I’ve been sitting here wondering what on earth has been going on with gold prices over these last three or four months
Back toward the end of October, I picked up an ounce at my local Chase branch for $2630. Now, looking at the market, you can snag one for about $2847, yet they're out there selling them for $2941 now. I mean, that's basically a sweet 8% profit in just three months if you do the math. Honestly, part of me wants to double down and buy more, but I'm stuck in this loop of second-guessing myself—what if we've already hit the peak and the whole thing just craters? Everyone seems absolutely terrified of another massive economic meltdown, so it feels like it’s a given that gold prices will keep climbing, but then again, who actually knows what the future holds?
Does anyone have any actual, intelligent insights to share regarding all this? 😁
So, I’ve been chewing on this for a bit—is there actually any meaningful distinction between getting gold bars from Brink's (Goldman Sachs) versus picking up some from Rockefeller? Like, does one brand carry more weight or prestige than the other, or am I just overthinking it? Basically, are these bars functionally identical in value, or is there some kind of hierarchy I should be worried about...
On the very same day that our local Congressman loses his immunity just so he can face trial for the damage caused by some graffiti, I find myself being branded a racist:
Basically, I view the above post as a massive insult, and I am formally requesting that the moderator in question be banned for such blatant harassment of a forum member.
For those who aren't keeping track, I am white, so there is absolutely no way I could be a racist by calling a member of my own race—yes, my own race, not a different one as this moderator claims—White. I mean, what kind of racism is that? The actual racism, or rather the heavy insult here, lies in the fact that she’s trying to categorize me as belonging to some other race entirely, something distinct from the White race.
I suppose if someone really wanted to be biased, they could try to claim it's racist to refer to people of the yellow race as "yellow." However, that was said in jest, not with any intent to offend or, Heaven forbid, promote actual racism. Besides, I didn't invent the idea that they belong to the so-called yellow race; calling them Yellow is just a logical deduction. It’s no more an insult or chauvinism or whatever you want to call it than it would be to give a buddy the nickname "Goldie" because he has blonde hair, or "Blackie" because he has black hair. If we follow her logic, that would be discrimination based on hair color rather than skin color, wouldn't it?
As for the warning for breaking sub-forum rules, fine, I accept it, because I know that wasn't allowed in the thread either, but hey, I was being accused of things, and everything I said in my defense ( is absolutely spot on, especially since I spent days reporting severe insults directed at me while the moderators were nowhere to be found. For days!
Then, out of nowhere, she swoops in, shuts down the thread, and suddenly everyone gets the impression that I'm the guilty party. And then I get hit with a warning for trolling just because I asked if someone had ever been to New York City, which was a perfectly valid on topic given that the discussion was specifically about temperatures in New York City (not in Grandma's place).
By the way, I've been on this forum for a solid 10 years with over 1,100 posts. For years, unlike this particular moderator, I actively moderated two sub-forums, and the only two warnings I have ever received were handed to me by her.
That’s what happens when you don't actually moderate, but instead just swoop in like a paratrooper every once in a while whenever a topic catches your eye.
Anyway, regarding this disputed post where I'm being labeled a racist:
I reported it as a severe insult to a forum member—me personally—because nobody has ever called me a racist before, and frankly, I feel insulted. And who better than myself to judge what constitutes a serious insult toward me?
I hope the rules apply equally to everyone, including the moderators, which is why Super Moderators exist. Because if we can punish Congressmen for drawing graffiti (since they clearly have nothing better to do with their lives), surely we can hold a moderator accountable for insulting a user?
Given that I've had plenty of opportunities to meet and hang out with people from all major faiths and every possible race (except Native Americans, I don't really know them), calling me a racist is just laughable and pathetic.
Give it a rest, Fermina, this moderation thing isn't for you. You don't have the patience to react for days while a topic turns into a circus, and honestly, you're just not cut out for judging people.
When I didn't have the time to actively moderate, I stepped down; nobody forced my hand. I just saw there was no point.
So, here we are—it’s been nearly three weeks now, this thread has racked up over a thousand views, and yet, absolutely nothing... just total silence from everyone...
Hey, any of you supermods out there actually willing to step up and give some attention to post number one?
Secondly, I don't think the issue lies with the actual content of the post itself; rather, it’s the fact that we're dealing with a sponsored piece that's clearly rubbing everyone the wrong way. It seems like the whole thing just hits a nerve because there's money behind it, and honestly, that's what's really getting under your skin.
Alright, let’s take this one step at a time:
You’re out here claiming that I don’t present any actual arguments, but honestly, I don’t see anyone on this entire subreddit laying out a position only to immediately tear it apart—it usually only happens once someone actually drops a counterargument on them. But let's be real, neither side is even getting the chance to get into the weeds here because your constant censorship is killing the conversation before it can even start.
Look, I’m just laying out the cold, hard facts here, and honestly, I haven't really had the chance to build a proper case for them until now. But since the opportunity has finally presented itself, let's quit stalling and take this one step at a time:
Look, I don’t need any technical advice regarding my HVAC or ventilation systems, and frankly, I highly doubt you’re even the kind of people I’d turn to for that sort of thing anyway.
I just finished getting two new AC units installed, and honestly, they’re performing way better than I ever expected. Everything is running smooth as silk, so there isn't any real need for anyone to jump in with technical advice or "tips." And if I actually did have a problem, you can bet your life I wouldn't be turning to some random internet stranger for help. If you were keeping up with my posts over on the HVAC threads, you’d know I’ve got a buddy who’s been in the industry for twenty years—he’s basically an authorized specialist for the exact brand I have in my house—so why on earth would I need to listen to anyone else?
Maybe you could actually explain yourself for a second—like, what’s the actual logic there? Why on earth would anyone even think about reaching out to them in the first place? I honestly don't see what the big deal is with that sentence they quoted.
And from what I can see, nobody else seems to have any either, since there isn't a single damn post on this entire board.
It’s the exact same set of facts. Honestly, it seems like some people just can't handle the truth when it's staring them right in the face. I’m starting to suspect this is all just a direct result of my own posting habits. There’s honestly zero logic to it—people pay for a sponsored thread and then just go radio silent for three days straight without responding to anyone. It’s not a one-off, either; it keeps happening over and over again. Take that last post from Jeremiah 23:5, for example, where they dropped some very specific questions on May 23rd. Well, it’s now May 25th and there hasn't been a single reply. Is this some kind of shady business practice? I wouldn't know, since it’s not like they're running ads aimed at me or anything. Not to mention, I actually replied to their DM back on May 21st and still haven't heard a peep. To be fair, they did reach out to me on May 16th, but I was traveling at the time. Regardless, I didn't pay them to slide into my inbox, so I don't owe them any moral obligation—let alone a professional one—to respond. Look, since they’re actually paying for this thread, you’d think there would be at least a shred of professionalism or basic courtesy involved here. If you're running a business, you respond to inquiries within a reasonable timeframe, right? That's just common sense. But waiting three whole days for a reply in this day and age? Yeah, that's definitely not cutting it. It’s just not how things work anymore.
You basically just threw your money straight into a wood chipper...
Look, I’m not trying to mock anyone here, but let's just stick to the facts regarding that last point you made. Besides, there's that old saying—you know, like when people say "all your effort is for nothing"—which is exactly what happens when someone tries way too hard and gets zero results. To be specific: they paid for the thread, they practically forced you to delete the whole thing just in case they could somehow boost their reputation or whatever, but honestly? It didn't work. Not even a little bit. The Reddit community didn't buy it for a second. There aren't any posts left, and out of the few that actually remain, you've already gone ahead and scrubbed a third of them yourself.
But seriously, how on earth are we supposed to know if we’re actually looking at an isolated incident here?
Not everyone is tech-savvy enough, and frankly, not everyone has the guts to actually speak up and hold their own in an online debate...
What’s the big deal with this part? It’s a perfectly reasonable question—how can we honestly say this is just some one-off, isolated incident? Not every controversial case ends up being debated on Reddit; some of them go straight to the FBI. 😁)
I was right here looking for their actual arguments, but instead of finding anything useful, I just ran straight into your censorship after you went ahead and nuked my thread.
Let’s be real here—there was this massive, controversial thread about a specific dispute that just happened to vanish from Reddit the exact moment they cut a check to the mods. You tell me that isn't suspicious? It’s straight-up Stalinist tactics, not anything remotely resembling a democracy. And to top it off, the whole thread was completely one-sided, presenting nothing but the customer's version of the story. The company had every single opportunity to weigh in and defend themselves, but they chose to stay silent because they didn't think it mattered at the time. I actually have proof—an admission of guilt posted over on Yelp—but I’m not going to drag that over here since we're on Reddit. It's just funny how, suddenly, after nine years of silence, they're acting like they've been wronged too. What changed? I really wanted to give them a chance to lay out their side of the story—you know, let them present their own facts so that this whole Reddit crowd could weigh in and come to their own conclusions—but apparently, that was asking too much. Not happening. I mean, I think the whole situation speaks for itself, doesn't it? Honestly, the fact that they actually have to shell out cash just to bury a controversial thread—and wipe away every single trace that it ever existed—pretty much tells you everything you need to know.
Honestly, enough with the mindless nonsense
"soon you'll all be claiming that nothing ever happened at all, because hey, the thread was deleted, so there's no proof an 'isolated' incident ever existed in the first place"
Now, look, I’m not calling Bianco a liar for declaring a sponsor off than just following the logical conclusion of his Stalinist tactics—tactics he's using specifically to sweep this "isolated" incident under the rug
The bottom line is this: due to subjective reasons (or, to be more precise, purely financial ones), my post was wiped, just as this controversial thread was erased (meaning hidden) for those exact same reasons. It is blatant censorship, plain and simple.
Once a sponsor decides to resort to these kinds of methods, we can safely conclude they aren't acting like a legitimate or ethical entrepreneur.
You know what they say: actions speak louder than words.
And just so you know, in case you were unaware, I spent about three or four years moderating two different PDF sub-forums simultaneously. So, please, don't try to lecture me on what constitutes spamming, trolling, or harassment. For the record, I've been on Reddit for nearly ten years, I've dropped over 10,000 posts, and the only warning I’ve ever received was yours—and frankly, I was just collateral damage because neither you nor your colleagues bothered to actively moderate the thread.
Besides, the lack of active moderation on this site is proven by the fact that the SSM rules PDF I wrote five or six years ago remained the active, valid standard with almost zero changes until just last year. Then, finally, someone decided it was time to update them.
Of course, that doesn't mean some of my posts don't contain elements of spam or trolling or whatever else, but it certainly wasn't the one I got flagged for, nor was it this one that just got deleted.
This whole mess is just the fallout of inactivity, cover-ups, censorship, and playing favorites with sponsors.
By the way, you might want to tell your admins and super-mods that it would be incredibly classy if they actually responded to inquiries within four days. I won't even mention that they should do it out of basic professionalism—which clearly isn't present here—but at least out of respect for someone who has spent years volunteering their time to moderate parts of this site for free.
So, I'm hoping I don't pick up another strike for going off-topic here; I assume commenting on the moderation is allowed, right?
BTW, just for the record, I stepped down from my moderator duties voluntarily once I realized I couldn't get back to inquiries for a few days at a time due to my personal life.
In conclusion, I expect both the deleted (hidden) post and the thread to be restored to exactly where they were before.
Oh, I see how it is—now they’re even scrubbing my posts from threads where I happen to disagree with people, slapping me with labels like "harassment," "spamming," or "trolling."
I mean, imagine thinking a three-sentence post somehow qualifies as all three categories at once; clearly, my grasp of the English language is just too sophisticated for this place.
I’m calling on Matthew Fox4 to step up and explain publicly exactly which part of my post was trolling, which part was spam, and which part was harassment; let the community see for themselves just how biased you are toward whoever is cutting you a check.
The explanation I got via private message was absolutely useless.
Every online community ought to function as a democratic platform where people can voice their (well-reasoned) opinions, and anyone else should be able to jump in and argue back if they feel like it.
But Reddit isn't that.
It hasn't been since they started scrubbing threads that happen to make someone look bad. And it gets especially shady when that "someone" actually pays for the privilege.
The way I see it, if you want a thread gone, all you have to do is buy a sponsored post and then file a request to delete any discussion that doesn't suit your interests.
Since this whole mess involves the housing subreddits moderated by cd covers, Matthew Fox4, and city, it’s highly likely one of them has their hands in this—if not someone higher up the food chain.
I’m not even looking for an explanation from them; I want a statement from the supermoderators.
I am calling for a public announcement regarding the following:
a) Why was the "General Electric Climate Case" thread deleted? As I recall, the thread was open, and the person involved—who, to quote "An isolated incident from ten years ago has made my job significantly harder"—could have easily presented their side of the story to the entire community, regardless of how old the thread was. By their own admission, they knew the thread existed and could have stepped in whenever they wanted. But they didn't. Now, after all these years, they suddenly remember it’s making their life difficult?
What a complete joke.
b) How many other threads like this have been wiped from the site? Isn't the whole point of a forum to keep the community informed about these kinds of situations?
c) If we just deleted every single thread that supposedly "interfered" with someone's business, what would this place even look like? It wouldn't be a forum anymore.
d) Exactly how much does a sponsored thread cost? I think the public deserves to know exactly how much it takes to sell you out; how much does it cost to sell our democracy?
e) When are you going to implement a dedicated "forum police"? You know, a squad that scans every new post daily, identifies anything that might hurt a corporation's image, sends those details over to your marketing department, and then coordinates with that company to drop a sponsored ad and kill the offending thread?
There’s probably a hell of a lot of money to be made there.
So, tell me, when is the forum's version of the FBI being established?
Honestly, there shouldn't be anything too controversial going on here
Look, if we're talking about splitting an apartment 50/50, then at the end of the day, just get a formal appraisal done—hire a real estate agency or a court-appointed appraiser or whatever else works
Your half of that total is what you're looking at
If your brother was promised by your parents that his investments would be paid back, then they should just pay him back—and honestly, if they include interest, it might actually make it easier for him to buy you out later
As for whether now is the right time to settle up, I wouldn't say so, especially considering how much market prices have been swinging lately; however, that doesn't mean it's too late to sit down and decide on the actual principles we're using for this whole split
And all those arguments about value spikes? Total nonsense to me
I mean, the value of that property could have shot up without him lifting a single finger; say a bunch of old buildings in the neighborhood get torn down and replaced with luxury condos or a new daycare center opens up nearby, suddenly the whole area is more attractive and the apartment is worth way more, so what? He can't just expect to reap all the rewards without doing any of the work
And since he’s been pulling in rental income from it—probably under the table, because if he weren't, you'd probably know exactly how much he's making, though you likely have no clue—well, he should be splitting that with you, just like it's your property too... but of course, that hasn't even crossed his mind, has it?
Look, you really need to sit down and actually read your account agreement with the bank first. Somewhere in that fine print, they explicitly state that the bank reserves the right to correct any bookkeeping errors without needing to ask for your express permission.
That being said, if things go truly sideways, you can always file a criminal complaint for unlawful enrichment.
Honestly, I don't even know where to start—about a year or two ago, JP Morgan Chase just decided on their own to flip my standard fixed-amount recurring transfer into an authorized debits instruction. Suddenly, instead of just paying my monthly installment, they started pulling extra funds through this "authorized" setup, including account maintenance fees that were supposed to hit once a year.
It’s wild: they basically unilaterally terminated one contract, drafted a whole second one by themselves, screwed me over in the process, and kept draining my checking account without a single word of notice or consent. And get this—when I went to complain, they had the nerve to tell me they were doing it for my own good, claiming that customers were practically begging for this kind of automated debit setup to be implemented!
So, I told them straight up that I’m the one who decides what's good for me and what isn't, provided I have the legal capacity to do so, and that I am certainly not bound by the whims of their other clients since there wasn't exactly a public referendum held on this policy. Their response? They just completely blew me off.
I ended up reporting them to the Federal Reserve after they sent out an inquiry, but after months of waiting, the Fed finally bothered to reply, and guess what? Nothing happened. Zero.
Eventually, they finally reversed that unauthorized debit instruction and set up a brand new standard recurring transfer under a new reference number—which, mind you, I never signed (since they already scrapped the old one, right?)
And now, here we are, they're still pulling money from my account using this new instruction that I never authorized. Even in my original loan contract, there isn't a single mention that I was obligated to set up a recurring transfer; everything was done purely out of my own goodwill in the beginning.
In the end, of course, they managed to wiggle their way out of it, leaving us all to just sit around and cry about it.
The bank does whatever the hell they want, and you're just left standing there. They’ve got 500 lawyers on payroll, so why even bother fighting a losing battle?
From what I recall, when you were filling out that application, you actually had the option to pick your own due date. That’s exactly what I did—I set mine for the 20th because my paycheck usually hits on the 15th.
The notification usually gets generated about ten days beforehand. For instance, if they generate a notice on August 12th, it covers everything you spent from July 13th through August 12th, and then the whole thing is due on August 20th.
Honestly, it looks to me like they finally dragged you back into the "standard" lane, because whatever weird situation you were in before doesn't seem normal compared to how everyone else operates.
So now the big question is: what kind of fine print did you actually sign back when you first picked up those cards? Who really knows what terms were actually in effect at that time?
Chase is such a predatory bank; they swap out their agreements whenever they feel like it, so nothing they do surprises me anymore. It's entirely possible they realized—it took them long enough, right?—that you had some sort of setup that nobody else had. But regardless of all that, they should be sticking to what you originally signed... though, honestly, I bet you don't even remember what that was anymore.
So, let me get this straight—you actually expect me to file a lawsuit against the bank over a measly $5 that I’d have to pay anyway?
The bank holds my promissory note, and they could have easily just presented it for collection to cover that $5, but of course, it’s much easier for them to just breach their own Contract Corp agreement, since there are zero consequences for them, all while hiding behind the excuse that "the majority of customers" requested such an amendment.
It makes absolutely no sense to me how they even arrived at the data regarding this supposed majority—was there some sort of national referendum, some massive survey, or what? Besides, I didn't sign a contract with "the majority," I signed a contract with the bank.
And honestly, I think the San Diego Zoo is clear enough about when, under what specific conditions, and through what exact procedures a contract can be modified.
Nobody ever bothered to ask me, so I’m dying to know which federal law dictates that I’m bound by the whims of some dubious majority determined through such shady means?
The bottom line is that the bank is knowingly violating the law because they know there's no remedy for it.
In my view, the whole essence of banking should be trust and security, and to echo what Nicholas Turner wrote, I simply don't trust a bank that refuses to respect the very contracts it proposed and signed itself, changing them whenever they feel like messing around just because they know they won't face any repercussions.
Even if we had a perfectly efficient judicial system, would you really sue over $5? I wouldn't.
But what I *will* do is gradually liquidate both my assets and my liabilities at Wells Fargo, and I'll file formal complaints with the IRS and the Federal Reserve, even though I know deep down it probably won't change a thing.
And if you haven't caught my drift yet, I am talking about principles here; the $5 isn't the point.
Today it's $5, but tomorrow, who knows how much will be gone?
We are talking about pure theft here, regardless of the amount or what that amount is tied to.
We're talking about a debt that is due. Just imagine if every creditor could collect money today just like the bank does—just reaching into your account and pulling funds out whenever they feel like it.
Imagine how much trouble that would cause for our completely illiquid economy...
To get the full picture, you really need to go back and read post number 5 in this thread; that’s basically the playbook for how our domestic banks try to pull a fast one on us.
When it comes to the big international players, the most recent offender is Chase. They’ve been completely ignoring standard regulations lately by taking standing orders for fixed amounts and—without asking a single soul for permission (which they absolutely should be doing under US consumer protection laws)—flipping them into flexible withdrawal orders. In plain English? They’re just pulling money out of accounts whenever they feel like it without actual authorization, which is nothing short of theft.
And look, I’m not even talking about them covering a matured credit card balance right now; I’m talking about the fundamental contractual relationship here. A standing order is a contract governed by specific legal standards, yet Chase just unilaterally rewrites the terms whenever it suits their bottom line, all while spinning some nonsense fairy tale about how it’s actually for the customer's own good.
Terry Howard said:Look, if I were going to explain a reversal to you, I'd basically have to give you a crash course in accounting basics.
It seems pretty clear from what's being said: a bank can fix its own screw-ups, but they aren't touching anyone else's mistake.
On another note, think about this: you and a representative from ExxonMobil both walk into a bank asking for a better exchange rate on foreign currency (you for yourself, and he for ExxonMobil). Who do you think is getting the better deal? I think it's a similar situation to what we're talking about here. I've seen several times where a bank teller's error was fixed immediately and the transfer was reversed (even after the cash hit the recipient's account). But for an error made by the sender? I've never seen that get reversed.
For corporations, account numbers are public info because of the business registry.
And would you honestly prefer if they didn't allow that? This feature actually helps prevent people from sending money to the wrong account, and I don't see any harm in accidentally finding out that Joe Biden has an account ending in 3200000001.
Thanks, really needed that, because I was just sitting here enjoying my six hours of weekly lectures on the subject...
Terry Howard said:Look, if I were going to explain a reversal to you, I'd basically have to give you a crash course in accounting basics.
It seems pretty clear from what's being said: a bank can fix its own screw-ups, but they aren't touching anyone else's mistake.
On another note, think about this: you and a representative from ExxonMobil both walk into a bank asking for a better exchange rate on foreign currency (you for yourself, and he for ExxonMobil). Who do you think is getting the better deal? I think it's a similar situation to what we're talking about here. I've seen several times where a bank teller's error was fixed immediately and the transfer was reversed (even after the cash hit the recipient's account). But for an error made by the sender? I've never seen that get reversed.
For corporations, account numbers are public info because of the business registry.
And would you honestly prefer if they didn't allow that? This feature actually helps prevent people from sending money to the wrong account, and I don't see any harm in accidentally finding out that Joe Biden has an account ending in 3200000001.
Yeah, sure, but it was also made perfectly clear that in my specific situation, the blunder was on the sender's end, not the bank's.
So why am I still sitting here without a single coherent answer from anyone—not even from the bank itself?
I'm talking about an airline wire transfer reversal here.
Terry Howard said:Look, if I were going to explain a reversal to you, I'd basically have to give you a crash course in accounting basics.
It seems pretty clear from what's being said: a bank can fix its own screw-ups, but they aren't touching anyone else's mistake.
On another note, think about this: you and a representative from ExxonMobil both walk into a bank asking for a better exchange rate on foreign currency (you for yourself, and he for ExxonMobil). Who do you think is getting the better deal? I think it's a similar situation to what we're talking about here. I've seen several times where a bank teller's error was fixed immediately and the transfer was reversed (even after the cash hit the recipient's account). But for an error made by the sender? I've never seen that get reversed.
For corporations, account numbers are public info because of the business registry.
And would you honestly prefer if they didn't allow that? This feature actually helps prevent people from sending money to the wrong account, and I don't see any harm in accidentally finding out that Joe Biden has an account ending in 3200000001.
If we're talking about roughly the same amount of money, they'll both get a deal, but one is going to be significantly better, and I think you can guess which one that is.😍
Terry Howard said:Look, if I were going to explain a reversal to you, I'd basically have to give you a crash course in accounting basics.
It seems pretty clear from what's being said: a bank can fix its own screw-ups, but they aren't touching anyone else's mistake.
On another note, think about this: you and a representative from ExxonMobil both walk into a bank asking for a better exchange rate on foreign currency (you for yourself, and he for ExxonMobil). Who do you think is getting the better deal? I think it's a similar situation to what we're talking about here. I've seen several times where a bank teller's error was fixed immediately and the transfer was reversed (even after the cash hit the recipient's account). But for an error made by the sender? I've never seen that get reversed.
For corporations, account numbers are public info because of the business registry.
And would you honestly prefer if they didn't allow that? This feature actually helps prevent people from sending money to the wrong account, and I don't see any harm in accidentally finding out that Joe Biden has an account ending in 3200000001.
Well, funny thing is, I see reversals for sender errors every single time I check my February transaction history.
The airline openly admitted they were paying out based on the wrong list—so the mistake lies with the airline, not the bank.
Nicholas Turner said:Since we’ve veered into the territory of banking privacy, I have a question—if I were to just type in a random account number on Bank of America's online banking portal (assuming it's an account held at Bank of America, obviously) and hit "Verify," wouldn't the app just spit out the owner's full name and their city? It feels like banking secrecy is practically non-existent here—why isn't anyone raising an alarm about this?
I'm not entirely sure which bank you used to initiate that transfer, Edgar, but if you had tried it through Bank of America, finding out who is behind a specific account number would be a total breeze—privacy basically doesn't exist in that scenario. 🙂
So what do you think—which one of your favorite Bank of America branches would handle it? 🤣
Kimberly Nguyen said:Look, in a situation like this, they absolutely should have handed over those details. Honestly, the standard procedure ought to be for the bank representative to reach out to the recipient directly. If that fails, and you make a formal inquiry, the bank (I’m pretty sure they’re legally obligated to, though I can't say for certain) should provide the info because that money clearly isn't the recipient's to keep. You have every right to sue them for it... I actually know someone who went through a similar mess once and it worked out...
Hand over data? 🤣 Please. I spent three days on the phone and couldn't even get a hold of some manager who was supposedly the only one authorized to approve anything... I mean, on day one she was stuck in meetings, day two she was out at the ranch, and by day three, she had already gone on maternity leave.
Then I tried sending an email... never got a single reply, let alone anything useful.
Thomas Fowler84 said:Naturally, the bank cannot simply hand over private data; imagine the chaos if banks routinely leaked their customers' personal information.
What is possible is filing a claim against an anonymous "offender" who misappropriated funds that don't belong to them (though technically, this doesn't qualify as a criminal offense).
P.S. Of course, the bank can contact the individual and act as a mediator to facilitate communication.
Oh yeah? So how does it look when the bank starts messing around with my own account, but suddenly refuses to find my money when it's sitting in someone else's?
Thomas Fowler84 said:Naturally, the bank cannot simply hand over private data; imagine the chaos if banks routinely leaked their customers' personal information.
What is possible is filing a claim against an anonymous "offender" who misappropriated funds that don't belong to them (though technically, this doesn't qualify as a criminal offense).
P.S. Of course, the bank can contact the individual and act as a mediator to facilitate communication.
Yeah, and here we go, another tense episode of CSI: Las Vegas—pardon me, more like CSI: Bank of America. 😂