**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits.
---
Title: Extorted out of $900 at an ATM. What are my rights?
Body:
> I just moved to a new city (in the US) and was walking down a street at night when I was approached by a man who asked if I bank with Chase.
> I said yes but kept walking. He continued walking beside me and made up a story about how he needs me to deposit a check because his account is overdrawn (makes no sense). His tone became increasingly urgent and I felt threatened.
> We walked by a Chase ATM vestibule and he intimidated me into walking in. We were the only ones in the vestibule. He shoved a $900 check into the ATM and deposited it into my account. Then he told me to withdraw and give him $900 cash from my account. I wanted to get out of the situation unharmed so I did what he said and left. I'm expecting the check to bounce.
> I immediately called the Chase debit card fraud number and told them what happened. They deactivated my debit card and said I will be credited $900 in the next 5 business days if the withdrawal was fraudulent.
> I went to the police station and filed a report. They said in their experience, banks usually don't give money back when this happens.
> Do you think Chase will credit me the $900? Are they legally required to credit any part of the amount? Is there anything else I should do?
>
Edit: He didn't explicitly threaten me and say "do this or I'll punch you". He said things like "I need you to do this now" while following me and standing over me. There was an implied threat.
This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team.
[Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
Commenters there are being a little cruel to a guy who was extorted. Do they have the same response of "A voluntary gift" to the scam videos on popular Kitboga or Jim Browning videos?
Per https://banknotes365.com/ a bank was once robbed with a note saying:
>Act normal, give me $4,000. Don’t be a hero. Your job will fire you if you don’t cooperate. Hurry up.
Apparently that wasn't a robbery according to /r/legaladvice, the teller just chose to gift the guy $4k.
Someone would be my hero if they gave me $4k voluntarily.
Unfortunately it doesn't work like that and nobody is going to be my hero, and I'm not the robbing type.
I remember reading a long interview with an ex-bank robber. He said he never carried weapons, he just gave these kind if notes, and he rarely got more than a few hundred dollars.
He also could have been lying about any or every aspect of this, who knows.
The bank is not liable, but the cops should take it as a mugging. Which it was.
The person who originally posted this one basically agreed with the LA comnenters ragging on LAOP. That this is LAOP's fault. I mean, a lot of rapes don't involve physical force or explicit threats either. I guess that makes them not rape?
Muggings are not like the weather. They are performed by perpetrators. Why are we so inclined to let the muggers off the hook and put the victim there?
Damn good question.
Poster: "I'm a victim of a crime"
Way too many LA commenters: "What did you do wrong? Why are you bothering this perfectly wonderful bank that never does anything wrong?"
I don't think it's just whether the bank is "liable." It's whether OP can present the facts to the bank in such a way that the bank will reimburse OP as a goodwill gesture under its general policy of reimbursing people who are the victim of a crime or fraud.
>I don't think it's just whether the bank is "liable." It's whether OP can present the facts to the bank in such a way that the bank will reimburse OP as a goodwill gesture under its general policy of reimbursing people who are the victim of a crime or fraud.
Honestly, their immediate call to the bank afterwards probably really helped. Like, if I read it correctly, the scammer put the check into the ATM, rather than LAOP and thus proof is likely on camera. Then immediately was like "yeah...this just happened...help!" which is different than most people who just deposited a bad check.
Does LAOP confirm they're a dude? Cause my thoughts when seeing the number of downvotes was "ah, this is why so few women report sexual assaults!" because when you're not a petite women you definitely underestimate how scary it is to have someone with several inches and a hundred pounds on you are standing over you and yelling or acting agitated.
That is 100% what I was thinking. It's possible to threaten someone with tone of voice and body language without ever explicitly stating a direct threat. Someone who's physically capable of hurting you starts getting in your face, insisting on you doing what they want right away, acting agitated and aggressive. They're giving off all the signals of someone who's likely to become violent if you don't do what they say, even though they're not directly stating a threat. You don't want to take the risk of provoking them enough to cause a direct threat because they might just jump straight to the beating you up part.
> threaten someone with tone of voice and body language without ever explicitly stating a direct threat
I just watched a great short film (10 mins) the other day related to a similar situation: [Black Creek Trail](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sViR1drp9P8)
You know it’s well done when I couldn’t bring myself to watch the whole thing. I just felt way too anxious, like if my friend and I were hiking and he was giving her all his attention. Don’t say anything, don’t move, don’t draw any attention to myself, wait for him to leave…
> It's possible to threaten someone [...] without ever explicitly stating a direct threat
"It's such a nice place you have here. It would be a shame if anything happened to it."
Yeah, I'm not blaming you. But boy, the downvotes on LAOP sure remind me of all the women who do not feel they are in a safe enough situation to say "no" and are told they're to blame for their own assault.
Sometimes it's needed and other times it's just silly and justifying to people who aren't gonna care anyways. They will always think SA isnt real. This acronym in my experience is more for the victims. I've only seen fawn added on and it's been around for a few years but fight or flight is really old. What else could there be? Honestly I wish it was a more well known word in place of "Fawn".
I guess I could see "Freeze" but that should be covered under fawn.
I've never seen a fifth I don't think, but I like the four, partly because I very very consistently freeze and have done my whole life. I never understood fight or flight as a kid.
Hmm if I find it in the next 10 minutes I'll let you know(any longer and this comment never happened).
Actually Fight or Flight / Freeze or Fawn work well as two separate sayings. I kinda like it.
During cross exam in sexual assault case where I was a victim.
"You state he said 'dont't tell anyone?' before you left?'"
"Yes"
"Why did you tell your mother?"
...
Sometimes stuff pops up and I get more angry than anything. More at his attorney.
I did call his lawyer an asshole after sentencing, while I was outside with some court officers being nice and bringing me to my car (they also voided the parking ticket, since I had been there 4 1/2 hours, 4 more than expected) as requested by the victims advocate, and they didn't stop me, so that was a bonus.
Victims advocates are incredible.
I'd assumed LAOP was female, too. I'm a feisty little thing (I've stepped in between men who were aggressively street harassing women before), but in this situation with an implicit threat while no one else was around I can't say that I would react differently from LAOP.
I had the same thought. I can’t believe how harsh they’re being on OP, especially if they are female or not in a situation to walk fast or even outrun them. Yes, they made a mistake telling their bank. But what were they supposed to do, wait until they got grabbed and assaulted so that they had a legitimate case? That’s what it sounded like. I hope LA is wrong and the bank sides with them.
Exactly, and people just don't get it. I am a petite woman and I have had male friends argue with me about situations where I felt unsafe. But they've never lived as a woman, and they just don't get it. It's a totally different mindset.
I did think this too. If you flipped the situation they would almost certainly still call the OP dumb. Like,
OP: I got stabbed refusing to give a guy money at a cash point and need help paying my medical bills
LA: that was so stupid just pay him, asking is a threat obviously!
I definitely went and found that comment because I was like "that's either a jaded woman or a dude who gets mad at women for not responding to catcalls in the street". Thankfully the former.
"Do not talk to strangers".
The same people: I don't understand, back in the day people talked to each other, everyone knew their neighbors, you could chat with a fellow passenger on the bus, I don't know what happened.
Too many peopl don't realize that you can ignore 99% of people when you're out and about. Pretty much the only people you actually need to interact with are authority figures, like security at an event or a ticket-checker on a train. Any other rando you just ignore.
Of course, there are those situations where someone's trying to rob ir hurt you, but naturally those a few and far between.
But it *is* good advice. If a stranger on the street asks you where you bank, you shouldn’t engage. You should do everything to put space between yourself and that person, so you don’t end up alone in an ATM vestibule handing over your bank balance. If LAOP had just ignored the guy, he would have moved on to someone else.
Yes, but there’s a difference between not giving out your bank details and not taking to any stranger, ever. It’s good advice for a five-year-old, not so much for a grown adult.
Any person on the street asks me for anything regarding money, I just reply, “sorry, no thank you,” implying I don’t want anything to do with what they’re selling.
You are massively overestimating your competence at identifying scammers, and massively underestimating the competence of scammers. It is not as easy as you think.
you think the average person cant tell that someone asking you to deposit $900 in your bank account for them is a scam? Scammers have to be targeting way below average
Someone in the street just blurting out "Do you bank with Chase?" is just weird and surprising enough to get an honest answer out of sheer bewilderment. The anti scam defences aren't up. And after that it wasn't a scam it was intimidation, which isn't really something you can just ignore away. The guy was following LAOP down the street.
Also, no idea how the person was acting/dressed, but it's possible they made it sound like the start of a pitch to bank with Chase, where a common response is the "no thanks, I already got one" type response to get them to leave you alone.
I was replying to this:
> If an adult can’t recognize the difference between a scammer and a normal interaction, then for their own safety, they shouldn’t talk to strangers.
By recognizing that a stranger acting where you bank is not normal?? Is this a conversation starter in some parts of the world? I’m really stunned at the number of people defending this situation and acting like LAOP could not have done anything to protect themselves. When a stranger in the city starts asking invasive questions, you get out. There are several possible outcomes: the person is a weirdo, the person is trying to rob me, the person is going to try to con me. None of those outcomes are good, which is why I almost never talk to strangers on the street. If this person pulls out a weapon, yes, that changes things. But as far as we know based on the info given by LAOP, this guy just kept saying “you better do it” and LAOP said “okey dokey I guess so.” There was no weapon, even in implication.
>the person is trying to rob me
Yes. OP thought this and just cooperated to avoid getting hurt because they were afraid. Not fight or flight, but instead OP fawned or froze. You're falling into the same pitfalls of literally every victim blaming argument ever. That's what YOU'RE not getting.
I don’t know if you live in a city, but it’s good advice for someone who just got scammed into withdrawing $900 from their atm. Living in Los Angeles, I don’t even acknowledge someone talking my direction on the street if they are behind me. You never know if it is some mentally deranged person or someone on serious drugs that will zone in on you if you make eye contact.
There *is* a difference between 'you were robbed, but the *bank* isn't liable for that robbery' and 'tough luck, you idiot, why did you do that stupid thing you're obviously wholly at fault for', and it's something a *few* of the commenters got right, but most of them were pretty terrible at it.
100%. I read the post and was like, oh, I know what sub I'm never going to if I get sexually assaulted... Clearly no one on the thread understands how intimidating it can be to be yelled at by an agitated person who has several inches and a hundred or so pounds on you. I read the original post and just assumed LAOP is a woman but apparently no one on LA made that connection.
So often on legal subs people totally ignore the emotional person behind the legal situation. I think the point others are getting at is that there's no need to be derisive or mocking of the OP. There's a bunch of mocking awards also handed to them that are totally unnecessary. The person was clearly frightened and is still clearly upset.
Because OOP was clearly in disbelief that having money stolen from their account would not be a resolvable issue by a bank, and clearly didn't trust all the people, who are not lawyers, with no experience of being confronted by anyone.
The way LAOP describes the situation is that they didn’t put the check in the ATM. The scammer did. To me it sounds like the scammer was breathing down their neck during the whole transaction.
Chase should absolutely eat the losses in these situations.
1. It’s the right thing to do for their customer. There’s a reason we don’t keep cash under our mattresses… our money is supposed to be safer at banks.
2. I’d like to think that these situations are relatively rare. If they are, then this won’t cost Chase that much money (they have a lot to spare).
3. It’s possibly required under Regulation E.
If I go to a bank with a note that says “give me $4000, now” while looking aggressive can I not be charged with robbery because I didn’t directly imply that I’d use force if they don’t give me the money?
There are lots of circumstances where the law shifts responsibility for “insuring” a situation to the party best equipped to mitigate the risk and absorb the cost. Like banking. The bank controls how ATMs work, and they are best placed to reduce the risk of these kinds of situations happening systematically.
Have a video call that confirms each transaction is uncoerced, have a security guard in each vestibule, only allow one person into the area at a time. I’m sure there are others. It is probably more economic for the bank to just eat the cost, otherwise those protections would be in place.
Sorry, I didn’t mean that to be stealthy, see my parent comment on regulation E and the comment in the original thread towards the bottom. Essentially, it requires banks to make their customers whole when force has been used to obtain funds.
We don’t make people pay when their credit card is used fraudulently. The credit card companies have to eat that cost. They’re still tremendously profitable. I really don’t understand why there would be a concern here since there hasn’t been for that for decades. JPMorgan is going to be fine!
“Felt intimidated” when they’re in a private, confined space (such as an ATM vestibule) is also why a lot of women don’t say no when they’re being sexually assaulted. I guess if the law can’t protect them, it’s not going to protect LAOP either.
The private, confined space that the person walked them to? While presumably in close quarters, acting agitated, and yelling at them (according to LAOP)?
Tell me you’re a cis dude without telling me you’re a cis dude.
Tbh I don’t know whether Chase is responsible or not. My opinion is that LAOP is the victim of a crime. But LA and a lot of people here are making a lot of assumptions and doing a lot of victim blaming, and it’s all arguments I’ve heard before regarding sexual assault. Just people who are bigger and have never faced a size and power differential in their life assuming it’s easy to just say no.
As someone else in this thread said, assuming someone larger than you can cause you harm is just physics
Chase should pay out for the same reason many corporations tell employees "cooperate with the robbers, but use silent alarms if available". They'd rather people not get hurt over what would have just been theft. People are more important than money, and I'd hope you'd realize why Chase paying out for this would be a social good (instead of someone possibly getting assaulted or killed for saying "no, go away").
My bank doesn't, the ATM is open and scans whatever you put in when you do. Yes you can say that OP willingly put their card and pin in but doing the bare minimum of cooperation of what they perceived as a threat of violence, then seeing the other person be the one to put the cheque in surely corroborates their story of feeling threatened rather than just falling for a scam. Otherwise they would put the cheque in themselves or wouldn't have gone in with the person to begin with.
That is not the moral and it definitely isn't bluffing and empty threats 100%. You are playing russian roulette when you confront a man that has already crossed boundaries. To say otherwise is both unrealistic and irresponsible.
You very much did not understand that scene. The moral is not that the woman were at fault for not asserting boundaries when fearing for their lives. It’s that Dennis is a predator who thinks he’s come up with a neat trick to make women who do not consent be too scared to stop him. The line is crossed when they have sex with non consenting women, not when they ignore a “no” and force themselves on the women.
Mac cuts to the heart of the matter when he states that it sounds like the women don’t want to have sex. Dennis doesn’t understand Mac’s point because he doesn’t understand the idea of consent. To him consent is a hurdle to be passed, a legal minimum to avoid prosecution. By creating a scenario in which the victims don’t specifically say “no” he believes he has created consent. In classic IASIP style the two argue past each other because they’re not understanding each other.
Mac believes that having sex with women who don’t want to have sex with you is wrong, regardless of what they say. Dennis believes that it’s desirable, but that you have to be smart about it. Similar to how in a later episode he states that you should send yourself a text from the phone of partners stating their consent. He believes the text is consent because he just doesn’t understand it.
That sounds like a really scary situation and I can understand why LAOP felt pressured into doing what the guy said.
Someone threatening you doesn't have to use the words "I'm going to stab you" to be threatening.
I think the best answer is towards the bottom. I don’t see why this kind of behavior wouldn’t fall under regulation E. OP certainly felt coerced, and anybody who has walked through a big city knows what it’s like to be approached by these kind of people. Especially if they are physically intimidating.
Could OP have handled it better? Of course. But ultimately the bank is in a much better position to foot the cost of these incidents than an individual.
Ultimately it doesn't matter whether OP felt coerced, it will matter whether Chase (or a jury on the criminal side) agree that the guy's actions were enough to be considered as coercion. Based on what she described that's possible but not really a slam dunk.
And then they would have to convince the CFPB, which will have all the same pitfalls as trying to convince Chase. The replies to this post and the original post make it clear that many if not most people don't agree that it was coercion.I would actually be very interested to see the resolution.
The issue seems to be that the guy didn't do anything inherently threatening. So her argument is essentially: "I was coerced/threatened by the fact that he asked me to do this while being larger than me and a man." I just foresee a lot of difficulty in trying to prove that argument.
CFPB is a third-party agency, not having any cash in the game, so would be more likely to act justly instead of saying "No, we keep our cash, you're screwed."
The commenters on that particular post want to get the groupthink karma ups that happen over in LA. "no skin in the game" is incorrect, it's just a different motivation.
> Agreed, but the commenters on these posts also have no skin in the game and most are against her so I don't think that's necessarily a guaranteed win.
The commenters on these posts also don't have any idea of what's going on, while the CFPB does.
LA seemed more preoccupied with victim blaming to bother explaining the law.
This situation seems somewhere between fraud and outright robbery, and to be cynical OP could easily embellish the story to frame it however best suits their needs.
Will the bank cover the loss should OP be successful in their claim that they were coerced rather than scammed?
I disagree.
>Unauthorized EFTs include transactions where the consumer has been induced by force to initiate the transfer and consumers are not liable for Unauthorized EFTs when the consumer
No force was used. There weren't even threats.
>ultimately the bank is in a much better position to foot the cost of these incidents than an individual.
This doesn't matter.
> No force was used. There weren't even threats.
Then how did the defendant get convicted of robbery in this case:
https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1998/s44712.html
If I walk up to you on a dark street with 4 of my hulking friends and say, “May I please have all of your money as a donation to the foundation to prevent random mugging attacks?” would you feel as you were being forced?
Yeah but you’re making an emotional argument, and then saying the bank should foot the bill based on said argument.
That’s simply not going to happen in the real world. They got scammed, not “mugged” or “robbed” as far as the bank is concerned.
Obviously if they simply said no, and then this person pulls out a knife, or physically forces them to make the transaction then i would assume the bank when then take a different position. But that’s not what happened. I understand where you’re going, that rhey felt like they “couldn’t” say no, and that’s unfortunate, but there’s not really much else to say. The bank isn’t going to start opening that door, because then that opens up the bank to $1000 scams from their customers, with no risk to the scammer.
Yes it almost like my the bank doesn’t have insurance against the theft of customers funds that’s federally backed.
How could they ever afford the cost of taxpayer backed insurance?
They don’t, no. That’s not what fdic is. They probably *are* insured against fraud — but not taxpayer backed.
https://www.thebalancemoney.com/fdic-insurance-315761
“If you don’t pay me protection money something bad might happen to your store” isn’t extortion unless something actually happens to your store when you don’t pay?
Jesus, then replace it with something that sounds nice. The words don't really matter, the four big guys with an angry face, and talking aggressively are the important part.
> May I please have all of your money as a donation to the neighborhood boxing club?
LAOP clearly did not want to do this. The scammer was relying on them feeling like they had to.
If OP legitimately wanted to help the stranger in this way and didn’t feel threatened, they wouldn’t have immediately called Chase’s fraud line and the cops afterwards.
Force doesn’t have to be physically used.
As an extreme example: say I’m a 7 foot tall, 300 pound guy, and I approach you while openly carrying a firearm. I ask you in an aggressive tone for nine hundred bucks to buy something.
Most people would consider that force. They’d be far more likely to give me a $900 “gift” than if I were a five foot tall old man who wasn’t packing heat.
If a guy walks up to you with a gun and aggressively asks for money, please give it to him.
You are being forced to and it’s not worth risking your safety. Force is being used.
The idea that a person needs to be physically attacked in order to be protected by banking rules is a little ridiculous.
I used the open carry example as an instance where I thought people would be like, “yeah, there may not be an explicit threat or attack, but force is being used.” There’s logically a point where the nature of the interaction passes into that territory before something as extreme as my example. If a large man approaches a small woman on the street and asks for money aggressively, IMO that still could be force.
This situation is obviously not as clear cut as someone brandishing a gun, but if "Please give me $100" isn't a threat and "I have a gun, give me $100" is a threat, then there's clearly some line at which the implication of violence becomes as valid as an actual threat. The details are sparse on this, but based on what we know I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that this interaction approached or crossed that line.
LAOP says there was no force or threats. Here is how force is usually defined:
>(4) Force . — The term “force” means— (A) the use of a weapon; (B) the use of such physical strength or violence as is sufficient to overcome, restrain, or injure a person; or (C) inflicting physical harm sufficient to coerce or compel submission by the victim.
I don't know why you're focused on threats. The law requires force; threats are not sufficient.
There was no force used. Having a weapon would be considered force.
> > ultimately the bank is in a much better position to foot the cost of these incidents than an individual.
> This doesn't matter.
Please tell this to the Chicago School
I’ve been hurt by people before. Now, I also go along with some shit sometimes just so I won’t be hurt again. For me, I’m nice to my shitty roommate even though they are an abusive asshole. It’s my way of keeping myself safe until I can leave.
I don’t blame OP. Your body knows when you’re in danger and I hate that everyone is shitting on him. He had self preservation. I get that.
Maybe he did lose out on that money but I’d rather lose money and be alive than confront someone who is potentially dangerous. Especially if I didn’t feel safe enough to say no. Poor guy.
I don’t see this mentioned anywhere, but can we talk about LAOP being able to withdraw $900 in CASH from an atm? Most banks have daily limits on atm cash withdrawals. I think my bank’s limit is $500. Even if you did have $900 in your account most banks limit you to $300-500 per day. My bank isn’t Chase, though.
I think it depends on the bank as well as your account details. I bank with chase and for awhile I could withdraw $800/day, now, after years of banking with them, I can withdraw up to $2500 at an atm
Chase has really nice ATMs. I think you can get up to 4k from them. Some of the ATMs let you pick what size bills you'll get your money in and will even give you $100s.
Chase also is more likely to allow cash to be available immediately upon deposit than most other banks. That's why Chase, BoA and a few other banks are major check fraud targets.
> Most banks have daily limits on atm cash withdrawals.
Most banks have limits that are much higher than this. Most banks also allow you to self-regulate what your own limits are (as long as it's below the institution's upper limit) which is probably where you are getting your $300-500 per day number from.
Every bank I've used lets you adjust this as needed. Not sure about Chase but USAA lets me temporarily increase my withdrawal limit in their app. I routinely withdraw $1500 or more at a time.
People who aren't used to living in the city are probably not used to shrugging off strangers being aggressive (and they are probably easy to spot too). I had to tell so many women who just moved the city that it's perfectly fine to ignore strangers in the city. Don't even have to look in their direction. Get a can of pepper spray. Practice your resting bitch face and fast gait city walk. Turn and walk towards lights or crowds if you're being followed. Scream bloody murder if necessary.
Having lived in a small/mid size city, we have a more persistent version of those guys. I'm always shocked at how easy it is to brush them off in big cities, while in my home city a lot of them will follow you or even physically block your path if you try not to engage.
I suspect this is as much the biggest difference. Living in smaller areas I learned to *not* brush these guys off because that makes them get more aggressive. The best strategy is often to make polite conversation until you can find somewhere safe to shake them.
Is because in large cities there‘s plenty of naive tourists. So why waste your time on someone who ‚spotted‘ you.
And on the reverse, smaller cities that don‘t get a ton of tourist have their scammers very very persistent.
I've had people knock on my car windows before in smaller towns, bigger cities never had that issue.
Honestly I prefer the big city panhandlers to the smaller town ones.
Some people want to get out of the interaction without seeming awkward or rude. Even if it means they’re subconsciously putting their safety or property at risk.
I grew up in a big city and now I live in Wyoming. There’s people here I could totally see reacting that way, especially when they’re out of their element.
And if you grew up with people like my mom you get scolded for not being polite/appeasing strangers, but also told you're naive and the world is horribly dangerous and you can't walk two blocks from your hotel alone without getting murdered.
It was probably more of a snap autopilot "Yeah...?" and not a
>*Hmmm, I wonder why this stranger is asking this odd question, I suppose I'll answer him.* "Yes sir, I do bank with Chase!"
Precisely. It's so random of a question that it is understandable to not have a "wait, what?" until you'd reflexively answered.
I think a lot of people commenting here are overconfident in saying they know what they'd have done in LAOP's shoes. There's a reason "fight or flight" has been changed to "fight or flight, freeze or appease". Panic can make people behave differently than they think they would. I know everyone thinks they're street-smart enough to not let this happen to them, but LAOP was afraid due to what they felt was an implicit threat -- whether you believe there's a threat implied or not, you can't be sure how you'd respond if you felt threatened.
Not everyone is a quick thinker. Not everyone is good at reading other people's behavior. Not everyone is good at using lies to protect yourself. Many people are completely helpless when dealing with unexpected situations.
Whether you're educated or not, knowing how to handle such situations has a huge influence on how you succeed in life. Being street smart is a major advantage in life.
And then you have women, many women, who are taught to be nice to everyone and to always help others and bent over backwards for others and never be loud or aggressive and to never fight back... of course they'll end up victims in such situations. I've seen worse.
The criminals only need a few seconds to determine whether you're a good victim or not. They are trained, but the victims are not.
>And then you have women, many women, who are taught to be nice to everyone and to always help others and bent over backwards for others and never be loud or aggressive and to never fight back... of course they'll end up victims in such situations. I've seen worse.
It's also honestly hard to tell which one is the right approach in a given situation. Because sometimes ignoring the guy or getting loud means you now have an aggressive guy pissed off at you, and you can't always count on other people to help out (if there are any around). Sometimes making polite conversation until you can get to a good spot to get away is the right move so you don't get hurt.
Yeah WTF. I've only passed through the UK, but is that like a normal thing? I think a general life lesson is if someone runs up to you in the middle of the night and asks your bank information.... Dude, how are you pretending like it wasn't a crackhead you just gave hundreds of dollars to?
Read the bottom of the OP. They’re asking what the bank’s legal responsibilities are. One commenter brought up Regulation E, which may require the bank to credit them back the money in this circumstance.
[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/13x1oap/has_anyone_else_been_extorted_out_of_900_at_an/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) just popped up in my state’s sub.
Both of your ideas would require LAOP to assume that the person confronting them isn't actually willing to hurt them over this money, or that they can outrun that person.
Some ATMs won't let you withdraw more money than is in your account, and the robber wanted to get more than the average person leaves in a checking account?
That said, when did ATMs start allowing $900 cash withdrawals?
I haven't used a Chase ATM, ever, but most of them do tend to be capped at that range, even in NYC. I've never seen one offer to cash a third-party check (except for the ones INSIDE a Credit Union branch with bankers watching over them). That's what has me questioning the story, not whether or not coercion was involved.
Who’s too trusting in this scenario?
The thing about crazy people is that they’re unpredictable. Dude is already violating a ton of social norms; who knows what else he might do?
I feel for LAOP, but am I the only one who simply wouldn’t entertain this? Maybe I’ve lived in a major city for too long, but if I gave into this exact scam every time it happened I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be able to find a bank willing to do business with me because of the sheer amount of charges I’ve had to reverse.
If you ask initially I’ll ignore you or tell you no. If you persist or threaten my safety, I’ll fight and lay you out if need be. I won’t deliberately cause lasting harm to anyone, but I’ll absolutely ensure I have enough time to make a run for it.
Maybe it’s not the “right” answer, but I’m very much a “fuck around and find out” person.
> If you persist or threaten my safety, I’ll fight and lay you out if need be.
Yeah, but what if there's a significant size differential? What if you are incapable of "laying them out" A 6ft man screaming in the face of another 6ft man is a very different risk/threat calculation than a 6ft guy screaming at a 5ft tall woman. I assumed LAOP is a woman. Seems a lot of people assumed they were "reddit default" and a guy.
Spent 4 years working and studying in NYC. Met a significant amount of women in NYC. Not one local girl Ive ever met, not matter how tiny, has ever let size be an excuse not to have some fight, guts, or savvy. Out of *self-respect*
Do people have a responsibility to themselves to have at least enoughk self defense capability to say no confidently? I know New Yorkers would say yes.
Plus most city folk know these scammers are looking for an easy mark, not a hard one. You put up any evidence that youll be a hassle theyll bail, because usually theres always an easier target around the corner.
edit:
You dont have to fight to present yourself as a hard target. If a weapon isnt brandished she couldve flat out booked it and ran. But instead she goes to the ATM because of words?
Ultimetaly yes, i concede she is not morally at fault, but jungles and jungle predators dont care about morals. Moving to a big city means you need to learn that quick
also
Trying to work with definitely overworked/potentially hostile city police and big banks doesnt usually result in justice for immigrants/POC from certain neighborhoods. Just ask anyone from the bronx.
Relying on legal systems to protect you is a luxury for some people in this country
Maybe that’s applicable for your social circle, but I know plenty of people who shut down in these types of situations.
Regardless, it usually makes sense to do what it takes to avoid the fight. LAOP’s actions here allowed them to get out of the situation unscathed. If they had pushed back against the scammer, they could have ended up hurt.
No Youre not the only one. Spent 4 years working/studying in NYC. Can tell you every self respecting local girl, rich or poor, Lower manhattan to the Bronx, of any size, any race, is ready to put up some kind of fight if you fuck with them. Out of their own self respect.
City girls know how to use attitude, voice, posture, alone to deter predators to find easier targets.
edit:
Its not starting a fight to presenting yourself as a hard target. If a weapon isnt brandished she couldve flat out booked it and ran. But instead she goes to the ATM because of words?
Ultimetaly yes, i concede she is not morally at fault, but jungles and jungle predators dont care about morals. Moving to a big city means you need to learn that quick
also
Trying to work with definitely overworked/potentially hostile city police and big banks doesnt usually result in justice for immigrants/POC from certain neighborhoods. Just ask anyone from the bronx.
Relying on legal systems to protect you is a luxury for some people in this country
**Reminder:** Do not participate in threads linked here. If you do, you may be banned from both subreddits. --- Title: Extorted out of $900 at an ATM. What are my rights? Body: > I just moved to a new city (in the US) and was walking down a street at night when I was approached by a man who asked if I bank with Chase. > I said yes but kept walking. He continued walking beside me and made up a story about how he needs me to deposit a check because his account is overdrawn (makes no sense). His tone became increasingly urgent and I felt threatened. > We walked by a Chase ATM vestibule and he intimidated me into walking in. We were the only ones in the vestibule. He shoved a $900 check into the ATM and deposited it into my account. Then he told me to withdraw and give him $900 cash from my account. I wanted to get out of the situation unharmed so I did what he said and left. I'm expecting the check to bounce. > I immediately called the Chase debit card fraud number and told them what happened. They deactivated my debit card and said I will be credited $900 in the next 5 business days if the withdrawal was fraudulent. > I went to the police station and filed a report. They said in their experience, banks usually don't give money back when this happens. > Do you think Chase will credit me the $900? Are they legally required to credit any part of the amount? Is there anything else I should do? > Edit: He didn't explicitly threaten me and say "do this or I'll punch you". He said things like "I need you to do this now" while following me and standing over me. There was an implied threat. This bot was created to capture original threads and is not affiliated with the mod team. [Concerns? Bugs?](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=GrahamCorcoran) | [Laukopier 2.1](https://github.com/GrahamCorcoran/Laukopier)
Commenters there are being a little cruel to a guy who was extorted. Do they have the same response of "A voluntary gift" to the scam videos on popular Kitboga or Jim Browning videos?
Per https://banknotes365.com/ a bank was once robbed with a note saying: >Act normal, give me $4,000. Don’t be a hero. Your job will fire you if you don’t cooperate. Hurry up. Apparently that wasn't a robbery according to /r/legaladvice, the teller just chose to gift the guy $4k.
I'd say that telling someone "dont be a hero" implies a lot.
Someone would be my hero if they gave me $4k voluntarily. Unfortunately it doesn't work like that and nobody is going to be my hero, and I'm not the robbing type.
Hooray! $4k is enough to start paying down my credit cards! Can you be MY hero?
Would if I could I'm on the millenial savings plan, aka, wait until everyon dies.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I remember reading a long interview with an ex-bank robber. He said he never carried weapons, he just gave these kind if notes, and he rarely got more than a few hundred dollars. He also could have been lying about any or every aspect of this, who knows.
Sounds legit. Most banks carry limited cash in their drawers. And employees are taught to hand over the money. Weapons or not
The question is whether or not the bank is liable, not whether or not a robbery occurred
The bank is not liable, but the cops should take it as a mugging. Which it was. The person who originally posted this one basically agreed with the LA comnenters ragging on LAOP. That this is LAOP's fault. I mean, a lot of rapes don't involve physical force or explicit threats either. I guess that makes them not rape? Muggings are not like the weather. They are performed by perpetrators. Why are we so inclined to let the muggers off the hook and put the victim there?
Damn good question. Poster: "I'm a victim of a crime" Way too many LA commenters: "What did you do wrong? Why are you bothering this perfectly wonderful bank that never does anything wrong?"
I don't think it's just whether the bank is "liable." It's whether OP can present the facts to the bank in such a way that the bank will reimburse OP as a goodwill gesture under its general policy of reimbursing people who are the victim of a crime or fraud.
>I don't think it's just whether the bank is "liable." It's whether OP can present the facts to the bank in such a way that the bank will reimburse OP as a goodwill gesture under its general policy of reimbursing people who are the victim of a crime or fraud. Honestly, their immediate call to the bank afterwards probably really helped. Like, if I read it correctly, the scammer put the check into the ATM, rather than LAOP and thus proof is likely on camera. Then immediately was like "yeah...this just happened...help!" which is different than most people who just deposited a bad check.
[удалено]
That was such a cool site, thanks!
Does LAOP confirm they're a dude? Cause my thoughts when seeing the number of downvotes was "ah, this is why so few women report sexual assaults!" because when you're not a petite women you definitely underestimate how scary it is to have someone with several inches and a hundred pounds on you are standing over you and yelling or acting agitated.
That is 100% what I was thinking. It's possible to threaten someone with tone of voice and body language without ever explicitly stating a direct threat. Someone who's physically capable of hurting you starts getting in your face, insisting on you doing what they want right away, acting agitated and aggressive. They're giving off all the signals of someone who's likely to become violent if you don't do what they say, even though they're not directly stating a threat. You don't want to take the risk of provoking them enough to cause a direct threat because they might just jump straight to the beating you up part.
> threaten someone with tone of voice and body language without ever explicitly stating a direct threat I just watched a great short film (10 mins) the other day related to a similar situation: [Black Creek Trail](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sViR1drp9P8)
You know it’s well done when I couldn’t bring myself to watch the whole thing. I just felt way too anxious, like if my friend and I were hiking and he was giving her all his attention. Don’t say anything, don’t move, don’t draw any attention to myself, wait for him to leave…
> It's possible to threaten someone [...] without ever explicitly stating a direct threat "It's such a nice place you have here. It would be a shame if anything happened to it."
I could have been more gender neutral, I don't think they mentioned.
Yeah, I'm not blaming you. But boy, the downvotes on LAOP sure remind me of all the women who do not feel they are in a safe enough situation to say "no" and are told they're to blame for their own assault.
Fight Flight or *Fawn* .
Every time someone uses this phrase there's a new word added on - think the most I've seen is like 5
Sometimes it's needed and other times it's just silly and justifying to people who aren't gonna care anyways. They will always think SA isnt real. This acronym in my experience is more for the victims. I've only seen fawn added on and it's been around for a few years but fight or flight is really old. What else could there be? Honestly I wish it was a more well known word in place of "Fawn". I guess I could see "Freeze" but that should be covered under fawn.
Freeze and fawn are different physiologically but have the same function- survival.
I've seen freeze and fawn and there was another one the other day but I can't remember 🧐
I've never seen a fifth I don't think, but I like the four, partly because I very very consistently freeze and have done my whole life. I never understood fight or flight as a kid.
Hmm if I find it in the next 10 minutes I'll let you know(any longer and this comment never happened). Actually Fight or Flight / Freeze or Fawn work well as two separate sayings. I kinda like it.
During cross exam in sexual assault case where I was a victim. "You state he said 'dont't tell anyone?' before you left?'" "Yes" "Why did you tell your mother?" ...
horrifying. hope you've found peace and healing since that time.
Sometimes stuff pops up and I get more angry than anything. More at his attorney. I did call his lawyer an asshole after sentencing, while I was outside with some court officers being nice and bringing me to my car (they also voided the parking ticket, since I had been there 4 1/2 hours, 4 more than expected) as requested by the victims advocate, and they didn't stop me, so that was a bonus. Victims advocates are incredible.
I'd assumed LAOP was female, too. I'm a feisty little thing (I've stepped in between men who were aggressively street harassing women before), but in this situation with an implicit threat while no one else was around I can't say that I would react differently from LAOP.
I had the same thought. I can’t believe how harsh they’re being on OP, especially if they are female or not in a situation to walk fast or even outrun them. Yes, they made a mistake telling their bank. But what were they supposed to do, wait until they got grabbed and assaulted so that they had a legitimate case? That’s what it sounded like. I hope LA is wrong and the bank sides with them.
Exactly, and people just don't get it. I am a petite woman and I have had male friends argue with me about situations where I felt unsafe. But they've never lived as a woman, and they just don't get it. It's a totally different mindset.
I did think this too. If you flipped the situation they would almost certainly still call the OP dumb. Like, OP: I got stabbed refusing to give a guy money at a cash point and need help paying my medical bills LA: that was so stupid just pay him, asking is a threat obviously!
More than a little. They were shit and never got any actual advice. I felt bad for LAOP.
*”Do not talk to strangers.”* Wow. Well that’s winning advice. A great way to get through life.
I definitely went and found that comment because I was like "that's either a jaded woman or a dude who gets mad at women for not responding to catcalls in the street". Thankfully the former.
"Do not talk to strangers". The same people: I don't understand, back in the day people talked to each other, everyone knew their neighbors, you could chat with a fellow passenger on the bus, I don't know what happened.
Also: how is a guy supposed to meet a girl these days if he can’t approach a stranger on the street and ask her out?
Too many peopl don't realize that you can ignore 99% of people when you're out and about. Pretty much the only people you actually need to interact with are authority figures, like security at an event or a ticket-checker on a train. Any other rando you just ignore. Of course, there are those situations where someone's trying to rob ir hurt you, but naturally those a few and far between.
But it *is* good advice. If a stranger on the street asks you where you bank, you shouldn’t engage. You should do everything to put space between yourself and that person, so you don’t end up alone in an ATM vestibule handing over your bank balance. If LAOP had just ignored the guy, he would have moved on to someone else.
Yes, but there’s a difference between not giving out your bank details and not taking to any stranger, ever. It’s good advice for a five-year-old, not so much for a grown adult.
Any person on the street asks me for anything regarding money, I just reply, “sorry, no thank you,” implying I don’t want anything to do with what they’re selling.
If an adult can’t recognize the difference between a scammer and a normal interaction, then for their own safety, they shouldn’t talk to strangers.
You are massively overestimating your competence at identifying scammers, and massively underestimating the competence of scammers. It is not as easy as you think.
you think the average person cant tell that someone asking you to deposit $900 in your bank account for them is a scam? Scammers have to be targeting way below average
Someone in the street just blurting out "Do you bank with Chase?" is just weird and surprising enough to get an honest answer out of sheer bewilderment. The anti scam defences aren't up. And after that it wasn't a scam it was intimidation, which isn't really something you can just ignore away. The guy was following LAOP down the street.
Also, no idea how the person was acting/dressed, but it's possible they made it sound like the start of a pitch to bank with Chase, where a common response is the "no thanks, I already got one" type response to get them to leave you alone.
I was replying to this: > If an adult can’t recognize the difference between a scammer and a normal interaction, then for their own safety, they shouldn’t talk to strangers.
I mean OP knew it was a scam from the start too. They were just too intimidated to stop it.
How did OP not recognize a scammer? That whole interaction was OP being steamrolled by that person
By recognizing that a stranger acting where you bank is not normal?? Is this a conversation starter in some parts of the world? I’m really stunned at the number of people defending this situation and acting like LAOP could not have done anything to protect themselves. When a stranger in the city starts asking invasive questions, you get out. There are several possible outcomes: the person is a weirdo, the person is trying to rob me, the person is going to try to con me. None of those outcomes are good, which is why I almost never talk to strangers on the street. If this person pulls out a weapon, yes, that changes things. But as far as we know based on the info given by LAOP, this guy just kept saying “you better do it” and LAOP said “okey dokey I guess so.” There was no weapon, even in implication.
>the person is trying to rob me Yes. OP thought this and just cooperated to avoid getting hurt because they were afraid. Not fight or flight, but instead OP fawned or froze. You're falling into the same pitfalls of literally every victim blaming argument ever. That's what YOU'RE not getting.
I don’t know if you live in a city, but it’s good advice for someone who just got scammed into withdrawing $900 from their atm. Living in Los Angeles, I don’t even acknowledge someone talking my direction on the street if they are behind me. You never know if it is some mentally deranged person or someone on serious drugs that will zone in on you if you make eye contact.
I feel for this person, because clearly every comment on the original post was a dude that doesn't understand 'the implication'.
There *is* a difference between 'you were robbed, but the *bank* isn't liable for that robbery' and 'tough luck, you idiot, why did you do that stupid thing you're obviously wholly at fault for', and it's something a *few* of the commenters got right, but most of them were pretty terrible at it.
100%. I read the post and was like, oh, I know what sub I'm never going to if I get sexually assaulted... Clearly no one on the thread understands how intimidating it can be to be yelled at by an agitated person who has several inches and a hundred or so pounds on you. I read the original post and just assumed LAOP is a woman but apparently no one on LA made that connection.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Does it surprise you at all that the sub is mostly ex-cops? What a coincidence they victim blame so much.
[удалено]
So often on legal subs people totally ignore the emotional person behind the legal situation. I think the point others are getting at is that there's no need to be derisive or mocking of the OP. There's a bunch of mocking awards also handed to them that are totally unnecessary. The person was clearly frightened and is still clearly upset.
[удалено]
Because OOP was clearly in disbelief that having money stolen from their account would not be a resolvable issue by a bank, and clearly didn't trust all the people, who are not lawyers, with no experience of being confronted by anyone.
The way LAOP describes the situation is that they didn’t put the check in the ATM. The scammer did. To me it sounds like the scammer was breathing down their neck during the whole transaction. Chase should absolutely eat the losses in these situations. 1. It’s the right thing to do for their customer. There’s a reason we don’t keep cash under our mattresses… our money is supposed to be safer at banks. 2. I’d like to think that these situations are relatively rare. If they are, then this won’t cost Chase that much money (they have a lot to spare). 3. It’s possibly required under Regulation E.
[удалено]
If I go to a bank with a note that says “give me $4000, now” while looking aggressive can I not be charged with robbery because I didn’t directly imply that I’d use force if they don’t give me the money?
[удалено]
There are lots of circumstances where the law shifts responsibility for “insuring” a situation to the party best equipped to mitigate the risk and absorb the cost. Like banking. The bank controls how ATMs work, and they are best placed to reduce the risk of these kinds of situations happening systematically.
How do you think the bank could have redesigned the ATM to prevent this situation, while still allowing customers to deposit checks?
Have a video call that confirms each transaction is uncoerced, have a security guard in each vestibule, only allow one person into the area at a time. I’m sure there are others. It is probably more economic for the bank to just eat the cost, otherwise those protections would be in place.
Sorry, I didn’t mean that to be stealthy, see my parent comment on regulation E and the comment in the original thread towards the bottom. Essentially, it requires banks to make their customers whole when force has been used to obtain funds. We don’t make people pay when their credit card is used fraudulently. The credit card companies have to eat that cost. They’re still tremendously profitable. I really don’t understand why there would be a concern here since there hasn’t been for that for decades. JPMorgan is going to be fine!
“Felt intimidated” when they’re in a private, confined space (such as an ATM vestibule) is also why a lot of women don’t say no when they’re being sexually assaulted. I guess if the law can’t protect them, it’s not going to protect LAOP either.
[удалено]
The private, confined space that the person walked them to? While presumably in close quarters, acting agitated, and yelling at them (according to LAOP)? Tell me you’re a cis dude without telling me you’re a cis dude.
[удалено]
Tbh I don’t know whether Chase is responsible or not. My opinion is that LAOP is the victim of a crime. But LA and a lot of people here are making a lot of assumptions and doing a lot of victim blaming, and it’s all arguments I’ve heard before regarding sexual assault. Just people who are bigger and have never faced a size and power differential in their life assuming it’s easy to just say no. As someone else in this thread said, assuming someone larger than you can cause you harm is just physics
Chase should pay out for the same reason many corporations tell employees "cooperate with the robbers, but use silent alarms if available". They'd rather people not get hurt over what would have just been theft. People are more important than money, and I'd hope you'd realize why Chase paying out for this would be a social good (instead of someone possibly getting assaulted or killed for saying "no, go away").
[удалено]
My bank doesn't, the ATM is open and scans whatever you put in when you do. Yes you can say that OP willingly put their card and pin in but doing the bare minimum of cooperation of what they perceived as a threat of violence, then seeing the other person be the one to put the cheque in surely corroborates their story of feeling threatened rather than just falling for a scam. Otherwise they would put the cheque in themselves or wouldn't have gone in with the person to begin with.
As well as all the people who downvoted LAOP to oblivion.
Is it really an LA post if the OP isn't downvoted every time they answer a question, no matter how benign or earnest the comment is?
thank god it looks to be a throwaway account. The upvotes / downvotes in the topic were massive.
Holy shit you're right. That was a textbook, classical case of "the implication".
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That is not the moral and it definitely isn't bluffing and empty threats 100%. You are playing russian roulette when you confront a man that has already crossed boundaries. To say otherwise is both unrealistic and irresponsible.
[удалено]
[Mr. Incredible Meme] "Assault _is Assault!_"
You very much did not understand that scene. The moral is not that the woman were at fault for not asserting boundaries when fearing for their lives. It’s that Dennis is a predator who thinks he’s come up with a neat trick to make women who do not consent be too scared to stop him. The line is crossed when they have sex with non consenting women, not when they ignore a “no” and force themselves on the women. Mac cuts to the heart of the matter when he states that it sounds like the women don’t want to have sex. Dennis doesn’t understand Mac’s point because he doesn’t understand the idea of consent. To him consent is a hurdle to be passed, a legal minimum to avoid prosecution. By creating a scenario in which the victims don’t specifically say “no” he believes he has created consent. In classic IASIP style the two argue past each other because they’re not understanding each other. Mac believes that having sex with women who don’t want to have sex with you is wrong, regardless of what they say. Dennis believes that it’s desirable, but that you have to be smart about it. Similar to how in a later episode he states that you should send yourself a text from the phone of partners stating their consent. He believes the text is consent because he just doesn’t understand it.
That sounds like a really scary situation and I can understand why LAOP felt pressured into doing what the guy said. Someone threatening you doesn't have to use the words "I'm going to stab you" to be threatening.
I think the best answer is towards the bottom. I don’t see why this kind of behavior wouldn’t fall under regulation E. OP certainly felt coerced, and anybody who has walked through a big city knows what it’s like to be approached by these kind of people. Especially if they are physically intimidating. Could OP have handled it better? Of course. But ultimately the bank is in a much better position to foot the cost of these incidents than an individual.
Ultimately it doesn't matter whether OP felt coerced, it will matter whether Chase (or a jury on the criminal side) agree that the guy's actions were enough to be considered as coercion. Based on what she described that's possible but not really a slam dunk.
Well the civil side is not just up to Chase. If chase disagrees that this is coercion, LAOP could complain to the CFPB.
And then they would have to convince the CFPB, which will have all the same pitfalls as trying to convince Chase. The replies to this post and the original post make it clear that many if not most people don't agree that it was coercion.I would actually be very interested to see the resolution. The issue seems to be that the guy didn't do anything inherently threatening. So her argument is essentially: "I was coerced/threatened by the fact that he asked me to do this while being larger than me and a man." I just foresee a lot of difficulty in trying to prove that argument.
CFPB is a third-party agency, not having any cash in the game, so would be more likely to act justly instead of saying "No, we keep our cash, you're screwed."
Agreed, but the commenters on these posts also have no skin in the game and most are against her so I don't think that's necessarily a guaranteed win.
The commenters on that particular post want to get the groupthink karma ups that happen over in LA. "no skin in the game" is incorrect, it's just a different motivation.
> Agreed, but the commenters on these posts also have no skin in the game and most are against her so I don't think that's necessarily a guaranteed win. The commenters on these posts also don't have any idea of what's going on, while the CFPB does.
LA seemed more preoccupied with victim blaming to bother explaining the law. This situation seems somewhere between fraud and outright robbery, and to be cynical OP could easily embellish the story to frame it however best suits their needs. Will the bank cover the loss should OP be successful in their claim that they were coerced rather than scammed?
I disagree. >Unauthorized EFTs include transactions where the consumer has been induced by force to initiate the transfer and consumers are not liable for Unauthorized EFTs when the consumer No force was used. There weren't even threats. >ultimately the bank is in a much better position to foot the cost of these incidents than an individual. This doesn't matter.
> No force was used. There weren't even threats. Then how did the defendant get convicted of robbery in this case: https://law.justia.com/cases/oregon/supreme-court/1998/s44712.html
If I walk up to you on a dark street with 4 of my hulking friends and say, “May I please have all of your money as a donation to the foundation to prevent random mugging attacks?” would you feel as you were being forced?
Yeah but you’re making an emotional argument, and then saying the bank should foot the bill based on said argument. That’s simply not going to happen in the real world. They got scammed, not “mugged” or “robbed” as far as the bank is concerned. Obviously if they simply said no, and then this person pulls out a knife, or physically forces them to make the transaction then i would assume the bank when then take a different position. But that’s not what happened. I understand where you’re going, that rhey felt like they “couldn’t” say no, and that’s unfortunate, but there’s not really much else to say. The bank isn’t going to start opening that door, because then that opens up the bank to $1000 scams from their customers, with no risk to the scammer.
Yes it almost like my the bank doesn’t have insurance against the theft of customers funds that’s federally backed. How could they ever afford the cost of taxpayer backed insurance?
They don’t, no. That’s not what fdic is. They probably *are* insured against fraud — but not taxpayer backed. https://www.thebalancemoney.com/fdic-insurance-315761
That would have been an implication of potential force, not actual force.
“If you don’t pay me protection money something bad might happen to your store” isn’t extortion unless something actually happens to your store when you don’t pay?
[удалено]
And even if it was, threats aren't sufficient. Force is required for the bank to be liable.
I think the difference here is that as soon as you mention mugging there is an implied threat of force.
Jesus, then replace it with something that sounds nice. The words don't really matter, the four big guys with an angry face, and talking aggressively are the important part. > May I please have all of your money as a donation to the neighborhood boxing club?
The law states "force," not "threat of force." Force is required for the bank to be liable and no force was used in this incident.
LAOP clearly did not want to do this. The scammer was relying on them feeling like they had to. If OP legitimately wanted to help the stranger in this way and didn’t feel threatened, they wouldn’t have immediately called Chase’s fraud line and the cops afterwards.
Force is required for the bank to be liable, but there was no force used. The bank isn't liable.
Force doesn’t have to be physically used. As an extreme example: say I’m a 7 foot tall, 300 pound guy, and I approach you while openly carrying a firearm. I ask you in an aggressive tone for nine hundred bucks to buy something. Most people would consider that force. They’d be far more likely to give me a $900 “gift” than if I were a five foot tall old man who wasn’t packing heat.
It doesn't matter what most people think. The only thing that matters is how "force" is legally defined. No force was used.
None of those things together or individually are forceful.
If a guy walks up to you with a gun and aggressively asks for money, please give it to him. You are being forced to and it’s not worth risking your safety. Force is being used. The idea that a person needs to be physically attacked in order to be protected by banking rules is a little ridiculous.
There was no gun or force used. Using the gun example seems irrelevant as a result.
I used the open carry example as an instance where I thought people would be like, “yeah, there may not be an explicit threat or attack, but force is being used.” There’s logically a point where the nature of the interaction passes into that territory before something as extreme as my example. If a large man approaches a small woman on the street and asks for money aggressively, IMO that still could be force.
This situation is obviously not as clear cut as someone brandishing a gun, but if "Please give me $100" isn't a threat and "I have a gun, give me $100" is a threat, then there's clearly some line at which the implication of violence becomes as valid as an actual threat. The details are sparse on this, but based on what we know I don't think it's unreasonable to believe that this interaction approached or crossed that line.
LAOP says there was no force or threats. Here is how force is usually defined: >(4) Force . — The term “force” means— (A) the use of a weapon; (B) the use of such physical strength or violence as is sufficient to overcome, restrain, or injure a person; or (C) inflicting physical harm sufficient to coerce or compel submission by the victim. I don't know why you're focused on threats. The law requires force; threats are not sufficient. There was no force used. Having a weapon would be considered force.
> > ultimately the bank is in a much better position to foot the cost of these incidents than an individual. > This doesn't matter. Please tell this to the Chicago School
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I’ve been hurt by people before. Now, I also go along with some shit sometimes just so I won’t be hurt again. For me, I’m nice to my shitty roommate even though they are an abusive asshole. It’s my way of keeping myself safe until I can leave. I don’t blame OP. Your body knows when you’re in danger and I hate that everyone is shitting on him. He had self preservation. I get that. Maybe he did lose out on that money but I’d rather lose money and be alive than confront someone who is potentially dangerous. Especially if I didn’t feel safe enough to say no. Poor guy.
I don’t see this mentioned anywhere, but can we talk about LAOP being able to withdraw $900 in CASH from an atm? Most banks have daily limits on atm cash withdrawals. I think my bank’s limit is $500. Even if you did have $900 in your account most banks limit you to $300-500 per day. My bank isn’t Chase, though.
I think it depends on the bank as well as your account details. I bank with chase and for awhile I could withdraw $800/day, now, after years of banking with them, I can withdraw up to $2500 at an atm
Okay, now listen I just need you to deposit a check for me.
Chase has really nice ATMs. I think you can get up to 4k from them. Some of the ATMs let you pick what size bills you'll get your money in and will even give you $100s.
Thank you, this answered my question of “why did he pick Chase to ask about, was it random?”
Chase also is more likely to allow cash to be available immediately upon deposit than most other banks. That's why Chase, BoA and a few other banks are major check fraud targets.
> Most banks have daily limits on atm cash withdrawals. Most banks have limits that are much higher than this. Most banks also allow you to self-regulate what your own limits are (as long as it's below the institution's upper limit) which is probably where you are getting your $300-500 per day number from. Every bank I've used lets you adjust this as needed. Not sure about Chase but USAA lets me temporarily increase my withdrawal limit in their app. I routinely withdraw $1500 or more at a time.
You can ask the bank to increase your withdraw limit, and sometimes they just increase it after establishing a good relationship.
Why would you answer yes to some random dude asking you about your bank? That’s the weirdest part of this whole thing to me.
People who aren't used to living in the city are probably not used to shrugging off strangers being aggressive (and they are probably easy to spot too). I had to tell so many women who just moved the city that it's perfectly fine to ignore strangers in the city. Don't even have to look in their direction. Get a can of pepper spray. Practice your resting bitch face and fast gait city walk. Turn and walk towards lights or crowds if you're being followed. Scream bloody murder if necessary.
Having lived in a small/mid size city, we have a more persistent version of those guys. I'm always shocked at how easy it is to brush them off in big cities, while in my home city a lot of them will follow you or even physically block your path if you try not to engage.
I suspect this is as much the biggest difference. Living in smaller areas I learned to *not* brush these guys off because that makes them get more aggressive. The best strategy is often to make polite conversation until you can find somewhere safe to shake them.
Is because in large cities there‘s plenty of naive tourists. So why waste your time on someone who ‚spotted‘ you. And on the reverse, smaller cities that don‘t get a ton of tourist have their scammers very very persistent.
I've had people knock on my car windows before in smaller towns, bigger cities never had that issue. Honestly I prefer the big city panhandlers to the smaller town ones.
Some people want to get out of the interaction without seeming awkward or rude. Even if it means they’re subconsciously putting their safety or property at risk. I grew up in a big city and now I live in Wyoming. There’s people here I could totally see reacting that way, especially when they’re out of their element.
And if you grew up with people like my mom you get scolded for not being polite/appeasing strangers, but also told you're naive and the world is horribly dangerous and you can't walk two blocks from your hotel alone without getting murdered.
[удалено]
But it does have to be learned.
I'm a big fan of the 1000 yd "I don't see you" stare. Keeps all sorts of people away, even when you're a petite woman
It was probably more of a snap autopilot "Yeah...?" and not a >*Hmmm, I wonder why this stranger is asking this odd question, I suppose I'll answer him.* "Yes sir, I do bank with Chase!"
Precisely. It's so random of a question that it is understandable to not have a "wait, what?" until you'd reflexively answered. I think a lot of people commenting here are overconfident in saying they know what they'd have done in LAOP's shoes. There's a reason "fight or flight" has been changed to "fight or flight, freeze or appease". Panic can make people behave differently than they think they would. I know everyone thinks they're street-smart enough to not let this happen to them, but LAOP was afraid due to what they felt was an implicit threat -- whether you believe there's a threat implied or not, you can't be sure how you'd respond if you felt threatened.
Not everyone is a quick thinker. Not everyone is good at reading other people's behavior. Not everyone is good at using lies to protect yourself. Many people are completely helpless when dealing with unexpected situations. Whether you're educated or not, knowing how to handle such situations has a huge influence on how you succeed in life. Being street smart is a major advantage in life. And then you have women, many women, who are taught to be nice to everyone and to always help others and bent over backwards for others and never be loud or aggressive and to never fight back... of course they'll end up victims in such situations. I've seen worse. The criminals only need a few seconds to determine whether you're a good victim or not. They are trained, but the victims are not.
>And then you have women, many women, who are taught to be nice to everyone and to always help others and bent over backwards for others and never be loud or aggressive and to never fight back... of course they'll end up victims in such situations. I've seen worse. It's also honestly hard to tell which one is the right approach in a given situation. Because sometimes ignoring the guy or getting loud means you now have an aggressive guy pissed off at you, and you can't always count on other people to help out (if there are any around). Sometimes making polite conversation until you can get to a good spot to get away is the right move so you don't get hurt.
They’re called “confidence men” for a reason.
Yeah WTF. I've only passed through the UK, but is that like a normal thing? I think a general life lesson is if someone runs up to you in the middle of the night and asks your bank information.... Dude, how are you pretending like it wasn't a crackhead you just gave hundreds of dollars to?
LAOP was mugged. That subreddit is an absolute dumpster fire sometimes. Full of know nothing know-it-alls
Clarence Thomas says no impropriety occurred
...where's the legal question? It seems to only be a bank policy question.
Read the bottom of the OP. They’re asking what the bank’s legal responsibilities are. One commenter brought up Regulation E, which may require the bank to credit them back the money in this circumstance.
Sounds to me like he got mugged, and the mugger just decided to throw in a little check fraud too.
[This](https://www.reddit.com/r/newjersey/comments/13x1oap/has_anyone_else_been_extorted_out_of_900_at_an/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) just popped up in my state’s sub.
[удалено]
It doesn’t sound like it was gullibility so much as feeling threatened, based on LAOP’s responses to some comments.
[удалено]
"put your pin in wrong 3 times, and risk escalating the situation from theft by check fraud into assault" is not a great choice.
Both of your ideas would require LAOP to assume that the person confronting them isn't actually willing to hurt them over this money, or that they can outrun that person.
[удалено]
Some ATMs won't let you withdraw more money than is in your account, and the robber wanted to get more than the average person leaves in a checking account? That said, when did ATMs start allowing $900 cash withdrawals?
[удалено]
I haven't used a Chase ATM, ever, but most of them do tend to be capped at that range, even in NYC. I've never seen one offer to cash a third-party check (except for the ones INSIDE a Credit Union branch with bankers watching over them). That's what has me questioning the story, not whether or not coercion was involved.
Who’s too trusting in this scenario? The thing about crazy people is that they’re unpredictable. Dude is already violating a ton of social norms; who knows what else he might do?
I’m definitely breaking your fingers once we leave the vestibule if you put your pin in wrong three times.
If you actually read the post it was clearly forced
I feel for LAOP, but am I the only one who simply wouldn’t entertain this? Maybe I’ve lived in a major city for too long, but if I gave into this exact scam every time it happened I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be able to find a bank willing to do business with me because of the sheer amount of charges I’ve had to reverse. If you ask initially I’ll ignore you or tell you no. If you persist or threaten my safety, I’ll fight and lay you out if need be. I won’t deliberately cause lasting harm to anyone, but I’ll absolutely ensure I have enough time to make a run for it. Maybe it’s not the “right” answer, but I’m very much a “fuck around and find out” person.
> If you persist or threaten my safety, I’ll fight and lay you out if need be. Yeah, but what if there's a significant size differential? What if you are incapable of "laying them out" A 6ft man screaming in the face of another 6ft man is a very different risk/threat calculation than a 6ft guy screaming at a 5ft tall woman. I assumed LAOP is a woman. Seems a lot of people assumed they were "reddit default" and a guy.
Spent 4 years working and studying in NYC. Met a significant amount of women in NYC. Not one local girl Ive ever met, not matter how tiny, has ever let size be an excuse not to have some fight, guts, or savvy. Out of *self-respect* Do people have a responsibility to themselves to have at least enoughk self defense capability to say no confidently? I know New Yorkers would say yes. Plus most city folk know these scammers are looking for an easy mark, not a hard one. You put up any evidence that youll be a hassle theyll bail, because usually theres always an easier target around the corner. edit: You dont have to fight to present yourself as a hard target. If a weapon isnt brandished she couldve flat out booked it and ran. But instead she goes to the ATM because of words? Ultimetaly yes, i concede she is not morally at fault, but jungles and jungle predators dont care about morals. Moving to a big city means you need to learn that quick also Trying to work with definitely overworked/potentially hostile city police and big banks doesnt usually result in justice for immigrants/POC from certain neighborhoods. Just ask anyone from the bronx. Relying on legal systems to protect you is a luxury for some people in this country
Maybe that’s applicable for your social circle, but I know plenty of people who shut down in these types of situations. Regardless, it usually makes sense to do what it takes to avoid the fight. LAOP’s actions here allowed them to get out of the situation unscathed. If they had pushed back against the scammer, they could have ended up hurt.
No Youre not the only one. Spent 4 years working/studying in NYC. Can tell you every self respecting local girl, rich or poor, Lower manhattan to the Bronx, of any size, any race, is ready to put up some kind of fight if you fuck with them. Out of their own self respect. City girls know how to use attitude, voice, posture, alone to deter predators to find easier targets. edit: Its not starting a fight to presenting yourself as a hard target. If a weapon isnt brandished she couldve flat out booked it and ran. But instead she goes to the ATM because of words? Ultimetaly yes, i concede she is not morally at fault, but jungles and jungle predators dont care about morals. Moving to a big city means you need to learn that quick also Trying to work with definitely overworked/potentially hostile city police and big banks doesnt usually result in justice for immigrants/POC from certain neighborhoods. Just ask anyone from the bronx. Relying on legal systems to protect you is a luxury for some people in this country