Live data from Hacker News

The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars

bbc.com

21–30 of 243 posts

Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars

#21

Listening to it on the radio, the guy just seemed so apathetic. That it seemed almost like a Satire skit. He bought several expensive cars, spent time in Thailand, and started buying celebrity memorabilia and art? I wonder if people like this get caught because of their blatant disregard for consequences. And that there's lots of people who fall into similar mistakes/loop holes but are just very reserved and try to f…

>He bought several expensive cars, spent time in Thailand, and started buying celebrity memorabilia and art?

Why not? He had a nice experience, and even avoided any long term jail sentence. What's not to like?

Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars

#23

I'm not sure I understood the story. Is it that he would transfer money from his account, and it always succeeded even if there was no funds???

Yes. This is called Overdraft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdraft

It’s a form of credit granted to you by the bank. It’s usually limited. You wouldn’t usually get a $2m credit either. :)

Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars

#24
post #20

The big story for me here is: don't rely on your lawyers. Not unless they cost enough to rely on. Form a strong idea of your own case and your own defense. Even if you're not representing yourself.

Yep this is my takeaway from the story. I will not be sad when AI automates away the majority of the legal industry. Really really terrifying that one's access to justice is dependent on their access to finances.

Luckily this guy was smart enough to actually represent himself - credit to him for that!

Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars

#26
post #18
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no ethics requirement in Australia for lawyers? Wouldn't it be tough to get admitted to the bar in the US after a stunt like this?

His conviction is quashed.

In the US, you have to disclose every arrest, criminal proceedings, etc. along with all debts, so this would come out. And they can can deny you for things that aren't convictions. That said bar examiners like a good human interest story as much as anyone else. A former bank robber got admitted to the Washington bar last year after he started doing Supreme Court appellate work while behind bars.

Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars

#27
post #25

I'm surprised that the article isn't answering the obvious question and that nobody here is asking it either: Did he have to pay back the 2 million?

If you borrow $2k from the bank and can't pay it back, that's your problem. If you borrow $2 million from the bank and can't pay it back, that's the bank's problem.

Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars

#28
post #5

they weren't charging him interest? if so, why waste money on things that don't yield a return on investment. you could day trade and just put it back in the account. and that way you probably wouldn't get arrested.

I'd buy some gold bars, hide them and say I spent it on strippers and drugs. It's not like you'd keep receipts for that.

Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars

#29
post #25

I'm surprised that the article isn't answering the obvious question and that nobody here is asking it either: Did he have to pay back the 2 million?

INAL, but I assume that the bank had to have an explicit agreement for that credit in order to have now a solid legal position. Considering that and that to get these money back they now have to build a case against a lawyer, it's safe to assume that they won't try to do it. They face a costly legal battle and are in a weak position, which means a high risk of just loosing even more money.

Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars

#30

It's unbelievable how the bank didn't notice for that long. That goes to show the power of what a sysadmin at a bank can have, take money and cover his/her tracks. Unfortunately for this guy he was in no such position.

They definitely would have noticed, but anyone who cared at the bank was a beneficiary - more loans equals higher commissions.

I think the problem here is that the bank employees saw no reason to intervene, even though they should have, as clearly the guy needed help (responsible lending practices here in Oz ignored). I expect that is why his conviction was quashed.

Post reply on HN