Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's actually pretty common criminal activity in banking, where an employee will take money from accounts of clients and "gamble" it on high-return short term investments. Obviously I won't be naming Banks here but what usually happens is: 1) If they succeed in their investment they put the money back and walk out rich. Their venture can be detected during an audit some time later but if there's no money missing th…
Isn't this literally what banks do? Take peoples deposits paying a minimal interest rate and then invest that money to earn a return higher than the interest rate they pay the customer (they actually will also borrow more money on the back of your deposit). So, when it's the bank doing it it's ok but a bank employee doing it independently for personal gain it's an issue. The book deal aspect was interesting also. So,…
If the bank came into your home, took money without your consent, gambled it on high-risk activities, then tried to replace it before you noticed that would also be bad.
But that’s not what banks do. People deposit their money at the bank consensually and with an understanding that the bank’s activities are regulated within relatively strict frameworks.
I don’t understand if you are trying to downplay the severity of criminal embezzlement by bank employees or trying to demonize banks, but the two scenarios you’re equating are nothing alike in terms of consent, regulation, risk, and criminality.