My bank account's got robbed by European Commission. Over 700k is lost.

[cr1776]

They view it as their's by default and you are allowed to keep a portion as they allow.

By DECREE .... how ironic., fuckers.

Seconded by Decree your money is mine you can't do anything about it go suck a lemon

[notme]

And when you can figure out a way to legally short the taxman it becomes something really sexy...!  (And no, I'm not an accountant or a tax lawyer, LOL!)

Clearly.

Not paying taxes on barter is still illegal.  It might be easier to get away with though.
http://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc420.html

[notme]

What little savings that I had were taken away by some fly-by Russian bank in 1998. I ended up finding a person who knew a person, a phone call was made, and I was able to cash it out. So there is always a way.

So there is always a way.... for the well connected to screw the common person.  All the other depositors had just as much claim to their funds as you had to yours and got nothing in return.

[Namealreadyexists]

What would you do?

[Matthew N. Wright]

What little savings that I had were taken away by some fly-by Russian bank in 1998. I ended up finding a person who knew a person, a phone call was made, and I was able to cash it out. So there is always a way.

So there is always a way.... for the well connected to screw the common person.  All the other depositors had just as much claim to their funds as you had to yours and got nothing in return.

It's called Rogering it (Roger Ver did the same thing with Bitcoinica I believe). Lol

[notme]

What would you do?

I certainly wouldn't ask a friend to abuse a position of power in order to put me at the front of the line.  I would accept my fate.

[wachtwoord]

What would you do?

I certainly wouldn't ask a friend to abuse a position of power in order to put me at the front of the line.  I would accept my fate.

If this is sincere (which I doubt) hats off for sticking with your principles. As I don't have this specific principle I would help myself first.

[Matthew N. Wright]

What would you do?

I certainly wouldn't ask a friend to abuse a position of power in order to put me at the front of the line.  I would accept my fate.

If this is sincere (which I doubt) hats off for sticking with your principles. As I don't have this specific principle I would help myself first.

I agree with notme. Taking money (unless it's an extreme emergency) while knowing others won't be able to get it doesn't feel right at all. I'm speechless at how much greed there is in this community. It certainly helps me ignore opinions a lot knowing that the people giving them are for the lack of a better term, scumbags. (i'm not talking about you watchword, and I'm referring to the sleezy actions of people during major community debt collection efforts)

[wachtwoord]

Come on Matthew, it's your own money your taking. You're just preventing people from stealing your money. It is not your fault nor your responsibility that they are stealing from others.

[Matthew N. Wright]

Come on Matthew, it's your own money your taking. You're just preventing people from stealing your money. It is not your fault nor your responsibility that they are stealing from others.

In some cases that is true, but in the case of bitcoinica for example, lets say they only had 50% of the owed funds left. Would you ask for 100% or would you recommend a fair even settlement for everyone?

[Inedible]

Come on Matthew, it's your own money your taking. You're just preventing people from stealing your money. It is not your fault nor your responsibility that they are stealing from others.

In some cases that is true, but in the case of bitcoinica for example, lets say they only had 50% of the owed funds left. Would you ask for 100% or would you recommend a fair even settlement for everyone?

A nice sentiment but it only works if all actors are fair.

It only takes one person to think only of themselves first and then everyone will do it so with the likelihood of there being at least one person doing this, the best course of action is to get whatever you can because it's possible you might end up with nothing.

[cr1776]

Game theory in practice.  ;-)

Come on Matthew, it's your own money your taking. You're just preventing people from stealing your money. It is not your fault nor your responsibility that they are stealing from others.

In some cases that is true, but in the case of bitcoinica for example, lets say they only had 50% of the owed funds left. Would you ask for 100% or would you recommend a fair even settlement for everyone?

A nice sentiment but it only works if all actors are fair.

It only takes one person to think only of themselves first and then everyone will do it so with the likelihood of there being at least one person doing this, the best course of action is to get whatever you can because it's possible you might end up with nothing.

[RodeoX]

...
P.S. The worst thing is, that even a month ago I was suspecting that things can go wrong. In February, I several times called my banker and lawyer and asked them if money on the account is safe, mentioning that article in Financial Times. But they convinced me that there is no reason to worry, and even if country goes default, in no way current accounts may be affected. ...

That sucks man. Just before the 2008 collapse I drained my accounts. At the bank they were horrified and almost literally begged me t keep my accounts full. I went with my gut and took it all out anyway. Now we know that America was "within hours of shutting down the ATM networks". The people at the bank were the least qualified to see it coming because they have so much invested in the system.

 

[Lethn]

...
P.S. The worst thing is, that even a month ago I was suspecting that things can go wrong. In February, I several times called my banker and lawyer and asked them if money on the account is safe, mentioning that article in Financial Times. But they convinced me that there is no reason to worry, and even if country goes default, in no way current accounts may be affected. ...

That sucks man. Just before the 2008 collapse I drained my accounts. At the bank they were horrified and almost literally begged me t keep my accounts full. I went with my gut and took it all out anyway. Now we know that America was "within hours of shutting down the ATM networks". The people at the bank were the least qualified to see it coming because they have so much invested in the system.

 

There's nothing a bank fears more than everyone wanting their money back.

[Namealreadyexists]

What would you do?

I certainly wouldn't ask a friend to abuse a position of power in order to put me at the front of the line.  I would accept my fate.

So your advice to the OP is to accept his fate?

[wachtwoord]

Come on Matthew, it's your own money your taking. You're just preventing people from stealing your money. It is not your fault nor your responsibility that they are stealing from others.

In some cases that is true, but in the case of bitcoinica for example, lets say they only had 50% of the owed funds left. Would you ask for 100% or would you recommend a fair even settlement for everyone?

They owe me 100% so if I could get 100% by myself I would take 100%. Again: not my responsibility/fault that they are scamming/defaulting.

If I and the other debtors needed each other (for example to sue them) we could agree to share the proceeds to rata.

[Namealreadyexists]

Game theory in practice.  ;-)

Come on Matthew, it's your own money your taking. You're just preventing people from stealing your money. It is not your fault nor your responsibility that they are stealing from others.

In some cases that is true, but in the case of bitcoinica for example, lets say they only had 50% of the owed funds left. Would you ask for 100% or would you recommend a fair even settlement for everyone?

A nice sentiment but it only works if all actors are fair.

It only takes one person to think only of themselves first and then everyone will do it so with the likelihood of there being at least one person doing this, the best course of action is to get whatever you can because it's possible you might end up with nothing.

Speaking of practice, there is a legal procedure called interpleader, which basically legitimizes the pro rata distribution of the ramaining funds. However, you can put up a fight, and claim the whole amount, for example based on the prior judgement in your favor, or whatever reason that would compel the other parties' lawyers to accept your terms.

[marcus_of_augustus]

...
P.S. The worst thing is, that even a month ago I was suspecting that things can go wrong. In February, I several times called my banker and lawyer and asked them if money on the account is safe, mentioning that article in Financial Times. But they convinced me that there is no reason to worry, and even if country goes default, in no way current accounts may be affected. ...

That sucks man. Just before the 2008 collapse I drained my accounts. At the bank they were horrified and almost literally begged me t keep my accounts full. I went with my gut and took it all out anyway. Now we know that America was "within hours of shutting down the ATM networks". The people at the bank were the least qualified to see it coming because they have so much invested in the system.

 

There's nothing a bank fears more than everyone wanting their money back.

Actually they changed the laws so that it is no longer your money any longer, but a debt that the bank owes to you. They do not fear "the run" so much since then.

[edmundedgar]

Actually they changed the laws so that it is no longer your money any longer, but a debt that the bank owes to you.

That's not a change, that's the whole point of banks.

The model is:
1) You lend your money to the band, ie you trade your money for a debt.
2) They then lend the money to someone else. At that point its no longer the bank's money either.
3) Hopefully the someone else pays the debt back with money, and the bank can pay your debt back with money.
4) Failing that maybe some kind taxpayer will pay to make up the difference.
5) Failing that the people who lost your money hope you'll blame the whole thing on the European Commission.

[Exoskeleton]

Actually they changed the laws so that it is no longer your money any longer, but a debt that the bank owes to you.

That's not a change, that's the whole point of banks.

The model is:
1) You lend your money to the band, ie you trade your money for a debt.
2) They then lend the money to someone else. At that point its no longer the bank's money either.
3) Hopefully the someone else pays the debt back with money, and the bank can pay your debt back with money.
4) Failing that maybe some kind taxpayer will pay to make up the difference.
5) Failing that the people who lost your money hope you'll blame the whole thing on the European Commission.

Well put. People have been having their forutnes wiped out in bank collapses for hundreds of years now. Many southern plantation owners had their bank accounts confiscated and also all had to free their slaves without compensation. In the 1920's we had banks get wiped out from investing in stock (which brough the first regulations seperating "investment banks" and "commercial banks"). Today we have the housing bubble and bad morgages killing off banks.

When a bank gets crushed, for whatever reason, your deposits get hit too. Most people don't get a cent back unless the government steps in and refunds a minimum amount out of taxpayer money. This is a rare instance where its that very same government who caused the problem in the first place. *To be fair its not just the governments fault here. This bank took on a lot of really bad debt it can't pay back*