-2

My son was scramed on the computer by allowing access to his computer to uninstall a program .The company was going out of business , so they offered a refund . there was a glitch on the computer and they supposedly credit 30,000.00. my son was told to wire the money back or he would be in trouble. So it was taken from my equity then transfed to my checking and then to my sons checking and then it was wired to a overseas account and bank stated to me they are not allow to question a customer.As there has not been any activite on my equity,why wasn't it questioned.

rotolo
  • 1
  • 8
    You may want to be careful with this. Your argument is that your son wired money from the account, and wasn't authorized to do so. If you do try to sue the bank for the money, they may turn around and sue your son for it, since he's the one who made the transaction and "benefited" from the money. Your son could perhaps in turn sue the scammer, but that is very unlikely to succeed because you probably can't find them. Or, they may try to have your son prosecuted criminally. – Nate Eldredge Jul 06 '19 at 22:17
  • 5
    It sounds like your son had access to the accounts to perform the transfer, in which case authorisation was given... –  Jul 06 '19 at 23:04
  • @Moo They could share a computer and the OP had the account credentials saved. The OP also doesn't make it clear whether the son is an adult or not, which will matter. – IllusiveBrian Jul 07 '19 at 11:15
  • 2
    @IllusiveBrian in which case the op is morally culpable for failing to secure the account properly, and the son culpable of theft which the bank will not overlook if the matter is pressed. –  Jul 07 '19 at 11:22
  • 1
    @Moo Oh yeah, I don't think there's any good outcome from this if OP tries to get the money back from the bank, assuming he doesn't want to screw his son. If his son is a minor though, law enforcement would probably decline to charge him if OP asks them not to and still maybe go after the scammers. That bet is riskier if the son is an adult. And if the son did have authorization to access the account then the point is moot. – IllusiveBrian Jul 07 '19 at 11:30
  • @IllusiveBrian op may not get the option to not have the son charged - they are trying to get the bank to admit the money was transferred without authority, so the bank is involved in this process and it's likely the banks obligation to press charges or not if the op wants them to take responsibility for the transfer. This is very muddy water, and it's likely to get muddier the more stirring goes on. –  Jul 07 '19 at 11:37
  • I'd ask about the age of the son. If the son was thirteen years old, that might make a difference. – gnasher729 Dec 03 '20 at 17:02

1 Answers1

3

Who authorized the transfers?

Banks don't transfer money without someone telling them to do so.

Assuming it was your son there are several possibilities:

  • You didn't log off from a banking session allowing him to access it. Legally, you authorized the transfers.
  • You stored your sign-in credentials on the computer allowing your son to access them. Legally, you authorized the transfers.
  • You gave your son your sign in credentials. Legally, you authorized the transfers.
  • Your son hacked your account. Your son has committed fraud. Your contract with your bank may protect you from this, however, the bank will pursue your son for recovery and will likely refer the matter to the police.
Dale M
  • 208,266
  • 17
  • 237
  • 460
  • I'm not sure leaving a site logged in or storing credentials count as giving authorization, in the same way that leaving ones keys in ones car is authorization to take ones car or leaving a key outside ones house is authorization to enter it. However, in that case, it would be a form of hacking, the transfers were fraudulent and your forth bullet point applies. – sharur Dec 05 '20 at 00:06