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.
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...