Citi Can’t Have Its $900 Million Back

[SquallLeonhart]

If your pencil does not write well - do you buy a new one or sharpen your own / insert a new rod?

The problem with Citibank is that their program had the most disgusting interface, which is also very easy to mistake. The main problem is not that Citibank made a mistake and now can not return the money, but that Citibank MADE a MISTAKE BECAUSE OF the SHITTY DESIGN OF ITS OWN SOFTWARE and this must be understood.

Inventing another useless altcoin in order to fix this is shooting a cannon at sparrows. It is enough to bring a normal approach to the design of internal software so that such mistakes do not happen again.

Well shooting cannons at sparrows could work though, it could be overkill and useless to make it that high end, but it still is a working solution isn't it? Yeah you are right they could upgrade their system and have a much much better version of it, but why improve x2 when you can improve 100x ?

I believe if these companies finally manage to remove all these server required idiotic old timer stuff and replaced it with their own blockchains and made it work properly, they could actually get to a new world standard that was incredible.

It would be fast, it would be cheap and it would make 900+ million dollars go from one place to another in a few minutes at most. It would make it harder to reverse that of course but it would at least be simple to not mistake who will get the money, just take a look at the wallet address and you would know it.

[1714858753]

1714858753

[1714858753]

1714858753

[1714858753]

1714858753

[Rengga Jati]

This is indeed a very fatal mistake when (accidentally) sending the transaction.
But here, they know the receiving address belongs to, hmmm.
And they get "Free money". Wow, this is really amazing when we already know who the recipient of the money accidentally transferred to them and asked for the money back. I think that at least 80-90% will come back and we will leave the rest to the recipient as compensation.
But it turns out that the law there is like that.
And really still surprised by the words of free money.

And what makes difference with what happens to Bitcoin or cryptos that are sent to the wrong address and are lost?
It is no different then. The difference is probably that the recipient is "known and unknown".

[aesma]

Interesting and funny story. I imagine the face of the people involved after realizing they sent the wrong amount.

Well, maybe at first they thought it could all be reversed, because if it was just a regular case of mistakenly sending money it would, especially between financial entities.

But here, with the shenanigans regarding the bonds, the people getting the money were actually owed the money, so it's easy for them to justify keeping it.

[paxmao]

Perhaps someone can invent a new altcoin which addresses these concerns?  

Wouldn't be that the most useless altcoin ever?
Just imagine, I'd send coins to the exchange, withdraw Bitcoin then revert the altcoin transaction. It would allow you get anything for free. Do you expect anyone - from exchanges to merchants - would be stupid enough to accept such a coin?!

Got a name for that... "doublespend token". Like a Black Lotus but for crypto.

[verita1]

DFREY5: How was work today honey? It was ok, except I accidentally sent $ 900mm out to people who weren’t supposed to have it

DFREY5: Downside of work from home. maybe the dog hit the keyboard

 

This argument seems so silly to me. How can it be possible? It is total negligence. A job as delicate as handling money and requiring maximum concentration can be done anywhere and blaming the dog is nonsense. I think a forensic investigation is needed. Banks show every day that they need urgent reform and must act as soon as possible because they will be displaced by cryptocurrencies.

[Silberman]

What free money?
It is clearly said in the statement by the court:

When a beneficiary receives money to which it is entitled and has no knowledge that the money was erroneously wired, the beneficiary should not have to wonder whether it may retain the funds; rather, such a beneficiary should be able to consider the transfer of funds as a final and complete transaction, not subject to revocation.”

Those are money that Citi was supposed to pay anyway, not money they decided its fun to try and sent to different accounts.

This is the way I read the situation as well, Citi was trying to be smart and somehow avoid paying and then they did it by mistake, then they tried to recover that money with many of the recipients refusing, then they tried to get that money back with a lawsuit but the judge ruled against them because they are basically paying what they owed, if anything it is nice to see a bank not getting away with something at least once since most of the rulings and the laws are in their favour.