At least one bank is still this clueless. My father is a member of a charitable organization in his small town, and it was recently discovered that their treasurer had embezzled about $30K. What makes this story so unusual is that this person also worked as a supervisor at the same bank used by the organization! It is difficult to separate the fraud which was carried out by this person as a private individual and that which required the rights of a bank employee to carry out. While there might exist banking regulations which make this an easy matter to sort through, I know nothing of them. However, the bank's clueless-ness is obvious. It has been months since this fraud was first discovered. The treasurer was fired immediately, and the bank's investigator was in contact with the local charitable organization. Incredibly, the bank has never offered to do the obvious -- make this organization whole without regard to the law or the specifies of the fraud which actually transpired! How many quarter-page ads in the local newspaper does $30K buy? Not enough to make-up for the loss of goodwill this story will have caused by the time the local paper stops reporting on it. There's some evidence that a good portion of the fraud required this person's position at the bank to carry out, so it's likely that the difference between what would actually be owed and $30K isn't all that great. And, how much positive goodwill could result if the local newspaper first reported how the bank had "rushed to help out this organization in its time of need without regard to how the chips would fall after a complete analysis of the facts"?
The bank is a small, regional player, but it doesn't seem like much analysis is required to figure out that the best strategy is to offer the defrauded organization a check with an agreement that all claims for losses incurred would be surrogated to the bank. How could they be so clueless at basic PR?
I liked how the story started, but the whole talk show circuit and DVD angle left a bad taste in my mouth. But that's probably just because the story is so long.
Here's what bothers me the most. It was widely agreed that he was entitled to the $95,000 by a technicality. He decided to "do the right thing" and give it all back. A hundred grand of 1995 money. So why did the bank make him pay $175 to close his account?
because he signed an agreement that said it cost $175 to close an account. there was a quote in the article that said 'signing your banking agreement is the start of the time when they can be unfair to you'..
also imo the 'bad taste' is mitigated by the fun value of telling a story where the big guy loses. going on inside edition doesn't feel significantly different from posting about it on the internet to me.
But he could have said, "I refuse to close the account, you can't make me" or "Oh, a $175 fee? I'll keep my $100,000 then."
He was in the position of power, and he still let them fuck him. That's what I think is strange. (Maybe he is just a nice guy... but even then, why apply your human/human social skills to interaction with a mega-corporation?)
The closing account fee could easily have been negotiated into the arrangement, but even still it's completely separate. What I find stunning is that he also wrote a $60 check for the 2% interest on the $95,000.
I hate this type of robin hood mentality. Come on dude, everything the bank does is legal, even if they fuck you, they first make you sign an agreement saying they are entitled to do so.
Hey now, if the bank is pretty sure that it owns your house, and it really wants the money, it's fine if it forecloses on you. Paperwork is for chumps.
The story was pretty good for a while, but then it devolved into the guy describing for pages his "epic" quest to get media attention. Eventually, the pages are interspersed with ads to buy his book, his DVD, to donate, etc. Really good start, but went way downhill.
The web was much different back then. People now would just post Twitter updates or blog posts describing what was going on. In this case, he posted the story and got some readers, people checking back regularly to follow what was happening. Each page is a new update for most of the story.
There were a couple months where not much was moving forward, but his readers were still interested in what was going on. What you see is his periodic updates about a very unique experience. Fifteen years later, parts of it aren't as interesting to us. Back then, however, to read the details and background of an ongoing story that you're seeing on the news was a very unique experience, like being part of a secret club.
It also shows how few people had access to the Internet in 1995. Over the course of 4.5 months, the author received 13,500 personal letters via snail mail. In the same period his website received only 50,000 pageviews, but he thought of that as a very high number.
Fast forward to 2010: any moderately successful blog will receive 50,000 pageviews a day, but its authors will probably never receive 13,500 personal letters via snail mail.
And also take note that the author was flabbergasted by the quantity of people that read it online. Untraditional media was such a new thing then! He almost seemed more excited by the Internet traffic than the hundred million viewers of the 2 big news broadcasts.
It's a good story but the title is wrong. He didn't keep the money, he was legally entitled to the money after the bank's mistake but returned it. Also, the story has 5+ pages. Great story though.
I am not going to manage to finish this tonight. I'm currently on like page 6 (http://www.goodthink.com/writing/view_stories.cfm?id=11&...). Good read though. I really liked the part where he goes and asks the teller if it would be possible to get $95,000 in cash:
How I learned those boxes would be too small to hold that much cash is kinda funny. I asked a teller if the bank could get me a hundred thousand dollars in cash if I needed it. The teller broke out in a chuckle and said, "Nobody's ever done that in the 15 years I've been working." "But if I wanted to, can you get me that much cash?" I reasserted. The teller's chuckle turned to a touch of nervousness and she replied, "We'd have to tell the IRS and order it four days in advance. But nobody's ever done that." "You'd have to order it four days in advance and notify the IRS?" I asked for clarification. "Yes because we don't keep that much cash on hand. The largest bill in circulation now is the $100 bill-- there are no more $500 bills in circulation. And we have to report any cash withdrawals in excess of $10,000." I left contemplating just how much money $95,000 was and I arrived at this: one thousand dollars a month for eight years.
I did too. While these ads felt a little uneasy, his assurances and explanations for the ads were reasonable. And when you see him turn down almost $100k of "easy" money, and instead take the route of sharing the story for free (even with almost all of the news agencies) and earning "hard" money by "begging," it's worth mentioning that what he did was honorable, even if it didn't really "get back at The Man."
I wonder how many people would have turned in that much cash if they knew they were legally in the clear. Not many, I'd guess.
Why would you turn it down? I mean... I guess I haven't thought about it. $100k aren't going to make a huge difference in your life.
I'd also imagine the money would come from the scammers. Not from the bank. If I write you a check for $95,000 and I don't have that much on my account, then it bounces and you don't get the money, right. We can conclude the scammy company paid for it and their advertisement how to make %95k in 3 weeks was actually pretty accurate.
Reminds me of that British ad company which sent out emails to millions of people promising $10,000 for the first to respond with their name, address, social security number, and bank details. One guy actually responded, and they went to visit him to hand over the $10k :)
I suppose it depends on if a man is loyal to his conscience, or loyal to his pocketbook. It wouldn't necessarily be a "moral crime" to have kept the money, but it might have been one of "personal value."
I'm sure that many of us set personal values that are more or less progressive than society's moral foundations, and that's a reasonable reason to not keep the money. And donating $100k to charity does not necessarily mean it will go to a good cause. Not all charities materialize "good effect" on society with cash contributions, even if advertised. It may have helped a charity, but it could have also been swallowed away into beauracracy. It doesn't make him a wuss to have returned the cash.
As an aside, I read this story years ago when it was posted on slashdot.org. I read some of Patrick Combs other articles and eventually bought his book Major in Success. The book is a "life how-to guide" for undergraduates. It had a big influence in how I approached my time in college and I feel it helped me get the most out of it. I now buy the book for anyone I know who is about to head that way. Highly recommended.
I enjoyed reading that, if not for the story, then for the author's writing style. It's funny that even with all of the social stuff going on these days, the web seems to be getting much more impersonal.
I've noticed that too. I try to write very personally when I post things on the net for just that reason. It's getting to dark and impersonal on the net these days, even with all the bright colors :)
If it was a real check, legally, then the bank should've been able to collect from the get-rich-quick company. So if he had kept the "bank's" money, wouldn't he really have been keeping the spammer's money, being that the bank would just have collected from the spammer?
I took the hour to read all ten parts in the hopes of being able to summarize for HN readers, only to come back and find several others had beaten me to it.
The story is well-written, and if you're looking to spend an hour reading an entertaining story, I suggest you do. Otherwise...
tldr: Patrick did not get to keep the money. He gave the check back in exchange for a settlement letter explaining the bank's mistakes. Advertisements for a DVD version of the story and tip requests appear before and after part 9, as well as at the bottom of the first page.
Where did the money come from though? I suppose I wouldn't care much if it happened to me, but I can't imagine the bank ate it. That get-rich-quick group must've been sitting on some cash.
The bank that cashed it and didn't send him a dishonor notice in a timely fashion ate it. That's why they were threatening him with litigation. Click the small link at the bottom of the pages to see the rest of the story.
The part that confuses me is my knowledge of cheques runs like this
1) You deposit a cheque into your account
2) The bank debits the account on the cheque
3) The bank credits the money to the account of the receiver.
4) Cheque clears.
Surely step 2 has been missed out here? The account number on the cheque was probably fake so this sort of thing should have been nipped in the bud straight away.
It's not particularly well written, and in the end he gives the money back to the bank. Hardly a "noble" result (he could have given it to a charity). Now he's got the audacity to shamelessly plug his crap and tip jar. Lame.
Perhaps, but just because he gave the money back to the "evil bank" instead of a charity doesn't mean it wasn't noble. He stayed within the limits of the law, and now instead of looking like a sneaky anti-system Robin Hood, he's fought a larger cause of awareness. Rather than justice mimmic the cruel, but legal, injustices performed by the banks by spending their wad of cash, he turned it around and gave it back while keeping some form of integrity.
While people seem to think that placing PayPal links in the article was begging, I don't see people complaining about 37 Signals placing order forms on the web on the Basecamp demo page. So, let me understand... Because he gave the story away for free, asking for a tip makes him lame, but companies who flat out charge for a product are not?
People have a right to be compensated for their effort. If you don't like it, no one forced you to tip him, and you got all that valueless writing for free. Had he charged up front, you either 1) wouldn't have paid, or 2) would have been disappointed with what you bought. Instead, he gave it away, and if you liked it he suggested a tip. No different than what I see on endless blogs on the net. If he hadn't "begged" for a tip, chances are he wouldn't have gotten any.
What gets me puzzled here though, is it seems that it's OK for a company to charge for something (that may even be valueless to many, many people) and it's expected, but if an individual person suggests tipping on their "product" everyone gets their panties in a bunch. He's viewed as weak for returning the money, and annoying for asking for a tip. Oh well, being reasonable isn't always popular.
If you don't want to tip, don't. But it doesn't make what he did any less noble.
He'll never make as much off of us as he would have off of keeping the money. I guess I just don't understand his thought processes. It's not like the bank cares that he gave the money back, maybe the manager would have thought about it for a day or so, but they would've written it off or collected it from the spam company. He created a losing situation for himself.
I guess my question is, why would he rather have our money than the bank's? Maybe I just have a different set of morals/ethics.
I also remember watching this news in CNN. Then getting my first Internet connection and read rest of the story to end. At that time this was a big news in small World Wide Web.
After reading the full story I read all the comments here on HN. I didn't see mentioned several thoughts I had while reading the story, so I thought I'd share them here.
1) Transparency. I thought it was really interesting how candid and transparent the author was with his story. And this was in 1995. In many ways this was an experiment of its time, as he was willing to let all parties involved know about what he was thinking and what others were thinking as well (by republishing the public's opinion letters). You don't see this much of a "black box" in people's activities these days, even with all the social networking status updates. People simply leave out a lot of detail in fear of what others will think, or how it might affect them in some way (personally, professionally, etc...)
2) Big corporations often forget how to relate to their customers. This story exemplifies how nasty and out of touch big corporations often are, even when a loyal customer (10 years is a long time for anything) attempts to negotiate a reasonable outcome. Big companies simply "feel" bigger and stronger than individuals; and they generally are. Millions of people feel insignificant when they're treated so systematically unappreciated. These problems are likely worse today.
3) Insider details revealed. It is interesting to note that he revealed a lot of details that only someone in his position (or work for a bank, news agency, or television studio) would know. That really makes the story interesting because you feel like you're learning about how things work behind the scenes. In particular, it was interesting to follow the route of the check and hear about the clearinghouse bank, as well as how quickly the check landed in the hands of the Fed. Additionally, it was really valuable to see how the media works, specifically for how stories have to be pitched/approved/edited all across a large organization such as the WSJ before it's printed. Also notable was how the radio seemed to take a back seat to television, and would only really come in after national press already covered the story. You walk away from this story thinking you have a better idea of how these systems work.
4) Social engineering / social influence. His approach to getting information, or changing a person's attitude is evident in his anecdotes. He was social engineering in several instances, whether he realized it in those terms or not. It was interesting how he was able to change a person's negative attitude by simply sticking to his guns, but then phrasing things in a way that comforted the other person. There is likely a lot of value in his approaches for all of life's situations (business, friends, etc).
It's hard to imagine that I missed this story when it was originally happening. I certainly remember the OJ trial, and I was very active on BBSes and the Internet in the 80s/90s. Quite awesome that a 15 year old story resurfaced and I got a chance to feel it out now.
even when a loyal customer (10 years is a long time for anything) attempts to negotiate a reasonable outcome
I'm pretty sure "ten years loyal customer" goes out the window pretty fast when you're also the guy trying (in their view at least) to defraud the bank out of a hundred thousand dollars.
The bank is a small, regional player, but it doesn't seem like much analysis is required to figure out that the best strategy is to offer the defrauded organization a check with an agreement that all claims for losses incurred would be surrogated to the bank. How could they be so clueless at basic PR?