!
To: WSFAlist at keithlynch.net
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2002 16:25:38 -0400
Subject: [WSFA] Re: What were those people thinking?
From: ronkean at juno.com
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at keithlynch.net>
On Wed, 7 Aug 2002 12:40:21 -0400 (EDT) "Keith F. Lynch"
<kfl at KeithLynch.net> writes:
> Is it possible that it was entirely an innocent mistake? Perhaps
> some
> people just don't keep track of their accounts, and rely on the
> bank
> to tell them when they're overdrawn.
>
I did consider that, and I think that in some, even many, cases, it
probably was entirely innocent at first. And you are quite right that
many people use an ATM-accessible account almost exclusively for getting
cash from ATMs, and simply do not bother to keep track of the balance.
It seems, though, that after a person had withdrawn several thousand
dollars via ATMs from an account which had a balance of only a few
hundred dollars, they should have become aware that the account had gone
negative, especially since the balance is printed on the record slip
which pops out of the ATM. Well, I suppose the same people who don't
bother to track their balance also toss away the record slip without
looking at it, judging from the mess of slips one often sees lying about
at ATMs.
> I'd be very reluctant to impose criminal penalties on anyone unless
> there was overwhelming evidence that they knew they were doing
> something wrong.
> --
Absent a law against intentionally overdrawing an account without
authorization, I think the overdraws would be a civil matter, not a
criminal matter, unless there was evidence of larcenous intent, in which
case it might be prosecutable as larceny or attempted larceny. But since
dozens have been arrested, with dozens more facing arrest, what they did
was probably covered by some criminal statute. Unfortunately for those
being arrested, allegedly not knowing that what they were doing is
'wrong' is not a very good defense, although a jury could well take that
factor into account. Apparently only a small fraction of the cases are
being prosecuted, presumably the most egregious ones.
Another aspect of the case is that the credit union contributed to
creating the mess by deciding to allow overdraws. Normally overdraws
result in further withdrawals being blocked as soon as the overdraw is
discovered, and that practice conditions people to not be concerned about
overdrawing their account, because it is normally not even possible to do
so (except to the extent of bounced check fees).
Ron Kean
.
________________________________________________________________