I would've put that money in the sp500. Depending on how long he could hold on to that credit he would've made a lot of profit that he could keep.
The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars
111–120 of 243 posts
Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously, what an asshole. He "was just unlucky"? No, there was not a single piece of bad luck for him in this whole affair. Something strange happened to him, but it was easy to handle without screwing anything up: just tell the bank they messed up, or even just ignore it. Deciding to start spending the money like crazy was not bad luck, it was bad judgment. The bank was clearly in the wrong as well. They shouldn't…
I wonder what would be your take on the whole case if he used the funds to build successful company that paid all the funds back, and paid for strippers and cocaine.
That would be a lot better. I still wouldn't approve of it, but at least he'd be doing something useful with it.
What really gets me is not just taking the money, but then talking about the whole affair as if it was something done to him, rather than something he did.
Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
Institutions like this that have no sense of financial responsibility are an evil in the world. They lend out millions of dollars of other people's money, declare the debts in default (presumably), and when their actions are deemed imprudent and unprofitable, though not technically illegal, they acts like that's just name-calling and get right back up on his high horse. Remind you of any Wall Street bank?
Like with most polarized issues, the truth is that both parties were in the wrong in different ways, and the blame, and thus legal action, should lay distributed between the two.
"both parties were in the wrong in different ways, and the blame, and thus legal action, should lay distributed between the two"
Between these two only the bank, as institution or licensed financial entity, has an obligation to guard the flow of public money. The bank should not hand anyone the responsibility of overdraft limit management. The individual can be assumed incompetent and just be absolved of any responsibility solely based on that.
Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, usually $2 million is around the amount where you have a problem. It's when you owe the bank $2 billion that the bank has a problem.
Yep, our next president was over 1 billion in debt which is oddly enough a powerful position to be in as they really don't want you to default. PS: This is where cash flow is so important. If you have debt of 10 billion and assets 'worth' 9 billion but can make debt payments then it's not yet game over.
Yep amazing how he turned it around. I remember a trailer for a documentary on it somehow.
Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars
#115The 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.
Seems to be more of an issue with the lower court judge than the lawyers
(from an article describing his original conviction)
>Justice Leeming found Mr Moore acted "extremely foolishly" and dishonestly. He had known of the error and continued to borrow knowing he could not pay the money back.
>"I must confess to some puzzlement at the apparent dismay of the prisoner and people who support him that he was found guilty," Judge Norrish had said, describing the Crown case as "irresistible".
Seems like the judge knew exactly the facts and managed to come up with the wrong decision. It does sound like the lawyers weren't very good, but you also need a pretty bad judge to go in there and come out with the wrong decision despite knowing all the facts.
Maybe the defense could have brought in more case law, but most judges don't read it except on appeal.
Just to add, fraud is an intentional crime, this means the prosecutor must prove intent at every step, including that he had intent to obtain money from the bank through fraud. How the judge missed what a first year law student would have known just speaks to me about the incompetence of the judiciary. It's not like this man's lawyers failed to point that out to the trial judge.
Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
In some countries (not sure about Australia) it is a crime to take on a loan with no intention of paying it back. This is probably why at the start of the article he says: 'It seems unbelievable but my intention was never to take all the money from the St George Bank and not pay it back.'. Obviously it is very difficult to prove that someone has no intention of paying back a loan.
But he didn't take out a loan. The bank kept giving him money whenever he wanted to withdraw it. That is not a loan. A loan requires explicit agreement and a fixed amount.
He signed a contract when he opened up the bank account. That contract would have included clauses establishing liability for overdrafts, even if the bank account didn't include an overdraft facility.
Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars
#117> I was just unlucky I guess that it happened to me. People like this who have no sense of personal responsibility are an evil in the world. He spends millions of dollars of other people's money, declares bankruptcy (presumably), and when his actions are deemed dishonest and immoral, though not technically illegal, he acts like that's just name-calling and gets right back up on his high horse. Remind you of any Presi…
Institutions like this that have no sense of financial responsibility are an evil in the world. They lend out millions of dollars of other people's money, declare the debts in default (presumably), and when their actions are deemed imprudent and unprofitable, though not technically illegal, they acts like that's just name-calling and get right back up on his high horse. Remind you of any Wall Street bank?
Except that's not what appears to have happened here. I didn't see any suggestion in the article that the bank knowingly lent out the money, most likely a human error or bug in one of their systems caused his account to have this line of credit applied to it.
If they had pushed him to take a reckless loan, I'd agree with you that they shared liability here, but this was (from what I've read) just him taking advantage of a mistake by the bank.
Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's actually called fraud, at least in the US, and will be investigated by the Secret Service. If you experience such a windfall in your account, seek written permission from the bank before spending any of the money.
He didn't find the windfall - they just gave him a large line of credit. You could claim it was fraudulent because he didn't plan on paying them back, but it's not the same as suddenly finding money in your account.
He says that, but the way he explains it, it sounds like they just didn't have an overdraft limit on his account. To me, there isn't much difference in doing what he did and grabbing a handful of money out of an open cash register because no one is watching it.
Now if he got a letter in the mail saying they had extended him a huge loan, that would be different.
Sounds to me like this guy never really took responsibility for his actions.
Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars
#119> I was just unlucky I guess that it happened to me. People like this who have no sense of personal responsibility are an evil in the world. He spends millions of dollars of other people's money, declares bankruptcy (presumably), and when his actions are deemed dishonest and immoral, though not technically illegal, he acts like that's just name-calling and gets right back up on his high horse. Remind you of any Presi…
A loan is a two party relationship and both parties have responsibilities. Also there are known consequences to default. Defaulting on a loan has nothin to do with morality as far as I'm concerned. If you are fine with the consequences of default then do so. It's not immoral as everyone knows the risk/consequences.
It's a two party situation if both parties are aware of it. I didn't read any implication in the article that the bank knew about this, it was a mistake either human or software that led to him having the credit line.
so only one party was aware of it, the customer, therefore their responsibility for the borrowing.
Re: The bank lent me $2m so I spent it on strippers and cars
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No, there was not a single piece of bad luck for him in this whole affair. Something strange happened to him, but it was easy to handle without screwing anything up: just tell the bank they messed up, or even just ignore it. Deciding to start spending the money like crazy was not bad luck, it was bad judgment. There's another way to look at it: The "bad judgment" is only bad if you view the standard as "tell[ing] t…
I'm not sure what your point is. I mean, you're right, but why would I view the standard that way?
"why would I view the standard that way?"
That is closer to the core human nature for a lot of people. Many people want to live and enjoy life (more than enjoying the good perks of being honest). Playing by the rules is just a mean to an end not a purpose in itself.