Posts by Thomas Fowler84

Laura Chavez93 said:The banks have already gathered the data—since I actually submitted the documentation explicitly stating those details myself—not to mention they’ve had access to all of it from the start... it’s simply a matter of my authorization allowing the bank to utilize that information for one very specific purpose.

It isn't quite that straightforward.
I don't want to spend my time double-checking everything, but a few recent questionnaires state that the client is obligated to report any change of address. As I recall, that wasn't a requirement before. A bank has a duty to ensure their records are accurate. Therefore, regardless of whether your ID is valid for another ten years or not, the bank has the right to update your profile, which means they can ask for your current address. To prevent the bank from having to hunt you down for an updated address every three months, they shift the responsibility onto you via the questionnaire. This method is logical and efficient; you update once, then simply notify them of any changes.

The fact that the "bank" might have already possessed those same pieces of data is irrelevant, because you weren't previously required to report a move, and the bank has no way of knowing if your current information is still valid.

Laura Chavez93 said:This probably won't fly, but I have an idea—what if I simply write out all the data requested in Article 16 on my own sheet of paper
and then add a note underneath, stating that by my signature, I confirm the accuracy of the provided information and stipulate that it may only be used to fulfill obligations pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act
and cannot be used for any other purpose 🧐
I have to head back to the bank tomorrow anyway, so I might as well ask

What do you mean it "won't work"? Your plan is even less likely to succeed. The law stipulates that banks determine their own data collection methods through internal policies. Your suggestion goes directly against that provision.

Laura Chavez93 said:If I’ve already handed over documents containing every single piece of requested info, why on earth am I being asked to sign anything else?
Furthermore, if federal law mandates that banks must report certain data to the government starting January 1st, why is the bank even bothering to ask for my consent? They have to hand it over regardless...
And if the data I provided is exactly the same as before, what is the purpose of this additional paperwork?
The ultimate question remains: Is this questionnaire from JPMorgan Chase actually tied to any specific regulation—as in, "fill this out and sign it, or we freeze your account"—or is it just unnecessary busywork?

Krkimir, could you summarize exactly which pieces of information they requested from you? You’re referring to Chase, right? This is the form from Chase:

The official documentation regarding the Anti-Money Laundering Act can be found here. It serves as a vital framework for our financial security.

If you ask me, this questionnaire is an absolute crime. Behind that harmless introduction lies:

Personal data within this Questionnaire is collected pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering Act and its associated regulations.
The governing regulations.
The bank will utilize all collected data to conduct thorough due diligence and fulfill its legal obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

Once they have gathered information that falls outside their legal obligations, they write it all in lowercase like this:

By signing this Questionnaire, I authorize JPMorgan Chase & Co. to process my personal data...

(That is likely what you meant.)
In essence, they are asking for permission to use that data however they see fit. You are right to view this as a deceptive tactic. However, you must realize that the entity bound by the Anti-Money Laundering Act isn't you—it's the bank. The bank requires your consent simply to ensure they remain compliant and avoid legal pursuit later. What is truly unacceptable is the fine print. It fails to specify that the information will be used solely to satisfy legal requirements, instead granting the bank broad discretion to use that data for anything within their corporate group. Under the Privacy Act, such an arrangement should be strictly prohibited.

Quincy:

If the information I provided is accurate... The same as before.What exactly am I being asked to sign now?

Article 26, Section 2, Subsection 4 mandates that banks must "update" their data. Since there is no legal requirement for a client to proactively report changes, this effectively creates both an obligation and a right for the bank to request a signed confirmation of existing information.

Quincy:

The ultimate question: Is this questionnaire from JPMorgan Chase & Co. actually tied to any legal requirement? Specifically, is there a rule stating, "you must complete and sign this, or we will close your account"?

I attempted to challenge Zabin’s Questionnaire through several different channels, but unfortunately, I have met zero resistance. Both The Government and the FTC, along with the Federal Reserve, remain entirely passive. My advice would be similar to how one handles those criminal questionnaires used by PBS auditors. Take a pen and cross out any disputed sentences—such as the sections regarding consent—as well as any fields you believe are not legally required, just to ensure no one can add information later. Finally, you can handwrite a note at the bottom stating that you grant the bank permission to use the collected data strictly for purposes mandated by the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

briskjackal5 said:Hey, let's not try to play word games here by using "similar" terms just to muddy the waters. 😁

I guess there's a huge difference between breaking actual banking rules and just failing to fill out some survey where they ask stuff they shouldn't even be asking in the first place. It's two totally different things!

And honestly, which questions are actually okay to ask and which ones aren't? Well, maybe we'll finally get some clarity on that topic right now. You were asked the exact same thing earlier—to list them—but you didn't really give an answer.

So, seriously, how many people have had their accounts closed just because their bank wouldn't stop prying into who they live with?

-briskjackal5

My experience at Goldman Sachs was positive; they seemed to ask fewer questions than required. My time with the NBA was neutral, as they avoided unnecessary inquiries. However, my dealings with JPMorgan Chase were poor, and my experience with Apple was catastrophic. Regarding residency details, no one asked me about my housemates; perhaps different client profiles trigger different levels of scrutiny.

Laura Chavez93 said:Article 16 states the following: full name, residence, date of birth, place of birth, social security number, and the name, number, and issuing authority of an identification document
yet someone over at JPMorgan Chase seems to have overstepped—acting as if they have a right to inquire about my number of children, my level of education, or even my work phone number...
what is the actual procedure if I choose to decline answering questions that I am under no obligation to address?

That is exactly why you have to distinguish between what they are permitted to do and what they are strictly forbidden from doing. It is their legal obligation to update their records. You aren't making a valid point by telling them they already possess your address or phone number; they have a mandate to verify that information. As long as they are refreshing data that hasn't been touched in years, there is nothing controversial about the process.
It is questionable to demand information that isn't strictly necessary. It is much like asking for a driver's license when one only needs to buy a newspaper.

What is the standard protocol if I choose to decline answering questions that fall outside my obligations?

I believe a bank holds the discretionary right to terminate a business relationship without providing specific justification, provided they aren't engaging in discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation. They might threaten to report you to federal regulators, but if the issue falls outside of legal mandates, there shouldn't be much to fear. I am more curious about their protocol for someone holding a mortgage who refuses to provide documentation—would they actually move to foreclose just to protect their own interests?

Laura Chavez93 said:What is there even left to say after this? 😵
They’re demanding we hand over data to a government that—let’s be honest—already possesses every single scrap of information from the FBI, the Census Bureau, and the IRS... anyway, my branch manager called me to "clarify" a few things,
she told me I need to come in and sign off, but when I told her I wasn't comfortable letting them use my private info, she started pulling the whole anti-terrorism and money laundering card—absolute nonsense,
so I pointed out that they should just use the records they already have since nothing has changed, but she insisted that isn't an option.
I suggested they just set my file aside and stick to the existing data, and she claimed even that was impossible.
Then, she gave me this overly sweet plea to drop by before the New Year to sign the paperwork... though I have a feeling I won't be making it in time. ☕

Krkimir, the law is what it is (unfortunately). However, you are grouping everything together. There are actions a bank takes that are mandated by law, and others that are not. For example, I was at JPMorgan Chase recently. The situation was somewhat unique, but when opening the account, they didn't ask me a SINGLE relevant question (perhaps I am an exception, I don't know). They performed a broad risk assessment; they didn't ask about my citizenship, my US residency, my income, or my living situation... NOTHING! They determined through our conversation that the purpose of the account was clear and that I posed no risk regarding money laundering, terrorism financing, or tax evasion in the US. But the law mandates that data be updated, and there are certain questions they are legally obligated to ask. Under the law, banks are the responsible parties; they do not have access to Department of Homeland Security data. Read those few sections of the law, from Article 8 through Article 26; skip the irrelevant parts and you will understand what they can and cannot ask within five minutes. It is pointless to be angry with the bank over matters required by the law.

Laura Chavez93 said:So, I just stepped out of my meeting at Chase... it started off quite standard: full name, address, Social Security number... the usual drill. At one point, she asks how I typically manage my finances—cash transactions, investments, savings... so, naturally, I provide some details.
Then comes the next question: what is my educational background? 🤔
Me: Is that actually necessary?
Her: Well, you understand, we need to know so we can determine which credit products might suit you... blah, blah, blah, moving right along.
She then asks: Are you a U.S. citizen?
Me: 😕 What does that have to do with my banking business?
Her: It’s just a requirement we have to ask.
Me: You can certainly ask, but I am under no obligation to answer.
To wrap things up, she hands me some document that I am supposedly required to sign. 🤦
I suggested that since she was the one who filled it all out, she should be the one to sign it instead.
She claimed she couldn't.
I informed her that I wasn't signing anything—my role is to provide information, nothing more.
She looked quite offended 🙂 and started lecturing me about anti-money laundering regulations... I asked her exactly where that is specified in the code.
It turned out she didn't actually have a clue what the law even says... she was just repeating scripts like a parrot. 🙄..
In any case, she arranged for the branch manager to call me in two days to explain everything. I honestly hope she doesn't call, as it would likely be an awkward conversation for her. 😈

They are legally allowed to ask about US citizenship; that is part of FATCA, which carries weight as an international agreement. The question regarding citizenship is straightforward because all US citizens are required to report global income to the US.

Here is the full text:
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-ce...-3-20-2015.pdf

It explicitly mentions "Know Your Customer as a U.S. citizen or resident;"

The other listed indicators must be investigated as well.
However, the contentious point lies under Section II, A, 1. It states that if your account balance was under $50K as of June 30, 2014, you fall under "Accounts Not Required to Be Reviewed, Identified, or Reported." This makes it unclear why they would even bother asking you if there is no requirement to report you regardless.

The bank will likely claim they must use the same questionnaire for every client. You will probably react just like I did—with a laugh—because it sounds like the most nonsensical excuse ever. You can tell them that while everyone might receive the same form, not everyone needs to fill out every single field.

If you want to be prepared, I suggest having this document handy (a translation of the aforementioned US document):

http://www.irs.gov/EU_Vanj...0teksta%29.pdf
(page 2)

Where it clearly states that accounts below $50K USD do not require verification. Though, I worry there might be a catch I am missing—perhaps those rules only applied to 2014 and changed in 2015—because I have been questioned about US residency at institutions much more reputable than our local banks.

briskjackal5 said:😁

What's your point there?

-Steve

Think of it this way: some funds are directly tied to banking transactions, such as a regular paycheck. Other funds fall outside that scope, like cash from rental properties or local small business earnings. Under an explicit law, banks have the authority to inquire about those primary funds—the ones actually moving through their systems.

In other words, even if your rental income never touches a bank account, banks still want a full picture of your total global income. There is no legal basis for them to demand this specific data, because the explicit law only grants them oversight regarding the funds used in their direct business dealings.

Charles Ramos7 said:It’s not even big deal information, like whether you were born in the US or anything. I run into this all the time—not at a bank, obviously—but it’s just standard procedure. I keep a template saved on my computer, so I just sign it and move on.

Most banks include questions in their forms that they aren't legally required to ask, yet they act as if they must because they want to hoard as much data as possible.

http://www.govinfo.gov/content/example-link

Article 16 outlines what they actually have an obligation to request.
For instance:
The law might explicitly state they can ask about a client's line of work, which is what banks do. However, while the law requires them to collect "data regarding the source of funds that are or will be the subject of a transaction or business relationship," banks go much further. They gather details on sources of wealth that have absolutely nothing to do with current or future transactions.

Banks are essentially stretching the law to extract a mountain of information they have no legal right to collect. Unfortunately, the FTC has been far too passive; their reprimands toward these banks have been lukewarm at best. Most citizens feel intimidated because banks threaten to freeze accounts or report them to federal authorities, so people hand over every bit of data just to avoid trouble. It is a sad state of affairs.

Laura Chavez93 said:Tomorrow I’m heading into a JPMorgan Chase branch—my first visit in over a year... there’s an issue regarding a specific transfer from my business account; some tax funds seem to have vanished into thin air, so I need to figure out where they went.
wish me luck 😈
edit: I actually hold the upper hand this time since I’m visiting regarding my business account rather than my personal one—and if they decide to start acting condescending by implying this is a money laundering issue, I’ll simply inform them that is precisely why I am here: to ensure there are no complications for either myself or the bank.
The statements clearly show the funds were diverted somewhere, and I want to prevent any future investigations into missing tax revenue... I am doing this for their sake, so they don't end up facing any regulatory headaches. 🙂
And if they continue to be difficult, I might just suggest moving the account over to, say, Wells Fargo—they likely don't assume every single client is a terrorist.😉
I am quite eager to see how tomorrow unfolds.

I support using Zabiti for business accounts; I dealt with an even more extensive set of paperwork there once.

I'm not sure why you assume Bank of America is better. When I closed my account there, they grilled me with all sorts of ridiculous questions.

I haven't read the entire anti-money laundering statute, but does the law actually provide a basis for these specific questions:
- Average monthly income, regular:
- Other sources of income ($):

It is a tragedy when a bank feels compelled to ask me these things, even though they possess more data than I do:
- Monthly volume of cash transactions ($):
- Average annual account turnover ($):
- Country where most business is conducted:
- Do you engage in international transactions?:

I am referring to an account that sees perhaps $0.67 deposits and withdrawals annually, mostly just for gas and groceries. There is no overdraft. Despite all their software, hardware, and data sets... they remain incapable of distinguishing which users need scrutiny and which do not. It is mere intimidation and evasion of logic.

In my experience, other countries in the USA don't flag every single client as a suspect; instead, they target only those who meet specific criteria.

George Barrett35 said:That argument falls apart on several fronts. First off, money doesn't just "accidentally" land in a specific account; it happens because of someone’s mistake or sheer negligence. Furthermore, if coming into possession without active effort counts as "accidental," then we could technically classify every single deposit as accidental. By that logic, a company could sue its employees for receiving their salary, or I could sue T-Mobile because I paid my monthly bill and they "accidentally" accepted the payment. Look, it’s certainly debatable and ambiguous, but the law is anything but clear on this matter. But the thing that immediately caught my eye is where this clause is most easily dismantled: "A movable object belonging to another..." Money isn't a movable object. Aside from maybe physical cash in some very specific context, digital wire transfers aren't tangible property. So, while such a law might apply to finding a wad of cash on the sidewalk, it certainly shouldn't apply to bank transfers.

Theoretically speaking, these types of issues would be handled through a private lawsuit here in the States. As for actual practice, I'm not entirely sure since I haven't heard of anyone actually initiating one like that.
Then there is the lingering issue of bank secrecy, where the bank is not only under no obligation but is actually prohibited from disclosing information about the account holder who received the transfer. There might be a way to file a suit against a "John Doe," and then potentially use a court order to uncover those details 🤷

Typically, banks handle these situations by contacting the recipient on behalf of the sender, but without the recipient's cooperation, they are essentially powerless.

Are you suggesting there was malicious intent, or was this simply an act of God?

Quincy:

Furthermore, if we assume that taking possession without any active effort constitutes an accidental occurrence, then any payment made to an account could be viewed as such. By that logic, a corporation could sue its own employees for receiving their salary, or I could sue AT&T simply because they accepted my monthly phone bill—essentially claiming they "accidentally" received the funds.

Intent is everything here—specifically, whether there was intention or a lack thereof. In your view, what kind of scenario would actually make that article applicable? Is it truly a coincidence if you get struck by lightning, or is a coincidence rather a web of circumstances that occurred without anyone’s intent or direct cause? I don't have Claic with me right now, but if you do, perhaps you could read his definition of "coincidence" for us. From a common-sense perspective, I see coincidence as a simple lack of intent.
If I drop a plate without intending to break it, I can truthfully say it was an accident. It seems you have certain reservations about that logic, am I correct?

Quincy:

This is quite debatable and ambiguous, but it certainly isn't "black and white." My first concern is where this clause falls apart most easily. It mentions "someone else's movable property," but money isn't a tangible movable good. Aside from physical cash found on a sidewalk, monetary transactions simply don't fit that definition. Therefore, such a law might apply to finding a stack of bills on the floor, but it shouldn't extend to bank transfers.

I was genuinely concerned we might stumble into that whole mess regarding movable and immovable property.
I know this is a debated topic, but if funds aren't truly mobile, how can they be transferred from a branch on Fifth Avenue to one on the Potomac? There is certainly room for interpretation here. Modern currency—or rather, debt masquerading as value—feels outdated compared to the old statutes. You’re right that this article isn't crystal clear, though I would be surprised if a judge didn't interpret its implications quite strictly.
As I mentioned in my initial post, I have no idea how this actually works in practice here in America. I find it somewhat surprising that the wording in our laws isn't a bit more specific. For comparison, here is how a similar matter is structured under German law:

Quincy:

If someone gains an advantage at another's expense without any legal basis, they are obligated to return it. This obligation remains in effect even if the initial reason for the transfer disappears later or if there is a failure of performance to achieve the intended result of the legal transaction. A contractual acknowledgment of the existence or non-existence of a debt relationship also constitutes a performance.

There is no need to overthink concepts like "real estate" or "physical assets"; the contingency is defined much more concretely. It seems our local translators are simply experts at overcomplicating and ruining things.

The issue of bank secrecy remains. A bank is not only under no obligation, but is actually prohibited from disclosing information regarding an account holder who received such a payment. One could potentially file a lawsuit against an "unidentified perpetrator," then attempt to obtain that data via a court order. 🤷

True, though the situation becomes significantly simpler if you mistakenly transfer funds to a corporation. In those instances, the recipient's details are public knowledge—for example, at Wells Fargo, I can identify exactly which company is behind an account, which tells me exactly whom to sue.

Nicholas Turner said:For me, the sticking point is the distinction between an "active" versus a "passive" situation. It’s not the same thing to stumble upon a wallet on the sidewalk versus someone shoving it through your mail slot! It isn't the same to wire someone else's money into your own account versus someone accidentally wiring funds to you. Or even being cornered by a mugger versus someone lunging at you with a knife. In an active scenario, you're responsible for your own actions—but in a passive one, nobody is asking for your permission. To my mind, this law fails to define those passive moments caused purely by human stupidity, whereas the active stuff is clearly criminal.

I agree with everything else.

Consider this analogy: I intended to put my wallet in my pocket, but I mistakenly used the right pocket which had a hole, rather than the left. Consequently, the wallet fell directly onto your foot, placing it in your possession. Just as such trivial negligence occurs, money can land in the wrong account. From the recipient's perspective, both scenarios are purely coincidental.
The law is quite explicit regarding unlawful appropriation.
The statute defines unlawful appropriation with precision. This banking situation falls squarely under that article. It is irrelevant whether the transfer was intentional or accidental; the funds do not belong to you. It is someone else's property. Whether the error originated with another customer or the bank itself is immaterial to the law. The core issue is possessing something that does not belong to you.
Naturally, a recipient cannot be charged with theft, because there was no intent to misappropriate. That is why the law specifies unintentional or accidental appropriation.
The law simply dictates that one cannot claim ownership of another's property through mere possession. To me, the legal text is crystal clear and follows strict logic. If you find something and KNOW it isn't yours, Section 220 indirectly mandates its return to the owner, provided they pursue a private civil suit.
An exception exists for finding items at sea, which may be kept, though that falls outside the scope of the penal code or maritime law 🙂.

Nicholas Turner said:Exactly—it comes down to pure negligence. If a payer is careless, then they deserve whatever "excitement" comes their way via a private lawsuit. They’ll be feeling less cautious and more paranoid the next time they try to move money around.

Look, I’m no lawyer, but I don't think the article you cited actually applies here. If it did, I could just start sending money to random people on purpose and then sue them for everything they're worth—and those people wouldn't have done anything wrong! In this specific case, nobody just "stumbled upon" someone else's cash; rather, someone’s total lack of foresight basically "tossed it into their yard."

To me, this falls into a massive gray area. If I accidentally wire funds to the wrong person, I can ask my bank to reverse it—but of course, they can't do that because they aren't allowed to touch anyone's account without explicit authorization from the owner. Plus, the bank can't give me the recipient's details due to privacy laws and banking regulations. The recipient could even sue the bank for leaking their private info! All of this chaos happens simply because someone was too incompetent to double-check a transaction. 😲

Just so we’re clear—I’m not defending the idea of spending someone else's money. Not at all. It’s just that you really have to watch your step when handling finances; one wrong move creates a massive headache for the banks and the "accidental" recipient alike.

Naturally, the greatest toll in time and sanity is taken by the one who was careless.

I am no legal expert, but I believe the article you cited doesn't apply here. If that were the case, one could simply send money to the wrong people with intent and then sue them, unfairly targeting innocent bystanders.

What would you even stand to gain from that? You’d be inviting endless legal battles and courtroom drama, all for a payout that might never materialize. If that individual spends the money before realizing it isn't theirs, you're left with nothing but an empty hand.
The article is perfectly clear and works flawlessly in Germany. I am unfamiliar with how such laws apply in America, so I cannot say exactly why this specific point in the piece is being contested. To summarize the text: "Whoever finds a movable object belonging to someone else..." Just how far did he go? Misappropriation requires intent. If someone comes into possession of an item without any proactive effort, it is purely accidental. In such cases, there was neither the knowledge nor the specific intent required to constitute a crime. Legally speaking, the title should be considered clear.

In this instance, nobody simply "stumbled upon" someone else's property. Rather, that property found them; someone effectively tossed it into their backyard through sheer carelessness.

What do you mean by "it wasn't an accident that he took someone else's property"? Are you suggesting his actions were premeditated?

I consider this a significant gray area. If I send funds to the wrong individual and request a reversal, the bank will refuse, as they cannot withdraw money from someone else's account without explicit authorization. Furthermore, due to privacy laws, the bank is prohibited from disclosing the recipient's identity. They would likely face a lawsuit for violating consumer privacy. It is frustrating that these complications arise simply because someone was careless with a transaction. 😲

There is no doubt that this involves dragging things through the courts, filing endless motions, and playing games with the banks. I haven't bothered getting involved in those tactics because we all know how that game is played. I am simply stating what the law dictates regarding this situation, based on my understanding of how these processes actually work in Germany.

Don't mistake my position for defending reckless spending; I am not. One simply must exercise caution when handling capital, as a single misstep can trigger unpleasant consequences for both the banks and the unintended recipient.

To is simply human error. We are looking at a case of mild negligence that happens to be shielded by legal technicalities. An extreme example would be someone throwing their entire life savings at a heart transplant hospital just to pay off a debtor who refuses to settle up. In America, the person at fault would likely pass away before they ever see a cent returned. 🙄

Nicholas Turner said:Your example doesn't quite hold water—this isn't about stumbling upon someone's lost wallet on a sidewalk in Chicago. This is about someone accidentally wiring funds directly into your bank account—as if they just dropped a stack of cash on your doorstep as a gift.

That’s exactly why things get so incredibly messy when this happens.

Regardless, we are looking at gross negligence, which results in the unlawful appropriation of funds.
I cited specific legal statutes—they aren't my own invention—that apply whether you stumble upon a stranger's wallet or find unexpected funds sitting in your checking account. In both scenarios, you know perfectly well the money isn't yours.

What kind of "gift" are you imagining? We are discussing a scenario where the recipient has no grounds to assume it was a gift; they have sufficient information—at the latest once the owner or the bank reaches out—to know they are holding property that does not belong to them.

The headache doesn't stem from a lack of legal clarity, as the law is quite explicit. The issue is that this isn't something you can resolve through a quick administrative fix like a small claims settlement before a notary. It requires filing a private lawsuit, just as the law dictates. And we all know how grueling and ineffective those private lawsuits can be in the American legal system.

Legally speaking, however, the matter is crystal clear—provided the recipient is notified promptly, leaving no room to claim ignorance after the money has already been spent.

Rachel Garcia said:Look, I know someone who accidentally entered her sister's routing number at the bank, so the deposit went to a stranger instead. That person kept the funds because, according to her, once the money hits her account, it belongs to her—plus, she was deep in debt and could use the windfall. :🙄 Long story short, she didn't return it, and the police told my friend they couldn't intervene since it's a private civil matter. The solution was a civil lawsuit, though my friend says she still hasn't seen a dime.
My husband had a similar experience when a teller handed him cash from the wrong account, but he pointed out the mistake and returned it immediately.🙂

Article 220 of the U.S. Penal Code

(5) Anyone who unlawfully appropriates a movable object found or accidentally obtained from another
shall be punished by a fine of up to fifty daily incomes or imprisonment for up to six months.

(6) For offenses under paragraphs 1, 2, and 5 of this article, criminal proceedings are initiated via private prosecution, unless the property is government-owned, in which case proceedings are initiated upon recommendation.

It is much like finding a wallet dropped on a sidewalk; if you pick it up, the law dictates you must return it.

The legal gray area arises when a wire transfer is sent in error and the recipient spends the money without realizing the mistake. In such cases, proving malicious intent is difficult because there was no plan to misappropriate funds; the fault lies primarily with the sender.
The logic that money belongs to whoever possesses it is pure nonsense. If that were true, the entire credit-based American economy would collapse overnight. Furthermore, it ignores the fact that even physical currency is technically issued by the United States government, regardless of whose pocket it sits in. 🙂.

Kimberly Ward6 said:My sister-in-law works at an accounting firm and accidentally wired $10 $0.00 to the wrong account. They realized the mistake first thing the next morning and tried to fix it immediately, but the money had already been withdrawn. Now it's just gone.

It was through JPMorgan Chase. We have the receipt showing exactly who sent what to whom, all handled via online banking. I don't understand how a mistake like this can't be reversed.

Any advice on how to get the money back?

Has she filed a police report yet?
Retaining funds that you know do not belong to you is a legal violation.
The real challenge will be the burden of proof.
In Germany, for instance, this falls under § 812 BGB; it should be the same here in the US.

Hannah Reed3 said:Just look at the textile industry and you'll have your answer. It was wiped out by cheap goods from China e.g. Duga Resa...

Take a close look at the textile industry and you will find your answer. It was simply decimated by low-cost textiles from China e.g. Duga Resa...[/I]

I already mentioned the textile industry, but my question was regarding other American factories that failed due to inexpensive competition from the East rather than the incompetence of our own politicians. Of course, Chinese factories apply pressure through low pricing—though quality hasn't improved much either—but as long as we refuse to take responsibility for our own fate and instead hunt for scapegoats, there is no hope of digging ourselves out of this mess.

Andrew Reed11 said:It’s pretty clear you don't grasp the basic concept of market competition, so honestly, I can't even be bothered to explain it to you! 😉

Is this an attempt at infantile trolling and condescension? If you cannot answer the question, no one is forcing you. Please refrain from posting comments like these in the future.
Believe me, my economic education far exceeds yours, yet I have no desire to be patronizing.

Andrew Reed11 said:What kind of goods? A Chinese person makes everything now. Everything from basic commodities to watches and high-end electronics. Pretty soon they'll be mass-producing food, too.

Then please provide a specific example of an American factory that collapsed due to cheap imports from the East so we can better grasp your point.