Bob has $100,000 in an account at First Example Bank. Bob robs the bank, taking $50,000, and he escapes. He is never caught, but the bank is 100% sure that he is the one who robbed the bank. Can they deduct $50,000 from his account to cover the loss, effectively turning the robbery into a withdrawal? Obviously, this doesn't make the robbery any less illegal, but it does offset the bank's loss.
Asked
Active
Viewed 5,129 times
14
-
1In what sense does it offset the bank's loss. They still don't have the money. And if Bob is never heard from again, then he cant have withdrawn the $50k he had in the bank. – Brondahl Aug 11 '23 at 10:54
-
2@Brondahl As Franklin said, $50K saved is $50K earned. If you have a loan and it's forgiven (like Biden tried to do with student loans), you've effectively received the amount of the loan (plus any future interest you would have owed). – Barmar Aug 11 '23 at 13:44
-
4@Barmar Banks typically don't actually have the money you deposit anyway. It's all digital and most of the money people deposit to a bank immediately leaves the bank for investments and etc. That said; if I hand you 100 and then steal 50 from you, you saying "well, I'll keep 50 of the 100 you gave me!" doesn't really do anything if I never attempt to retrieve the 100 from you. – Doc Aug 11 '23 at 16:42
-
1@Doc Of course, but what they have is the right to use that money, which is all that matters. It's an entry on a ledger, and if they deduct it from your account they can use it for other things without being obligated to deliver it to you if you try to make a withdrawal. – Barmar Aug 11 '23 at 17:22
-
3Am wondering why someone with $100,000 (or any significant sum that the bank might care about claiming part of) in ready cash needs to rob the bank. – jeffronicus Aug 11 '23 at 18:22
-
The typical case here wouldn't be somebody physically robbing the bank, but instead perpetuating some fraud, like check kiting or a business making fraudulent card charges, which causes a loss. Those are crimes, just like a hold-up, albeit white-collar instead of violent. – user71659 Aug 11 '23 at 21:45
-
3@jeffronicus This is a real phenomenon in Lebanon, where withdrawals are restricted due to an ongoing financial crisis. – nanoman Aug 13 '23 at 00:57
3 Answers
35
If there has been no trial establishing Bob's guilt, the bank does not know that it was Bob who did rob the bank.
Even if the bank has Bob on the security video feed, claiming that, "As my name is Bob, I will shoot anyone who does not follow my instructions", and Bob left behind his driver's licence at the heist, the bank does not know that it was Bob.
The bank could sue Bob in a civil action in order to get the money back. It would have to follow some procedures to notify Bob of the lawsuit and, if he did not appear, it would win by default. If Bob were to appear, he could make his case about why the bank should not be entitled to that money ("It was not me" / "I only took $1,000" / whatever).
After the trial had happened, the bank still could not take the money right away. Maybe Bob would offer some other assets worth $50,000 to pay the bank.
After it had become evident that Bob was unwilling or unable to comply with the payments, then the bank could ask the court to seize Bob's assets. The court would decide which assets could be seized, would order to have them seized, and then would provide them to the bank.
That does not mean that Bob would be free to use his $100,000 during this time. Before the trial is over, the bank could request the judge to freeze Bob's account, as a way of ensuring that he does not withdraw the money from it. The judge would evaluate the likelihood of Bob losing the trial and refusing to honour it (and whatever Bob's lawyer's objections to this are) and decide on the issue. But that would only affect Bob's ability to use the money, not his ownership.
Toby Speight
- 549
- 2
- 15
SJuan76
- 5,879
- 1
- 23
- 28
-
18Most customer agreements with banks would contractually permit the bank to at least freeze, if not seize permanently, a suspected robber or thief's account funds without a court order in these circumstances. The usual fact pattern where this is invoked (been there, done that) would be suspect check kiting or embezzlement or fraud directed at a customer or the bank, but the agreements are usually expansive enough to cover bank robbery too. – ohwilleke Aug 10 '23 at 22:48
-
7@ohwilleke You almost got me to pull out my binder for bank stuff, get the terms of service and look for a clause that says what happens in the event that I rob the bank. – Philipp Aug 11 '23 at 10:35
-
5In England (and many other systems) bankers would have a right of set-off. They would not need to sue for a debt, they can just set it off. If they were reasonably confident, they would not worry about having to go to court. – Francis Davey Aug 11 '23 at 11:31
-
6"The bank could sue Bob in a civil action in order to get the money back." or the Bank could take the money and wait for Bob to sue them, that's a much more likely course IMO. – deep64blue Aug 11 '23 at 12:08
-
1@ohwilleke my credit union membership agreement doesn't say anything about what happens if I rob the credit union. – Someone Aug 11 '23 at 14:16
-
4@Someone: Mine does.
At any time and without notice we may suspend or terminate your Account or remove you from any Account on which you are an Authorized Signer or a Joint Account Holder or may require you to close your Account if... You cause a loss to BECU... Suspensions may take the form of a temporary or permanent “hold” or “freeze” on your Account at our discretion without prior notice to you.https://www.becu.org/-/media/Files/PDF/6514.pdf – Mooing Duck Aug 11 '23 at 17:49 -
1
-
1My bank account agreements (USA) definitely provide for a right of set-off by the bank. I don't know at what point or under whose discretion that kicks in. I suspect they write it strong enough that they could take the money first and make me sue for it back, unless regulations prohibit that, which they might. – Glenn Willen Aug 11 '23 at 22:49
-
There is no legal connection between "what a bank knows" and "trial" or "conviction". A criminal conviction may be evidence that a bank knows, and what a bank knows may be evidence in a criminal trial, but the assertion that "If there has been no trial establishing Bob's guilt, the bank does not know" is false in law and in practice. – david Aug 13 '23 at 02:02
11
I don't know if it's normal or not, but my Credit Union's membership agreement says that they can permanently freeze the account without warning to members who "cause a loss". They can also seize money for "obligations" though I don't know if that requires a trial or not.
At any time and without notice we may suspend or terminate your Account or remove you from any Account on which you are an Authorized Signer or a Joint Account Holder or may require you to close your Account if...
g. You cause a loss to BECU...
...Suspensions may take the form of a temporary or permanent “hold” or “freeze” on your Account at our discretion without prior notice to you...
... If we terminate or close your Account, we will mail to the Primary Account Holder all funds in the Account, less any obligations owed to BECU by any Account Holder...
Mooing Duck
- 342
- 1
- 7
-2
Bob has made a withdrawal from his bank.
The fact that he failed to complete a withdrawal-form may be relevant in some future civil case, but is unlikely to have any force. The fact that he was committing a crime at the time may also be relevant in some future civil case, but not in his favor.
The fact that he was withdrawing his own money may be a factor in his eventual criminal trial and sentencing, but is unlikely to have much effect: normally the conviction and sentencing is not reduced even when the bank robber gets away with zero cash.
david
- 524
- 2
- 8
-
Bob didn't intend for the bank to make a withdrawal. He intended to take money from the bank, while still having his original balance, but he didn't realize the bank would be able to identify him. – Someone Aug 14 '23 at 22:27
-
@Someone Bobs intentions are interesting,, and may influence his criminal trial. He can argue the import of his intentions in his civil case against the bank: he is unlikely to win. – david Aug 14 '23 at 22:41
-
Yeah, saying "This was a robbery; I didn't intend for them to make it a withdrawal" sounds like a very convincing argument in court. :) – Someone Aug 15 '23 at 01:54