The judgement by a court is only about prosecuting a person accused of theft. The bank should restore the stolen money immediately without reservation or conversation, much less with dependence on a criminal prosecution. Is the bank taking the position that if the accused is found guilty but is unable to restore those funds those depositors are out of luck? What other possible excuse is there that they would not have automatically restored the missing money in full?
I had a run in with Wells Fargo:
I'd opened a savings account for my new grandson with Wachovia Bank. Told at that time there was no fee nor minimum balance requirement until grandson was 18 yr old. Then Wells Fargo acquired Wachovia and the next statement showed a $5.00 fee deduction. The next time I was at the bank I mentioned the problem and they agreed it was incorrect and to stop deducting the monthly fee. The next statement showed no new deductions, but the initial $5.00 deduction remained. I went to them and spoke with a manager who told me that since they'd already requisitioned the $5.00, "they were unable to put it back, as there was no procedure to do that". She told me, looking at me right in the eye, "they will never restore that fee into your account". I suggested that I was feeling pretty put upon by this chicanery and asked her to call 911 as I'd just been robbed. She said she was very sorry and gave me $5.00 out of her purse. I was full of suggestions that day, telling her that though the money was irrelevant the principle was invaluable, and she would do well to find a more honest employer, because the next time they may be deducting and reneging agreed salary stipulations from her wages with the same degree of concern. Her reply was that they'd already seen new, inexplicable and additional payroll fees, but that the job market was not good enough to simply up and quit. It was 2008, Bush's economic miracle had hit the economy pretty hard. Funny, how for so many, Obama got the blame for it, too.
Huge banks are pirates and thieves thriving in a land of lawlessness.
= new reply since forum marked as read