211–220 of 243 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it only cost as much as most people make in a lifetime. What a great value for society we got from this one.
To be fair, the bank footed the bill, not society, so it is a net gain. Also, I'm sure the strippers and blow sector appreciated the stimulus.
This may be true in the short term but it seems more likely the bank's customers will pay in the long term. ;-)
What a shame he was young and irresponsible when this happened. It could have been a truly epic story had he done something interesting like take out the money, invest it in something like income producing real property or a cashflow positive business, and then been able to come out ahead when judgement day inevitably came along by handing back the money owed.
I would imagine that most people who would allocate their money that way wouldn't take the risk of continually drawing on a magic line of credit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would imagine that most people who would allocate their money that way wouldn't take the risk of continually drawing on a magic line of credit.
I absolutely would. I'd probably call them to get some documentation that I'd tried to rectify the situation, but if they still want to keep giving me a line of credit I'd be buying up assets like crazy. You'd be a fool to turn down unlimited zero-interest credit.
Maybe, but this guy served half a year in jail. You could probably do better if you could show the court that you're not a hapless kid buying sports cars, but it seems rather risky.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I absolutely would. I'd probably call them to get some documentation that I'd tried to rectify the situation, but if they still want to keep giving me a line of credit I'd be buying up assets like crazy. You'd be a fool to turn down unlimited zero-interest credit.
> You'd be a fool to turn down unlimited zero-interest credit. Maybe, but this guy served half a year in jail. You could probably do better if you could show the court that you're not a hapless kid buying sports cars, but it seems rather risky.
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.
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…
He mentioned several times that the legal aid lawyers were worse than useless.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does say: I was acquitted a few weeks ago. As far as the law is concerned in Australia at the moment I had no legal obligation to inform the Bank of what was going on. I wouldn't do it again - it wasn't worth a couple of good months with the strippers and some cocaine. The judge said I was dishonest, but we don't live in a society where moral wrongs result in people being locked up behind bars and their liberty ta…
>> "moral wrongs result in people being locked up behind bars and their liberty taken away from them" Imagine what the world would be like if this was true.
The difficulty lies in determining what counts as a moral wrong. Some societies have left this in the hands of the judge (or feudal lord). Most modern societies require legislatures to write down the wrongs and have judges enforce them as written.
In this fellow's case, society decided that it was NOT a moral wrong. Many people (including the judge) may feel that what this person did (spending money that wasn't his but was available to him because of bank errors) was immoral. But others may feel that it is not ("Hey, he never lied to the bank - that makes it their problem."). As a society, we have decided that we won't let the judges declare something "wrong" unless the legislature had previously criminalized it, and in this case no existing laws applied.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I got a HELOC in the US in 1 trip to the bank and about 30 minutes. Was so easy. No typewriter either.
Many people do it entirely on-line, and the bank sends a notary to their house to do the final paperwork!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would have crossed the line from being just immoral to being illegal. Not buying the gold bars, but failing to disclose & surrender them during court proceedings.
it would be pretty obvious when the transactions were checked too, most of them would be for the value at the time of a gold bar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep amazing how he turned it around. I remember a trailer for a documentary on it somehow.
He bought 40 Wall Street for $10MM (in loans), put $40MM into renovations (money which came from loans) and it's now worth $600MM. I too could become ultra-wealthy if someone were to give me a ton of money to buy assets at well below market value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I didn't see any indication in the article that the bank knew, and as there is no way this loan would pass their audit checks, I really doubt anyone got commission for it. My guess would be a mistake in a system and a line of credit got attached to the wrong account. Should they have better checks in place, sure, but there's nothing in the article to suggest they knowingly lent him the cash.
Although I'll agree with you that the solution will require changes most likely to both.