unsecured loan which could've been used as a margin loan. Not an interest free loan.

      • mjjeje on 07/05/2016 - 18:56
        +4

        Well she is 21 now, she probably didn't think much about investing when she was 17.

        And if she wasn't that smart, probably wasn't buying a hermes either, but rather the common brand like LV, Gucci. Hermes is quite hard to get, especially the limited edition ones, and they are selling like hot cakes in China. The resell values (for the right ones) are also quite high.

      • compound on 07/05/2016 - 21:22
        +1

        On the SMH article has a picture of one of her social media post: "Reality is what you have to overcome." The irony.

  • outlander on 05/05/2016 - 22:41
    +4

    Too much monopoly as a kid.

  • cuteseal on 06/05/2016 - 00:32
    +7

    Additional news coverage:
    http://www.theage.com.au/nsw/student-given-46m-in-westpac-ov…

    As an aside, I'm shocked that they have made her personal information public so quickly.
    Although it's pretty apparent that she's in the wrong, what about "innocent before proven guilty"?
    Also teens do silly things - does she deserve to have her reputation and future trashed like this?
    I doubt she would be able to find gainful employment after this.

    • amkssg on 06/05/2016 - 00:52
      +7

      What do you mean?
      There is no case of "innocent until proven guilty" since the overdraft of $4.6 million is an undisputed fact.
      The girl is not disputing this fact.

      Edit: I do not support the media's name-and-shame campaign. Just saying that the $4.6 million is undisputed.

      • cuteseal on 06/05/2016 - 09:07
        +2

        I think you are right…. but yes the name and shame is despicable.

        • Gershom on 06/05/2016 - 11:05

          the name and shame is despicable.

          Why? Isn't the public entitled to know? There is no right to privacy in this case.

        • Brianqpr on 06/05/2016 - 12:58
          -1

          Why? She knew what she was doing and its a very out of the ordinary situation and therefore newsworthy. A few hundred or even thousand would be different. This is theft and off the scale theft at that.

        • ThithLord on 06/05/2016 - 13:18
          +2

          @Gershom: Not at all. It's nobody elses business - the fact of the matter is, the bank granted her an unlimited overdraft fee by accident. Should your financial indiscretions be made public knowledge when you utilise the overdraft function?

        • momov3 on 06/05/2016 - 17:20

          Psy, is that you?

        • psyren89 on 07/05/2016 - 01:05
          +1

          @momov3:
          Wat?

        • Pricebeat on 07/05/2016 - 09:24
          +2

          She obviously wanted to show off and become social media celebrity by showing off her handbangs on instagram or Facebook.Now media is helping her to become more famous. At the age of 21 you know that your actions have consequences. Can't play the teens card whole life.

        • lplau on 07/05/2016 - 23:12

          @Jimmy007: I agree, she should be named and shamed…. Its good for future employers to know that if they accidentally f'ed up their payroll they will not get one cent back from her because she will take advantage of it and spend it all.

          Technically what she did was immoral, she should have contacted the bank and then if they ignored her, then its all fair game, however she didn't do so. Therefore i think its all fair game if the media named and shamed her (karma is a b1tch). haha

          Also, if you find something, it isn't finders keepers, If i remember there are laws where you have to "try your best" to find the owner (e.g. go to the police) and if they do not find the owner, then they will actually let you keep it….

        • amkssg on 07/05/2016 - 23:38

          @lplau: To clarify, there was NEVER $4.2 million in her bank account. The bank did not deposit $4.2 million into her account. So, it wasn't like she found $4.2 million accidentally deposited into her account. No money was EVER deposited into her account, so it wasn't finders keepers.

          What happened was: The bank allowed her to draw more money than she had in her bank account.

    • ninetyNineCents on 07/05/2016 - 17:24

      Especially if they also check her police record.

  • Mobe1969 on 06/05/2016 - 08:27
    +2

    I like the description of the action. So bloody vague.

    "either found 4.6 million in her bank account, or was able to overdraw her account by 4.6 million"

    Found 4.6 million means money deposited. If someone deposits money in your account, I believe you'd have to declare it for tax. Maybe it is illegal. I don't know.

    "Able to overdraw" means she would be able to go into DEBT up to 4.6 million. Meaning she would owe money.

    Illegal or not, both are two vastly different things. I can't understand how they could be so vague.

    • TenaciousTom on 06/05/2016 - 16:54
      +6

      Because they don't have the facts but need to make the article interesting.

  • Brainwhacker on 06/05/2016 - 09:08

    As long as she is prepared to pay back the "borrowed" money if it was drawn from an OD facility, although it will technically be unsecured as there was no application made and apart from the banks error there is a huge risk money wont be rocovered.

  • cuteseal on 06/05/2016 - 09:17

    Just watched the Age/SMH video and there was an interesting tidbit at the end:
    http://imgur.com/75QVGNs

    A lot of people are advocating putting the money in a high interest account or investing, and then if the bank or police come knocking, return the original amount and pocket the interest.

    However, that statement claims that even withdrawing the money from the account is considered theft…

    • Brianqpr on 06/05/2016 - 12:58
      +4

      Good luck earning higher interest than would be payable on an overdraft.

      • Mobe1969 on 06/05/2016 - 21:08

        Hah I didn't even think of that. I mean if an overdraft, this whole tale is as stupid as a bank giving some dumb XXXX an unsecured loan and then foreclosing on the tard who took their money. Criminal? Nah.

      • airzone on 06/05/2016 - 21:35

        If you had asked for the overdraft facility then yep, I Can see you're liable to interest.. But if it was given without request then I'd challenge that.

        • Brianqpr on 09/05/2016 - 09:50

          But she would have known it wasn't her money so why shouldn't she be liable? You would have an idea what your actual balance should be, and that it wasn't $4.5 million.

          She knowingly took money that wasn't hers, over a long period, denying the bank the opportunity to use that money for other profit making purposes. Yes the bank was incredibly stupid but I don't see any valid excuses for what this person did.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2016 - 09:18

    Moral of the story, don't take money from strangers

    • WT on 06/05/2016 - 10:33
      +17

      I can still take candy right?

      • massafiri on 08/05/2016 - 11:35

        Of course! Speak to the nice man in the trench coat at your local park.

  • snook on 06/05/2016 - 10:25
    +35

    Buy a company for one fifth its value (promise the rest later), undervalue the stock, show huge profits, float it for $520 million, take the money and run. Legal theft. No Police required.

  • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2016 - 12:00

    my question is

    why didnt the bank sort this out earlier

    duty of care breach of the bank big time

    how does 4.6 mill just go un-noticed?

    • Brendoo on 07/05/2016 - 07:43
      +5

      Seems to be more going on that meets the eye in this case. The Police have been following her for fraud since 2012. Obviously from that moment they would have been in contact with the bank, or the bank in contact with them. Why did the Police also not do anything until now? I presume there is something else going on here and both the bank and Police were well aware, but could not act until now. And she tried to run too, generally an innocent person doesn't try to run.

      From the SMH:
      "Even though Sydney City Local Area Command's CBD fraud unit started their investigation in 2012, they issued a warrant for Ms Lee's arrest only on March 4 this year."

      Who knows? Inside job at the bank as part of this too? International crime? It's all too suss to be a simple mistake that went unnoticed. The only reason I can see the Police following her for 4 years, and the bank being well aware, is to try and catch a much bigger fish, or to gather lots of evidence for bigger reasons.

      We'll see what comes out in the wash during the court case.

      • mohan76 on 07/05/2016 - 14:00
        +1

        If it is an organised crime she would have run away ling time back & she don't have to be in Australia to withdraw money.

  • Kkuba on 06/05/2016 - 12:08
    +29

    Bank error in your favour, collect 4.6 million dollars.

  • garetz on 06/05/2016 - 12:21
    +7

    The reason 4.6 mill goes unnoticed is cause its not real money, its just numbers on a screen. When you buy a house and you are given a loan, no actual money exchanges hands they just add a certain number to their books as a debit, and to you it becomes a credit. If everyone in australia tried to withdraw all their money today, you would get cents in the dollar cause banks do not physically hold the money they lend to everyone else.

    If this woman was smart she would of gone to a place with strict banking laws and no extradition, maybe the Cayman Islands, you would transfer the money to bitcoin, buy several new aliases, open an account with each alias, then convert the bitcoin to local currency with an account associated with each identity then deposit the money evenly between each identity. As long as you dont waste millions on bags you should be able to live the rest of your life in comfort. Not that i condone this, but still its an interesting situation to be in.

    • Cluster on 06/05/2016 - 12:49
      +1

      Yes, I'm not sure what this woman expected to happen next. That she could withdraw money from an overdraft forever? She didn't even once question where the money was coming from? Was she silly enough to believe the bank loved her so much they were throwing money at her, or that the proverbial Nigerian prince did come good on his spam offer?

      If she had an ounce of intelligence she would have squirreled away most of the money in cash, gold, silver, bitcoins, etc. Items that are not ultimately worthless (handbags, lol) or easy to find and confiscate (real estate, etc).

      The media is suggesting she applied for an emergency passport and was looking to flee the country as soon as possible. Chances are she knew imminent action was to be taken and she wanted to escape justice.

      I hope she receives a fair trial because the prosecution case looks reasonably strong. It's not good enough to answer 'herp derp, I don't know, maybe a rich uncle!' when someone asks why you were given an unlimited bank account.

      • airzone on 06/05/2016 - 13:01

        That's the puzzling bit.. At some point you'd expect the money to stop coming from out of the wall.

        • danyool on 07/05/2016 - 22:47

          Nah - i'll just try again today.. woo-hoo another million!

        • Christy Bambi on 08/05/2016 - 18:37

          shes a chemical engineering student, they do a high level of maths. She knew exactly where the money was coming from and knew exactly where to spend it.

        • CyberMurning on 08/05/2016 - 18:47
          +1

          @Christy Bambi: but she was 18-19 yo, and with that face and bags buying hobby i dont think she is that smart.

  • Brianqpr on 06/05/2016 - 12:55

    A girl I work with who knows about these things tells me that a lot of expensive designer handbags can actually increase in value after you buy them. Therefore maybe she will have change after unloading them on ebay/gumtree and paying the bank back.

    I don't think anyone can pretend that they spent $4.5 million of money that wasn't there and it wasn't a deliberate act of fraud. Doesn't mean she won't get away with it but what she did was definitely wrong.

    • jenkemjunkie on 07/05/2016 - 13:10
      +4

      eBay very tentatively (for such goods they would use auction houses where people have to go and they are evaluated independently)…I don't know the gumtree you've been visiting, but from my observations of the gumtree ilk…unloading 'investment pieces' is definitely not going to bring you any return…honestly it sounds like the girl you work with uses this as an excuse to justify her own stupidly expensive handbag habit. She'd have no idea how to sell a handbag at the rate some arbitrary valuer dictates guaranteed.

      Now I'm going to look for some ubiquitous picasso art…on gumtree LOL!

      • Thrawn on 07/05/2016 - 16:31

        There are certain products here in oz where there's a fairly active trade of people buying here for buyers overseas. And yes handbags is one of them. (Luxury goods are often more a lot more expensive in Asia, thanks to high luxury taxes)

        It would be funny if she ended paying back the bank all the money plus interest.

        • jenkemjunkie on 08/05/2016 - 06:47

          Yes we know, but we're talking handbags in terms of an appreciating asset. Not buying something from a store somewhere else because it's cheaper…it's hilarious people are even entertaining the thought that she could make back what she owes to the bank… in 'second hand' handbags. She's probably spilt bubble tea in half of them…

        • Thrawn on 08/05/2016 - 09:30

          @jenkemjunkie:

          I'm not so sure why everyone assumes she's a complete idiot. She's a 3rd year chemical engineering student. To get that far, you'd have to be decently smart. Certainly strong in maths.

        • jenkemjunkie on 08/05/2016 - 10:55

          @Thrawn:

          she spent $1M that wasn't hers on handbags. LOL.

        • Ughhh on 08/05/2016 - 11:48
          -1

          @jenkemjunkie:

          If you had accessed to almost unlimited money, I am 100% certain you would buy a brand new top end gadget, whether it be phone, tv or car. No different to designer handbags. Some hand bags, even second hand, worth more than a new tv.

        • jenkemjunkie on 08/05/2016 - 13:00

          @Ughhh:

          …and that relates to selling designer handbags on gumtree for profit how?

        • Ughhh on 08/05/2016 - 13:32

          @jenkemjunkie:

          You think gumtree is the only place to sell stuff? Especially stuff that an average Joe wouldn't be able to afford?

          There are stores that specialise in buying and selling second hand designer handbags, perhaps more popular in Asia. Though most come from women who have sugar daddy's.

          She probably never had the intention of paying it back, hence trying to flee. Selling an item that worths $100 (for example) for $10 is still profit if you got it for 'free'.

        • jenkemjunkie on 08/05/2016 - 13:58
          +1

          @Ughhh:

          The whole premise of this argument was her selling the handbags to pay back the debt incurred. The other original premise of this argument was that she would unload them to pay the bank back the money she would be found to owe.

          now you're talking about her selling her handbags just for the money coz they were 'free' and its all profit?
          and 2nd hand stores and asian sugar daddy's(sic) and me buying gadgets 100% and how I think gumtree is the only place to sell stuff?

          So many tangents, none of them relevant.

        • Ughhh on 08/05/2016 - 14:40

          @jenkemjunkie:

          You sound like a confused monkey :)

          The original comment was maybe she could profit from it and/or pay back the loan IF she wanted to -provided she bought the right stuff. As a girl, I think she bought them because she could and wanted to live the princess lifestyle (without the intention of paying it back or selling the items). I assume you're a guy, you'll never understand the importance of a pretty handbag or nice clothes to a lady.

          Gumtree is for cheapskates who want a $1000 item for $100, everyone knows this. Gumtree doesnt have the buyers market for high end designer stuff.

          About the profit comment, that applies to anything. If you got eneloops for free and sold them for $2 each, you made a profit because you didnt pay anything for it. In this womans case, I put the word free in quotes because I dont believe she ever intended to pay it back, she viewed it as free money.

          Your previous comment only mentions selling Gumtree, it kinda suggested thats the only place you know where to sell stuff.

          All these arguments/comments are all ifs and buts, including yours. Only that woman knew what she wanted.

        • jenkemjunkie on 08/05/2016 - 15:19

          @Ughhh:

          you are the only one introducing new if's and buts and scenarios that has no relevance to the original statement we were 'deconstructing', but hey, keep droppin' knowledge, that is so way over my head and keeps me confused.

          opening statement: A girl I work with who knows about these things tells me that a lot of expensive designer handbags can actually increase in value after you buy them. Therefore maybe she will have change after unloading them on ebay/gumtree — per brianqpr

          second statement Good luck selling something on gumtree for a profit (in regards to a definition of an appreciating asset and quip about buying a picasso piece) —- per JenkemJunkie

          leads too:

          Ughhh's revelations
          * Jenkem junkie will buy gadgets with 100% certainty if he had access to said funds - * this one really has me stumped it's that left field*
          * Jenkem Junkie doesn't understand the importance of handbags and nice clothes to a lady
          * Jenkem Junkie thinks only gumtree is where 2nd hand stuff is sold.
          * 2nd hand stores in Asia are very popular, many of their indirect suppliers are asian sugar 'daddy's'(sic). Jenkem Junkie wouldn't know this.
          * Profit and loss explained!

        • Brianqpr on 09/05/2016 - 09:46

          I was kind of joking when I said she could make enough back to pay back the bank by on selling handbags!

          Some of the expensive, top end designer handbags where there are a limited number made do appreciate in value though. There is a market out there for that sort of thing. More money than sense I know.

  • sassypants on 06/05/2016 - 13:02

    She has confirmed $4.6m in overdrafts. The article states $1m was spent on handbags and transfers, with over $3m outstanding.
    She's likely gone and sent all that money back home to Malaysia, in whatever form.

    My questions is: If the courts decide no criminal activities occurred and this simply amounted to a person receiving unlimited loans through the banks own error, what happens if she were to fly home to Malaysia and never return? I would imagine the bank would have very limited recourse in terms of forcing her to pay back the money or even return to Australia?

    • mohan76 on 07/05/2016 - 13:57
      +1

      3.5 Million could be interest & fees :)

    • lplau on 07/05/2016 - 23:21

      If she manages to leave australia, and the proceedings go ahead and Australia deems that she has broken the law she may be extradited back to Australia. As I think Malaysia has extradition agreements with Australia.

    • jenkemjunkie on 08/05/2016 - 06:51

      The banks will probably pursue more 'unscrupulous methods' that the media and most of the public wouldn't be privy to, even if they knew they weren't getting back anything.

  • vivasawadee on 06/05/2016 - 13:11
    +14

    If they are naming and shaming the girl, shouldn't the employees of the bank also be named?

    As a Westpac shareholder, I would like to know who let this through and what actions have the bank taken to ensure it doesn't happen again.

    It wasn't overnight but the whole thing happened over a few years, that's the worrying thing.

    • airzone on 06/05/2016 - 17:27
      +1

      Fun fact - 10 years ago they did the same thing, except $10m to a NZ couple… Who took the money and ran.

      • momov3 on 06/05/2016 - 17:31
        +1

        Such things…..never happen to me!

      • jenkemjunkie on 08/05/2016 - 06:54
        +1

        Fun fact: they got caught, Gao got 4 years and 10 months and his missus got home detention. Still worth it I say

        • airzone on 08/05/2016 - 09:14

          I could work my arse off for ~5 years and never come close to $10m… Or pinch it from the bank and spend 5 years trying to avoid my arse being worked (by bubba my cellmate).. Tempting.

        • jenkemjunkie on 08/05/2016 - 09:35

          @airzone:

          mate jail here isn't even that bad…people usually conflate the whole bubba/american thing with ours. One thing is, they don't offer tennis in the american prisons ;)

    • Thrawn on 07/05/2016 - 16:35

      She was criminally charged. That's public info

  • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2016 - 14:01
    +4

    Take the money and piss off to a country that has no extradition treaty with Australia? She hung around too long.

    Surely if people can kidnap their kids and piss off overseas you could take a bank's money and do the same?

  • ChickenTalon on 06/05/2016 - 15:25

    Very similar to someone just overspending on a credit card. Just on a larger scale.

    Westpac will have a lot of trouble keeping her in the country if they've just loaned her the money. This is certainly not what the initial stories said, they initially said the money was transferred in error, I wonder if that's what westpac said too? Could be westpac in trouble in that case… deprivation of liberty based on false accusations etc etc

    Not fully sure of the laws, but I'd imagine it's very difficult to keep someone in the country over a property dispute if there aren't any laws broken and no one is yet bankrupt. If she can avoid bankruptcy long enough to get out of the country then she'd be in the clear.

    from SMH

    Her Legal Aid lawyer Fiona McCarron told the court

    lol, you'd think she could afford to get her own team of lawyers.

  • sparkles on 06/05/2016 - 15:27

    Bankruptcy is definitely in her future. It's her only out.

    • CyberMurning on 06/05/2016 - 16:19

      but she is not australian citizen so she can just declare bankruptcy and then fly back to malaysia and nothing else will happen? she might send back some $ (or LV bags) to her family so she is the winner then?

  • [Deactivated] on 06/05/2016 - 16:23

    Westpac can afford it. How is it her fault the bank gave her unlimited money :p

    • PlagueistheCheap on 06/05/2016 - 18:09
      +2

      You mean the customers can afford it, it wont come out of management bonuses that's for sure.

      • sparkles on 06/05/2016 - 18:59
        +5

        The bigwigs will just make a bunch of low level workers redundant, outsource a bunch of stuff to Bangalore, and congratulate each other on a job well done by having a boozy lunch and comparing bonuses.

        • airzone on 07/05/2016 - 10:20
          +2

          They were probably going to do that anyway, but now have an excuse for it

  • UFO on 06/05/2016 - 16:47
    +2

    She should have withdrawn as much as possible, and claimed she blew it all on gambling.

    Go to jail as a first time offender for 15 years… come out a millionaire with all the cash you've hidden in different spots. Never work another day in your life.

    Some people work their whole lives and die… if given the opportunity to "almost $5,000,000, and now run for your freedom", I can't imagine anyone would turn that down.

    For $5mil there's not a lot I wouldn't do that's for sure!

    • centrelink on 07/05/2016 - 03:11
      +7

      I'd take 15 years of life over money any day and I know people will think they are smart and make remarks on my username . C'mon guys I know you can't resist it.

  • momov3 on 06/05/2016 - 17:12

    Magistrate says the bank gave the money to her and she is not entirely in the wrong. The bank will now have to pursue her for their careless mistake. On a smaller scale, imagine if you went into a public toilet for eg and found a $500 note on the floor. What would you do? I have lost valuable gold jewellery 2wice in my life, both times at shopping centres when they fell off. Did anyone bother to return them to centre management? Nope.

    • ChocDooder on 06/05/2016 - 17:41
      +27

      If I found a $500 dollar note on the floor, I wouldn't do a thing; monopoly money isn't legal tender in Australia.

      • iridiumstem on 06/05/2016 - 21:27
        +3

        I will be more concerned on why is there a monopoly money in the toilet…
        I guess different things cater different people.

  • PlagueistheCheap on 06/05/2016 - 18:08

    I'm not justifying what she has done however, why didn't the bank notice? 2-3 years is a long time when she has been using the money but I'm sure they were happy to collect the interest whilst they thought it was accruing. They deserve to get screwed out of the cash.

    • regenade on 06/05/2016 - 22:45
      -1

      That's Waste Packet for you :), they have the most oldest systems in place.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join