Pattaya: 100+ foreigners want their money back from Thai bank - "you stole our future" says one

[xylophone]

3 hours ago, Leaver said:

No doubt the bank's fraud mitigation and supervisory systems failed in this case, but that does not make them culpable at law.

 

The bank's argument will be, from the very moment he stole the first baht, he acted alone, for his own personal gain, and well outside the scope of his employment contract.  Effectively, working alone, and not as an employee of the bank, despite his crimes taking place whilst at his place of employment.  

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this, because employment/contract law means that if an employee commits an offence, then he has to be dealt with by the bank, which will review what he has supposedly done, and if it is serious enough will terminate his contract.

 

He then will be officially dismissed and will not be allowed to operate on behalf of the bank.

 

Simply saying that because he committed an offence, which wasn't picked up until many months afterwards, meant that the first time that he committed that offence, he ceased to be an employee, is not the way employee/employment contracts work, it has to be proven at the very time of the first incident, and this wasn't.

 

Also I believe that even if there was a clause written into the employment contract that some sort of misdemeanour (whatever it was) would result in instant dismissal, then that has to be acted upon and he would have to be officially dismissed/sacked.

 

IMO, the bank is trying to get out of its obligations and I do believe that indeed, "the bank's fraud mitigation and supervisory systems failed", and that does make them liable, because that's exactly what those systems are put in place to do, stop fraud and the like, and they didn't work.

 

Maybe in Thailand it doesn't work like that, but I do have experience in matters like this, because in a major bank in NZ, when an employee stole $18 million over a period of time, doing almost exactly what this guy had done, the bank fully reimbursed all of the customers who had been affected by this fraud, and they went after him and took just about everything they could, and then he was jailed for six years.

[Leaver]

4 hours ago, xylophone said:

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this, because employment/contract law means that if an employee commits an offence, then he has to be dealt with by the bank, which will review what he has supposedly done, and if it is serious enough will terminate his contract.

 

I think there is a misunderstanding.

 

I am not suggesting that from the moment he stole the first baht he ceased to be an employee of the bank.  He was clearly still employed, and receiving a monthly salary, and the fact that he maintained his employment whilst continuing to perpetrate his scam, tells me he either was satisfactory in his mainstream job, OR, he was dropping a few quid on his manager to overlook his indiscretions, which is one for the investigators to look into, because that would make her, and the bank implicit in the crime. 

 

Corrupt payments may also extend to the area manager, perhaps even further up the chain, as I can't believe the bank's computer system does not flag a pattern of foreigners making large withdrawals, only from one branch.  

 

Being so corrupt here, I would not be surprised if the bank pays off the police to simply put it all on this guy, and that's where it will end for the victims.    

 

As you say, it's so corrupt here, and foreigners are held in such low regard, why wouldn't supervisors take a corrupt payment to turn a blind eye, after all, it's only farang money.  

 

4 hours ago, xylophone said:

Simply saying that because he committed an offence, which wasn't picked up until many months afterwards, meant that the first time that he committed that offence, he ceased to be an employee, is not the way employee/employment contracts work, it has to be proven at the very time of the first incident, and this wasn't.

 

Obviously, I am talking about a serious criminal offence, not work place unprofessionalism, or incompetence, being an offence against their workplace contract.  Big difference. 

 

4 hours ago, xylophone said:

Also I believe that even if there was a clause written into the employment contract that some sort of misdemeanour (whatever it was) would result in instant dismissal, then that has to be acted upon and he would have to be officially dismissed/sacked.

 

Obviously, his manager, and possibly her manager, will claim lack of knowledge of the CRIMINAL OFFENCE, but upper management may allow them to continue to work, and after the court case, fire them, because the fact that a lot of foreigners were withdrawing money should have meant they intervened to stop the exodus of funds.

 

Notice I said, after the court case, because to fire them now, means the upper management MAY know that his manager, and possibly her manager, may have received corrupt payments to look the other way. 

 

It's all about the bank trying not to refund.

 

4 hours ago, xylophone said:

IMO, the bank is trying to get out of its obligations and I do believe that indeed, "the bank's fraud mitigation and supervisory systems failed", and that does make them liable, because that's exactly what those systems are put in place to do, stop fraud and the like, and they didn't work.

 

Did Lehman Brothers meet all their obligations?  There's "systems" and then there's "systems."

 

Whether it was poor supervision, or corruption, people lost a lot of money, and there's a lesson in that for all foreigners. 

 

As you say, one must question if their money is safe here, and not just from a scam like this, but in general. 

 

4 hours ago, xylophone said:

Maybe in Thailand it doesn't work like that, but I do have experience in matters like this, because in a major bank in NZ, when an employee stole $18 million over a period of time, doing almost exactly what this guy had done, the bank fully reimbursed all of the customers who had been affected by this fraud, and they went after him and took just about everything they could, and then he was jailed for six years.

 

Like I said, if the bank wants to fight it, by the time this case has reached a verdict, it's possible many of the victims are deceased, or too old to enjoy the refunded money, should they win, and like most court cases in Thailand, the Thai lawyers bleed their customers dry, and many may not want to throw good money after bad.     

 

[xylophone]

20 minutes ago, Leaver said:

 

I think there is a misunderstanding.

 

I am not suggesting that from the moment he stole the first baht he ceased to be an employee of the bank.  He was clearly still employed, and receiving a monthly salary, and the fact that he maintained his employment whilst continuing to perpetrate his scam, tells me he either was satisfactory in his mainstream job, OR, he was dropping a few quid on his manager to overlook his indiscretions, which is one for the investigators to look into, because that would make her, and the bank implicit in the crime. 

 

Corrupt payments may also extend to the area manager, perhaps even further up the chain, as I can't believe the bank's computer system does not flag a pattern of foreigners making large withdrawals, only from one branch.  

 

Being so corrupt here, I would not be surprised if the bank pays off the police to simply put it all on this guy, and that's where it will end for the victims.    

 

As you say, it's so corrupt here, and foreigners are held in such low regard, why wouldn't supervisors take a corrupt payment to turn a blind eye, after all, it's only farang money.  

 

 

Obviously, I am talking about a serious criminal offence, not work place unprofessionalism, or incompetence, being an offence against their workplace contract.  Big difference. 

 

 

Obviously, his manager, and possibly her manager, will claim lack of knowledge of the CRIMINAL OFFENCE, but upper management may allow them to continue to work, and after the court case, fire them, because the fact that a lot of foreigners were withdrawing money should have meant they intervened to stop the exodus of funds.

 

Notice I said, after the court case, because to fire them now, means the upper management MAY know that his manager, and possibly her manager, may have received corrupt payments to look the other way. 

 

It's all about the bank trying not to refund.

 

 

Did Lehman Brothers meet all their obligations?  There's "systems" and then there's "systems."

 

Whether it was poor supervision, or corruption, people lost a lot of money, and there's a lesson in that for all foreigners. 

 

As you say, one must question if their money is safe here, and not just from a scam like this, but in general. 

 

 

Like I said, if the bank wants to fight it, by the time this case has reached a verdict, it's possible many of the victims are deceased, or too old to enjoy the refunded money, should they win, and like most court cases in Thailand, the Thai lawyers bleed their customers dry, and many may not want to throw good money after bad.     

 

As I said.....we will have to agree to disagree.

 

PS. And the Lehman Bros collapse was whole different scenario,

Edited December 31, 2021 by xylophone

[jerrymahoney]

 In the US, banks routinely list the following-type disclosure for non-deposit accounts:

 

Investment and Insurance Products are:

• Not Insured by the FDIC or Any Federal Government Agency
• Not a Deposit or Other Obligation of, or Guaranteed by, the Bank or Any Bank Affiliate
• Subject to Investment Risks, Including Possible Loss of the Principal Amount Invested

[Leaver]

6 hours ago, xylophone said:

As I said.....we will have to agree to disagree.

 

Sure, we'll just have to wait on the verdict from the Thai court.

 

6 hours ago, xylophone said:

PS. And the Lehman Bros collapse was whole different scenario,

 

So much for "oversight" hey?  ???? 

[jacko45k]

13 hours ago, jerrymahoney said:

 In the US, banks routinely list the following-type disclosure for non-deposit accounts:

Well I do not know whether the fraud victims were led to believe, or informed they were opening 'non-deposit accounts'. I also suspect they were not given any disclosure/ weasel warning like the one you quoted..... that should make the bank more liable in my mind. 

[jerrymahoney]

4 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Well I do not know whether the fraud victims were led to believe, or informed they were opening 'non-deposit accounts'. I also suspect they were not given any disclosure/ weasel warning like the one you quoted..... that should make the bank more liable in my mind. 

I do not know either but these a savings deposit account at Kasikron earns 1-2%.

[xylophone]

12 hours ago, Leaver said:

 

Sure, we'll just have to wait on the verdict from the Thai court.

 

 

So much for "oversight" hey?  ???? 

Well the verdict from the Thai court should be that which has been applied to similar circumstances in other countries, but then again those folks who pull the strings both financially and status wise here, being Thailand, will most likely have a different view on this, mainly because it affects their pockets directly or indirectly.

 

And your point about "oversight" is a good one because at the level of offending in this particular instance, the oversight responsibility should have been on this person's direct manager, and so on.

 

With the sub-prime mortgage debacle, the US government allowed the banks and similar financial institutions to "self regulate" (no conflict-of-interest by those seeking to make huge commissions and those supposedly regulating it – – yeah right)

 

And look where that got the world – – cheap CDOs anybody. Interesting times.

[Leaver]

8 hours ago, xylophone said:

Well the verdict from the Thai court should be that which has been applied to similar circumstances in other countries, but then again those folks who pull the strings both financially and status wise here, being Thailand, will most likely have a different view on this, mainly because it affects their pockets directly or indirectly.

 

 

You can not rely on a just decision in legal matter here.  

 

8 hours ago, xylophone said:

And your point about "oversight" is a good one because at the level of offending in this particular instance, the oversight responsibility should have been on this person's direct manager, and so on.

 

 

I can't believe the bank's computer system did not pick up an unusual pattern of large withdrawals from accounts at the particular branch.  

 

I would not be surprised if money was sent up the ladder.  

 

As you correctly stated, it's so corrupt here, that one's money is not even safe in a bank.  

[champers]

5 hours ago, Leaver said:

 

You can not rely on a just decision in legal matter here.  

 

 

I can't believe the bank's computer system did not pick up an unusual pattern of large withdrawals from accounts at the particular branch.  

 

I would not be surprised if money was sent up the ladder.  

 

As you correctly stated, it's so corrupt here, that one's money is not even safe in a bank.  

The investigation linked in an earlier post points the finger at the perp's boss; the bank's manager; who also appears to be his girlfriend. 

[Thaifly88]

On 12/27/2021 at 12:58 PM, richard_smith237 said:

So you don’t know what this is about, you have no idea of the back story but still feel compelled to comment ?   
 

These are people who were ripped off by a bank employee offering a product he pedaled as being from K bank & transactions took place inside the bank. 
 

 

I am very interested to know the full story. So, it was a bank employee offering a product that was not actually offered or endorsed by the bank, but he did this 'business' on bank premises. I would suggest the bank's liability would commence the moment they knew about the employee doing this and what action they then took. Prior to that, how can the bank be liable for an employee committing something fraudulent that they have no knowledge of and never endorsed ? 

[LoveThai94]

Anytime someone offer me something special i get suspicious!

Do your homework and don't be greedy.

Inside a bank or on the street they bear some of the blame.

[david555]

On 12/31/2021 at 4:14 PM, jerrymahoney said:

 In the US, banks routinely list the following-type disclosure for non-deposit accounts:

 

Investment and Insurance Products are:

• Not Insured by the FDIC or Any Federal Government Agency
• Not a Deposit or Other Obligation of, or Guaranteed by, the Bank or Any Bank Affiliate
• Subject to Investment Risks, Including Possible Loss of the Principal Amount Invested

 In the US, banks routinely list the following-type disclosure for non-deposit accounts

 

On this ..

 

Just reminding their legal position on this .....As the bank claims not to being aware of those " under table / restaurants / back office / private deals from the  "culprit  person " to  stupid client , ....and also no confirmation they asked to the highest in command from that 

main branch ???? ...

[Leaver]

On 1/2/2022 at 12:29 AM, champers said:

The investigation linked in an earlier post points the finger at the perp's boss; the bank's manager; who also appears to be his girlfriend. 

 

What she charged?  If so, that would tend to prove a conspiracy, and cover up by the bank, providing a good legal argument for the victims.  if she wasn't charged, it makes it more difficult for the victims.  

[Yellowtail]

15 minutes ago, Leaver said:

 

What she charged?  If so, that would tend to prove a conspiracy, and cover up by the bank, providing a good legal argument for the victims.  if she wasn't charged, it makes it more difficult for the victims.  

Do you not mean convicted? Being charged proves nothing. 

[champers]

41 minutes ago, Leaver said:

 

What she charged?  If so, that would tend to prove a conspiracy, and cover up by the bank, providing a good legal argument for the victims.  if she wasn't charged, it makes it more difficult for the victims.  

Not charged as far as I can see. She seems to pleading ignorance of what was going on. Read the link to the investigation and make your own mind up if that stretches credulity.

Just as an aside, I knew the manager accused and he seemed a decent chap (as he would). He did not try to sell me any products, but I do keep most of my cash out of Thailand. He seems to have targeted those who put large amounts into various of his bank's accounts.

Edited January 8, 2022 by champers

[Leaver]

56 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Do you not mean convicted? Being charged proves nothing. 

Good point.  Being charged simply ups the price for making it go away.  The BiB couldn't care less about a conviction, if there is money on the table, which unfortunately will effect the civil case of the victims.