w**ker bankers..?

[imtommygunn]

It's in no way fraud. The bank are well out of order. A lot of people wouldn't look near their balance for weeks on end.
I wouldn't be sure they can take it straight back like that. It's basically bully tactics to say she's going to be done for fraud. Poor form.

You'll find it is fraud although I would doubt anyone was ever convicted in the circumstances we're talking about but if you got money put in to your account in error in the morning it's the first thing your bank will tell you if you get awkward with them. 

I don't think you'll find it is fraud at all. For it to be fraud there would have to be intent.

Unknowingly spending someone else's money can not be construed as fraud.

What about when you knowingly spend it?

Knowingly spending money does not equal knowingly spending someone else's money. Yes it's semantics but very meaningful semantics.

Ultimately if it's construed as a crime it's not fraud anyway - it's theft.

Aye alright, you know best 

Right back at you

[pintsofguinness]

Weird.  They normally make you wait and see if it bounces back because the account you sent it to may not have been a live account and after a number of days if it hasn't Santander should be getting in touch with Nationwide. 
I would guess as it was Nationwide's fault for giving out the wrong details they contacted the account holder in the hope it would speed things up for you.  I would hope they didn't give out his contact details without permission. 

Nah, they contacted him first to explain what happened, got his permission to pass his contact details to me, then I had to write to him giving my Santander account number so he could verify he got the payment from my account, then he gave Nationwide permission to take the money and return it to me. The thing that's relevant to this discussion is that he could have told me to feck off at any stage and I would have had to go to the courts. Was a major sweat over the whole thing. The loan was taken out to renovate a house we moved into in the expectation the Ulster Bank would allow us to remortgage after a year for the same value (they gave a commitment to this) only when we went to them looking it they'd brought in all these new "stress-testing" regulations and turned us down flat. There was no way we could afford to continue paying the loan and the mortgage but we found a financial advisor who then got us a mortgage with a different bank and this 'missing' money was the surplus to pay towards the loan. Needless to say our Christmas dinner this year was a roast chicken and the childers presents were bought on Christmas Eve after yer man rang me and said he would be returning the money.

Don't understand it at all as I know of dozens of instances of money being transferred to wrong accounts and have never seen anyone having to do what you did. 

[Ulick]

Is a mad story but a good ending thankfully.

So no turkey at Christmas Ulick, really?

Chicken here Aaron but I didn't mind that's my favourite dish, turkey is too dry anyway.

[Ulick]

Don't understand it at all as I know of dozens of instances of money being transferred to wrong accounts and have never seen anyone having to do what you did.

Well that's what happened, I don't trust any bank and I double check everything when it comes to money. During the same period the wife went overdrawn on a couple of small debits and ended up with some ridiculous charges, £25 per debit and £25 charge on top of each of those which was ended up around £150. The wife rang to complain and they let us off "as a gesture of good faith but wouldn't next time". Fecking c***ts the lot of them - I got a letter today from Santander to say they will be charging me £1 per day for my arranged overdraft from the end of February. Fair enough, I'll maybe be able to have it paid off in three months or so taking into consideration their £30 a month charge but what about all of the other poor c***ts they threw money at over the past number of years who won't be able to do it? They'll be raking in tens of millions - all from the people who can least afford it.   

[DuffleKing]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0731/718364-anglo/

Is there any prospect of Seanie Fitzpatrick facing charges here?

[muppet]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0731/718364-anglo/

Is there any prospect of Seanie Fitzpatrick facing charges here?

You would think he appears to be the Anglo employee who stood to benefit the most from the actions of those found guilty. So he probably should, but he has other cases against him.

It is worth mentioning that these sentences had nothing, as far as I can see, with the collapse of Anglo and the banking crisis. This was a revenue issue that pre-dates it.

[armaghniac]

While these cases had nothing to do with the banking collapse, if it had not happened they would not have come to light.

[muppet]

While these cases had nothing to do with the banking collapse, if it had not happened they would not have come to light.

Agreed, but that is almost worse. They would have gotten away with it except for the small matter of collapsing the economy and drawing the spotlight on themselves.

On another note, almost 8 years on, can anyone point to a single new piece of legislation that either makes reckless bankers (or indeed incompetent regulators) accountable for their actions, or protects the taxpayer from their losses?

[macdanger2]

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0731/718364-anglo/

Is there any prospect of Seanie Fitzpatrick facing charges here?

His case is due in court in Oct although he's trying to have it postponed