Woman searching for $120,000 that disappeared from bank account

[larry_vw_1955]

https://www.cbs7.com/2023/09/01/woman-searching-120000-that-disappeared-bank-account/

Margaret Lomax told KPHO that the wire transfer was for $120,000 but now, no one seems to know where the money has gone.

Lomax said the $120,000 was successfully transferred because she saw the money in the account. However, once the money was transferred to a second account it didn’t stay there very long.

i guess this lady is a perfect example of someone that trusts banks...maybe she needs to look into bitcoin.

[1715196491]

1715196491

[1715196491]

1715196491

[franky1]

so the story reveals:
A. she recently had new living location/address(sold old house)
B. the bank showed she violated terms, saying they will close account
C. daughter admits after the 60th day period of account closure the funds were sent to owner

well standard practice of banks is to send a cheque to the billing address on account records
so im guessing she didnt update her records and so they sent a cheque to her SOLD house. meaning the buyer got the cheque

[larry_vw_1955]

so the story reveals:
A. she recently had new living location/address(sold old house)
B. the bank showed she violated terms, saying they will close account
C. daughter admits after the 60th day period of account closure the funds were sent to owner

well standard practice of banks is to send a cheque to the billing address on account records
so im guessing she didnt update her records and so they sent a cheque to her SOLD house. meaning the buyer got the cheque

she never got her money back.


Now, Lomax and both banks involved reportedly don’t know what happened to the money.


if she got her money back then why can't she buy a home?


“I’d like my money back,” she said. “I’d like to buy a home so I can live my last 20-30 years comfortably.”

B. the bank showed she violated terms, saying they will close account

i'm surprised you would be taking the side of the bank. i doubt she did anything wrong. that's why i said she might want to store her money in bitcoin instead of a bank account that some pencil pusher can just delete her with the click of a mouse.   but she would need to get serious. if she's gonna be using bitcoin. no more forgetting your password and requesting a reset...

C. daughter admits after the 60th day period of account closure the funds were sent to owner

just to be clear, that's not what she admitted to. you have to read closely.

[franky1]

banks are bad. but you have to still read their rule book to know what they do/and what you should avoid..(ignorance is not bliss)

anyways
when the bank says they send funds to the owner. this does not mean they had a meet-up with lomax. it means they sent out a cheque (standard rules)

so if she recently changed her residency its more common sense that they sent funds to the wrong address

sometimes when you read a media story, dont just trust things as written. do some research and put whats said into practice. for instance that story and headline was wrote to be provocative and wrote in a certain format/order to make it sound like a weird circumstance of events. but if you read the details in reverse order, it becomes clearer and makes sense

when you read first that the family are told after the 60th day that the bank sent the funds to the family. it makes you question the "there one minute gone the next" statement at the start.. after all who would wait 60 days to ask about funds if you notice funds missing on day 1..

it starts to make more common sense that this scenario happened:
a. she tried to use ATM and it refused.
b. she called and they said they froze account due to violation and they will post cheque within 60 days
c. after 60 days they questioned where is the cheque as they never received it in the mail

then you read into what possible way can something get lost in the mail. and the obvious one mentioned in the story is the change of address

im not siding with the banks. im just explaining rational reason outside of a media spin

yes no one likes banks. no one likes to think a simple change of address can cause so much stress.
no one like banks having 'violation rules' for petty nonsense reasons.
no one wants to trust third parties that put rules on your funds and makes it difficult for you to have access to your funds

but its always best to learn their rules to learn what to do and avoid.

if you think her story is enough to sway away from using banks. just try reading their T&C's and see all the other issues that can arise, then you will not like banks even more

[larry_vw_1955]

banks are bad. but you have to still read their rule book to know what they do/and what you should avoid..(ignorance is not bliss)

people don't read through entire rule books. in most cases it is a waste of time. if you're just doing normal things with your bank account, why would you be worried that you're doing something wrong? if you're using your bank account to buy and sell crypto for profit then maybe you would be breaking some rules but even then they probably don't even put that in their "rule book".

anyways
when the bank says they send funds to the owner. this does not mean they had a meet-up with lomax. it means they sent out a cheque (standard rules)

it seems that citibank credited her bank account with $120,000 but then poof they took it back out before she could use it!

so if she recently changed her residency its more common sense that they sent funds to the wrong address

well in that case it would be a very simple matter for citibank to see if the check was cashed and by who. because it doesn't sound like it was her.

when you read first that the family are told after the 60th day that the bank sent the funds to the family.

Once those 60 days expired, her daughter said she was told the money had been returned to its “rightful owner.”

are we supposed to assume that "rightful owner" equals this lady? why didn't the bank just say "we sent the check to you"?

b. she called and they said they froze account due to violation and they will post cheque within 60 days

doubtful that they told her anything over the phone.

 

if you think her story is enough to sway away from using banks. just try reading their T&C's and see all the other issues that can arise, then you will not like banks even more

well if i don't like banks then i certainly don't like places like coinbase. because they have the same type of discretion over peoples' money.

[franky1]

your again are reading the editorial from the media writers point of view of creative editing.. and treating it like religious gospel

put the available points into context of real life. dont just take medias word for it.
first lesson is to not trust others/middlemen your value, second lesson dont blindly trust media editorials

citbanks rulebook is that when there is a violation they would refuse services(like ATM withdrawals)
and within 60 days send a cheque out to the registered address on the account
(and no they dont ask people to come into a bank building to be handed a suitcase of cash same day)

now with that information take another read of the editorial and put the story into the prospective of a scenario of real chain of events using your independent mind.

the article mentions she moved address
the article said she put funds into an account she doesnt use much
the article mentions ATM refused
the article mentions informed of violation
the article mentions family waited the 60days before questioning location of funds

does it now make sense logically and more common sensely

dont just read some media story and believe it like a religion. think for yourself using research and other source information to come to an INFORMED opinion

you argue that the family wont have been told these things over the phone
you argue that the money went missing instantly

however. read the article properly with fresh prospective
the article quotes they family had ATM refused. the family were informed of a violation and that there was a 60 day period..
if the funds vanished on day one then a different conversation would have occured. not the conversation that fits into standard citibank closure practice

[larry_vw_1955]

citbanks rulebook is that when there is a violation they would refuse services(like ATM withdrawals)
and within 60 days send a cheque out to the registered address on the account

but if they sent a check out then they should easily be able to determine the status of said check apparently there is some issue whereby they don't know how to do that.

Now, Lomax and both banks involved reportedly don’t know what happened to the money.
After providing documentation and wiring instructions, both banks have agreed to investigate the situation.

If it is about a missing check in the mail then what do wiring instructions has to do with that? There's not a system in place where they can see if a check got cashed or not?

the article mentions she moved address

it doesn't say that. here is what it says:

According to Lomax, she recently sold her home in Rio Vista, California, after raising her kids and living there for 29 years


We don't know how long ago she moved out. But lets just go with your assumption.

the article said she put funds into an account she doesnt use much

it didn't say she didn't use it much. i don't know where you got that idea.  it just says she deposited it into a "smaller bank" just because Farmers & Merchants. might be a "smaller bank" does that mean we should immediately assume she doesn't use it much?

the article mentions family waited the 60days before questioning location of funds

i think you might be misunderstanding the article because it doesn't say that at all. i'm sure she was questioning them over the phone IMMEDIATELY. but it certainly doesn't say she waited 60 days before bringing up the issue.

does it now make sense logically and more common sensely

dont just read some media story and believe it like a religion. think for yourself using research and other source information to come to an INFORMED opinion

does it make sense that someone that saw $120,000 their lifetime savings disappear straight out of their bank account would wait 60 days before calling the bank to ask about what happened? no it doesn't. but maybe it makes sense to you?  

you argue that the family wont have been told these things over the phone

i wouldn't expect it. but i guess its possible. i just know that some things banks don't go into over the phone. but they tell you they'll send you a written letter explaining their decision. so you just have to sit and wait.

you argue that the money went missing instantly

she said the money went missing immediately poof gone. on her screen one second then gone the next. what about that is hard to understand about her story?

if the funds vanished on day one then a different conversation would have occured. not the conversation that fits into standard citibank closure practice

what is "day one"? wouldn't that be the day her atm machine wouldn't give her the money? and then she goes home and logs in and watches her $120,000 change to $0 right in front of her eyes? you don't believe her story it seems like. that's fine but just admit

[franky1]

the article mentions family waited the 60days before questioning location of funds

i think you might be misunderstanding the article because it doesn't say that at all. i'm sure she was questioning them over the phone IMMEDIATELY. but it certainly doesn't say she waited 60 days before bringing up the issue.

first of all the banks told here there was a violation which triggers a 60day process

also the article says

Citibank sent Lomax a letter telling her that she had “violated the terms of her account” and that it would be closed within 60 days. Once those 60 days expired, her daughter said she was told the money had been returned to its “rightful owner.”

now instead of just reading article on face value alone. you need to add the context. and that means reading bank terms and conditions of what they do when accounts are frozen where she cant make any deposits or wire transfers due to a freeze.. .. standard practice is that a cheque is printed and sent to the registered address on the account within 60 days (which article admits the daughter waited before querying)

then logic appears.. now why would a cheque not go to a new address.. logic suggests she did not update the new address so cheque would go to old address..

then it says when daughter after the 60th day was told the funds were sent (but not received) the family sent documentation .. again logic suggests they sent proof of new address along with details of the old transactions.. and NOW the bank is probably cancelling the old cheque. investigating to ensure it was not cashed by the home buyer of old address.. and if all clear.. they would THEN (near future) print a new cheque to go to the new address

what is "day one"? wouldn't that be the day her atm machine wouldn't give her the money? and then she goes home and logs in and watches her $120,000 change to $0 right in front of her eyes? you don't believe her story it seems like. that's fine but just admit

when accounts are frozen. you do not see an available balance. because THE ACCOUNT IS FROZEN. you are not allowed to use an ATM or wire transfers.
the account is in administration..
the letter and subsequent communication suggests the funds would be sent out..
where the only error suggests funds were if you follow logic of the hints about entire scenario. that the cheque possible went to old address

even margeret is saying her fear is that "they sent it somewhere and someone is going 'whoo hoo christmas came early"

there is a chance. that the home buyer done what is called a chargeback scam. where they would claim the funds sent to the seller were false and they want a refund.. however this is unlikely due to how escrows work and other things. and also how the bank informed the family they were going to send funds out in 60days and funds were sent in those 60 days.. just not to margerets new address..
so i think its more likely a wrong address postal error than a buyers remorse chargeback refund

however this story might get juicier if the house sale was done privately without escrow agents and the buyer did chargeback scam her.. however the article makes no mention of the terms of the sale so i assumed it was done properly/regularly via escrow

[larry_vw_1955]

then logic appears.. now why would a cheque not go to a new address.. logic suggests she did not update the new address so cheque would go to old address..

how could she not have updated her mailing address? and then be so dumb to wonder why she didn't get the check? and then the reporters must be really dumb for not even asking that same question. plus, they do have something called Address Forwarding when someone moves.

https://www.usps.com/manage/forward.htm

certainly anyone with any common sense understands that process and would do it. including Mrs. Lomax. so even if she forgot to update her address with citibank her check should have still been forwarded to her new address.

even margeret is saying her fear is that "they sent it somewhere and someone is going 'whoo hoo christmas came early"

Once those 60 days expired, her daughter said she was told the money had been returned to its “rightful owner.”


It seems like maybe the bank has its own ideas about who the rightful owner of those funds is and it may not be her because she didn't get the money!

However, the rightful owner should have been either Lomax or the account where it was transferred from at Farmers & Merchants. But neither had the money.


So we know that the money didn't get returned to Farmers & Merchants but apparently it was returned to someone. Who that someone is we don't know, only we know that the bank thinks they were the "rightful owner". So unless some mistake was made then everything seems ok for everyone except Mrs. Lomax. it does sound hard to believe but i go off what is in the story.

there is a chance. that the home buyer done what is called a chargeback scam.

impossible because if that happened then she should still own her old house but it doesn't say anything about that. and who is living in the house that she got scammed out of? you don't think she wouldn't know that if it happened?

however this story might get juicier if the house sale was done privately without escrow agents and the buyer did chargeback scam her.. however the article makes no mention of the terms of the sale so i assumed it was done properly/regularly via escrow

that's what i'm trying to tell you. if she got scammed out of her house i think she would know that. 

[franky1]

even margeret is saying her fear is that "they sent it somewhere and someone is going 'whoo hoo christmas came early"

Once those 60 days expired, her daughter said she was told the money had been returned to its “rightful owner.”


It seems like maybe the bank has its own ideas about who the rightful owner of those funds is and it may not be her because she didn't get the money!

However, the rightful owner should have been either Lomax or the account where it was transferred from at Farmers & Merchants. But neither had the money.


So we know that the money didn't get returned to Farmers & Merchants but apparently it was returned to someone. Who that someone is we don't know, only we know that the bank thinks they were the "rightful owner". So unless some mistake was made then everything seems ok for everyone except Mrs. Lomax. it does sound hard to believe but i go off what is in the story.

there is a chance. that the home buyer done what is called a chargeback scam.

impossible because if that happened then she should still own her old house but it doesn't say anything about that. and who is living in the house that she got scammed out of? you don't think she wouldn't know that if it happened?

however this story might get juicier if the house sale was done privately without escrow agents and the buyer did chargeback scam her.. however the article makes no mention of the terms of the sale so i assumed it was done properly/regularly via escrow

that's what i'm trying to tell you. if she got scammed out of her house i think she would know that.  

first of all

banks send CHEQUES OUT TO THE POSTAL ADDRESS ON THE ACCOUNT FILE.. aka the "rightful owner"
if the bank did not know of the new address when they sent the cheque then their "rightful owner" would be at the old address(one on file)

secondly if she didnt manage to change address quick enough she also probably didnt inform USPS
if USPS didnt know about the new address then the rightful owner would be the old address

as for you saying about if the buyer done a chargeback scam then lomax still owns old house.. WRONG
if buyer done a chargeback scam. then the land/property registry still lists the buyer as the home owner.. and it would be for lomax to find out(which she doesnt know) that the buyer scammed her and got a refund. and THEN she would have to take the buyer to court and then get the land registry/deeds transfered back to her or get the buyer to give back funds

a refund does not automatically reverse registry/deeds ownership. the two things are separate things.

..
funny part is in the house i live in now. i still get mail addressed to old residents from over a decade ago, i have sent back many mail back to the company with it noted that the people its addressed to no longer live at this address.. yet i still get their mail. so yes people do forget to change addresses more then you think, and yes companies fail to update their correspondence records quickly/properly

[larry_vw_1955]

secondly if she didnt manage to change address quick enough she also probably didnt inform USPS
if USPS didnt know about the new address then the rightful owner would be the old address

i'd like to think she is smarter than the average bear who moves without notifying usps especially if there's going to be a $120,000 check coming her way! i guess at the time she moved maybe she wasn't expecting anything important in the mail. but it was her life savings that was really reckless to just move and not even notify usps. really dumb. but i'm not convinced she didn't notify them.

as for you saying about if the buyer done a chargeback scam then lomax still owns old house.. WRONG
if buyer done a chargeback scam. then the land/property registry still lists the buyer as the home owner.. and it would be for lomax to find out(which she doesnt know) that the buyer scammed her and got a refund. and THEN she would have to take the buyer to court and then get the land registry/deeds transfered back to her or get the buyer to give back funds

so then she needs to go ask the buyer if they got that check and what they did with it, whether they cashed it or what they did with it exactly. since the banks can't tell her anything she should go ask them directly. wouldn't you?

a refund does not automatically reverse registry/deeds ownership. the two things are separate things.

it's highly doubtful someone would be so stupid to try and reverse a $120,000 payment they obviously got the product. take them to court and let them pay all the attorney's fees and everything else.

funny part is in the house i live in now. i still get mail addressed to old residents from over a decade ago, i have sent back many mail back to the company with it noted that the people its addressed to no longer live at this address.. yet i still get their mail. so yes people do forget to change addresses more then you think, and yes companies fail to update their correspondence records quickly/properly

if you lived in usa you could probably tell the usps to not deliver it to you. and they wouldn't.

[hasitha lakshan]

so the story reveals:
A. she recently had new living location/address(sold old house)
B. the bank showed she violated terms, saying they will close account
C. daughter admits after the 60th day period of account closure the funds were sent to owner

well standard practice of banks is to send a cheque to the billing address on account records
so im guessing she didnt update her records and so they sent a cheque to her SOLD house. meaning the buyer got the cheque



💯 agree with your answer

[larry_vw_1955]

💯 agree with your answer

his answer doesn't explain why they closed her account in the first place though. nor does it explain why they can't simply put a stop payment on the check and issue another one...

[BabyBandit]

i guess this lady is a perfect example of someone that trusts banks...maybe she needs to look into bitcoin.

So you mean people that trust BTC never got hacked?
Same risk, different names.

It just that some people trust banks, and 99% of them never got a issue.
And some people trust bitcoin, and 99% of them never got a issue.

[Best-mary]

so the story reveals:
A. she recently had new living location/address(sold old house)
B. the bank showed she violated terms, saying they will close account
C. daughter admits after the 60th day period of account closure the funds were sent to owner

well standard practice of banks is to send a cheque to the billing address on account records
so im guessing she didnt update her records and so they sent a cheque to her SOLD house. meaning the buyer got the cheque

she never got her money back.


Now, Lomax and both banks involved reportedly don’t know what happened to the money.


if she got her money back then why can't she buy a home?


“I’d like my money back,” she said. “I’d like to buy a home so I can live my last 20-30 years comfortably.”

B. the bank showed she violated terms, saying they will close account

i'm surprised you would be taking the side of the bank. i doubt she did anything wrong. that's why i said she might want to store her money in bitcoin instead of a bank account that some pencil pusher can just delete her with the click of a mouse.   but she would need to get serious. if she's gonna be using bitcoin. no more forgetting your password and requesting a reset...

C. daughter admits after the 60th day period of account closure the funds were sent to owner

just to be clear, that's not what she admitted to. you have to read closely.

This is what I actually read and honestly, banks getting entitled not to give her money with no stipulated reason to back it up.

That's why exchanges can never be bank. They can only freeze your account if they find something fishy so far I know

[larry_vw_1955]

So you mean people that trust BTC never got hacked?

most people that get hacked in btc it is their fault though. unlike with the bank thing it's not necessarily their fault right?

It just that some people trust banks, and 99% of them never got a issue.
And some people trust bitcoin, and 99% of them never got a issue.

those percentages seem a bit high but maybe put them at about 80%. over say a 5 year timeframe.

[franky1]

This is what I actually read and honestly, banks getting entitled not to give her money with no stipulated reason to back it up.

banks mentioned they sent funds to the owner registered on their records.. so you must assume their records were not updated..

we have seen this happen before in bitcoin when someone had funds in one exchange that was frozen and the funds sent back to the address the funds were deposited from... HOWEVER the funds came from another exchanges hotwallet and not the users previous exchange deposit address

the thing to remember is if you are putting funds into a central party/middleman its always best to read their terms of their holding rules and ensure you know how to get funds out and ensure they know how to send you funds that go to your new address rather than something they have on record that has not been updated

an idea i had YEARS ago is instead of people having usernames and passwords. people use a unused bitcoin address as a username. and they sign a random(per session changed) message from an exchange to prove ID to login. and if there were any fund exits. the funds go to the login address. whereby it prevents hackers claiming coin not belonging to them and funds always go to intended user

many hackers previously have hacked normal usernames and made withdrawal requests to hackers address.. however if exchange account ID is the customers withdrawal address. its one less bureaucratic problem of hacking/bad withdrawals and makes funds truly accountable to true owner

[larry_vw_1955]

an idea i had YEARS ago is instead of people having usernames and passwords. people use a unused bitcoin address as a username. and they sign a random(per session changed) message from an exchange to prove ID to login. and if there were any fund exits. the funds go to the login address. whereby it prevents hackers claiming coin not belonging to them and funds always go to intended user

many hackers previously have hacked normal usernames and made withdrawal requests to hackers address.. however if exchange account ID is the customers withdrawal address. its one less bureaucratic problem of hacking/bad withdrawals and makes funds truly accountable to true owner

except most people don't even use bitcoin or have a bitcoin address and would have long forgotten their private key if they can't even remember to remind the company they moved...also, say they wanted to UPDATE their bitcoin address because they lost the private key to the old one. exactly how would they do that because that's what a hacker would be trying to do too.   it's kind of like letting someone else custody your bitcoin for you and they know something about your bitcoin private key not enough to sign something but enough to know its address.

not a terrible idea but you just kicked the can on down the road because then the bitcoin address itself becomes the target of hackers to try and get the company to change it to their own address...

many hackers previously have hacked normal usernames and made withdrawal requests to hackers address..

if they can do that then it seem like they could also manage to update the bitcoin address the company had on record. it's just a bitcoin address. not dna.

however if exchange account ID is the customers withdrawal address. its one less bureaucratic problem of hacking/bad withdrawals and makes funds truly accountable to true owner

in a utopia maybe. theoretically maybe but i'm not sure it would work. how often have you changed phone numbers in the last 10 years? maybe a few times? and we expect someone to keep the same bitcoin address for a 30 year mortgage?