3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Up to 1mil should be covered under deposit insurance.

That applies if a bank goes bankrupt and is unable to pay its depositors, not to employee thefts.

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

in this case, well, looks like the bank isn't accepting responsibility.

No, it doesn't look that way, yet.

3 hours ago, ivor bigun said:

if they do not take responsabilaty ,what is to stop them saying next time you deposite money"oh sorry the manager did not deposite it but stole it ,nothing to do with us"

I'd say that protecting the bank's reputation and business would prevent the circumstances that you speculated!

Without knowing the details, it's hard to comment on anything. if the bank publishes a rate of 7.5, they are obligated to pay it. Even for an investment vehicle the with risk (for example a mutual fund), they can't publish a rate unless the publish rate was past performance. 

3 hours ago, lodstewart said:

how was the Lady Manager not aware ?

What's a "Lady Manager" [sic], do you mean "mamasan"?   This involved a bank not a go-go bar, didn't it?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Has anyone seen a photo of one one the phony pass-books that were issued and updated by the bank? 

Yes, the bank has, so have the police who are investigating.

LoL, if you have  lived or worked here long enough you know how the system is worked.

 

For a price everything can just disappear and it all fades off into the never never land.

1 hour ago, xylophone said:

 

The transactions took place within the banking chamber

You sure about that in this case?   Where has that been confirmed?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Without hesitation? Surely you jest, there would have to be some sort of  investigation if for no other reason than to confirm the perp was not working with the cooperation of the victims. 

I should have clarified that statement in as much as if the bank employee was found to be purportedly acting on behalf of the bank and it was established that it was his "scheme" and his alone in trying to offer bank customers products from his bank, then yes without hesitation. 

 

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I don't think we know with any level of certainty that bank equipment

As regards that, he was on the bank's premises, using the bank's office, it's utilities and facilities, so I stand by that statement – – the bank is liable.

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You sure about that in this case?   Where has that been confirmed?

Yes, the bank has confirmed, so have the police who are investigating.

48 minutes ago, Nickelbeer said:

Exactly why I keep no money in a Thai bank.

Have bank frauds/theft never happened in any bank branch anywhere in your country, then?

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You sure about that in this case?   Where has that been confirmed?

Yes, the bank has confirmed, so have the police who are investigating.

2 minutes ago, xylophone said:

I should have clarified that statement in as much as if the bank employee was found to be purportedly acting on behalf of the bank and it was established that it was his "scheme" and his alone in trying to offer bank customers products from his bank, then yes without hesitation. 

So without hesitation AFTER an investigation whereby the bank employee was found culpable, and the bank customers found to be entitled to reimbursement, yes? 

 

2 minutes ago, xylophone said:

As regards that, he was on the bank's premises, using the bank's office, it's utilities and facilities, so I stand by that statement – – the bank is liable.

So if he were having sex with customers in the bathroom, an lifted cash from the customer's pocket, the bank is liable. Clear. 

5 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Have bank frauds/theft never happened in any bank branch anywhere in your country, then?

Never, ever. 

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Have bank frauds/theft never happened in any bank branch anywhere in your country, then?

Not that I know of. I am from the USA.  Very few such incidents. Draconian penalties.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

So without hesitation AFTER an investigation whereby the bank employee was found culpable, and the bank customers found to be entitled to reimbursement, yes? 

 

So if he were having sex with customers in the bathroom, an lifted cash from the customer's pocket, the bank is liable. Clear. 

As I said, after investigation and the facts became clear, then the customers would be entitled to reimbursement – yes.

 

As for your rather flippant comment regarding having sex with the customers in the bathroom and stealing cash from the customers pocket, then your common sense should tell you the answer.

 

And to make it easy for you, in having sex, he was not offering a product from the bank, nor offering a product on the pretext of it being from a bank, nor using the banks premises to undertake a financial transaction to the benefit of the customer.

 

Hope that helps.

8 hours ago, shady86 said:

Must be farangs from non English speaking countries. 

That's right, they are from Scotland.

12 minutes ago, Nickelbeer said:

19 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Have bank frauds/theft never happened in any bank branch anywhere in your country, then?

Not that I know of. I am from the USA.  Very few such incidents. Draconian penalties.

55555!    Very funny!  Sarcasm?  How about Madoff, for one?  Lehman?  Fannie Mae?

Good on them. 

 

K Bank are one of the big four or five in Thailand and likely have some explaining to do.

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

23 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Have bank frauds/theft never happened in any bank branch anywhere in your country, then?

Never, ever. 

He's American, never any bank frauds there!

10 minutes ago, xylophone said:

As I said, after investigation and the facts became clear, then the customers would be entitled to reimbursement – yes.

As is going on in Thailand now, yes?

 

10 minutes ago, xylophone said:

As for your rather flippant comment regarding having sex with the customers in the bathroom and stealing cash from the customers pocket, then your common sense should tell you the answer.

 

And to make it easy for you, in having sex, he was not offering a product from the bank, nor offering a product on the pretext of it being from a bank, nor using the banks premises to undertake a financial transaction to the benefit of the customer.

 

Hope that helps.

You stated; "As regards that, he was on the bank's premises, using the bank's office, it's utilities and facilities, so I stand by that statement – – the bank is liable."

 

Clearly having sex with customers in the bank's bathroom satisfies those criteria, yes?

 

TO be clear, I agree with you that assuming the customers understood that they were buying legitimate bank products from a bank employee authorized to sell those products, the bank will be held liable. I further believe reimbursement is the likely outcome. 

 

The only way I see the bank getting out of paying is to prove the customers understood the products were not truly legitimate, but that they (the customers) would profit from them. If it sounds too good to be true...

 

This is small money for the bank, I'm guessing their concern it that it opens up another way for employees to work with "customers" to defraud the bank. 

 

23 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

55555!    Very funny!  Sarcasm?  How about Madoff, for one?  

Yeah, things went well for him...

 

In any event, he was not representing a bank. 

 

WaMu went bust a while back, but all the deposits were covered. 

7 hours ago, hioctane said:

I don’t understand something. If you deposit or withdraw money from your account, wouldn’t you notice that the your account is not in the system?

My KK1 & 2 do instant sms and K+ on top also , so sometimes a get 3 times by mobile for transactions or ATM  , and sure 1 by email ..... and they did not know ...????? 

Oh yes  that was the promised high interest opportunity  started working ????.... sure ....

1.  Money is the root of all fiddles.

2.  Theres a woman at the bottom of everything.

4 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Fraud.... deposits were not in the banks system.

so they have to prosecute the individual who is already in jail i guess who did the fraud 

3 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

What's a "Lady Manager" [sic], do you mean "mamasan"?   This involved a bank not a go-go bar, didn't it?

read it up, he as very close friend of the manager who was female

take a look at some of the evidence by this excellent investigative writer, He will refer to the man as Mr Frog

for safety from litigation

https://truecrimethailand.substack.com/p/swindling-frog-pattaya

13 hours ago, Eff1n2ret said:

Indeed, "K Bank not return our money" looks like a request.

K Bank not return our money!!!   Exclamation at end suggests they are excited , possibly they have more to spare to another get rich fast scheme? 

10 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

7, to be precise, if you want to exclude the weekend but include the 5th!

Isn't there some surprise Eastern Province Holiday too, today 28th?

10 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Early reports sad that he had met some customers off-premises.

Okay, some not all. Initial contact would likely be inside the bank. The specifics of this are important.