(no subject)
Jun. 2nd, 2006 09:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
which_chickUpdate on the missing CDs -- the bank lady (Sandy at the West Shore Branch) says, "There's nothing in the affidavit database showing that you redeemed the certificates without having the certificates. I've put in a request to the escheating department but there's a lot of research involved and it may take several days to get any answers." (How many people besides me translated that last part as "Don't call me every other fucking day. We're working on your measley $1200 problem."? :P I told her I'd call next Wednesday to see if there was any progress. I can't, of course, call later than Wednesday because I'll be in Amsterdam for ten days. If this isn't resolved by then, I hope that the bank lady doesn't think I've given up and gone away just because I'm not calling her every other day to see how things are going.)
Escheating, we will all recall, is when the bank dumps your allegedly unclaimed money into the state's unclaimed property database. The bank has to keep records of having done so, showing that everything is all correctly beamed and propped.
Now, when last we visited the issue of the missing CDs, we determined by supreme elite math-based detectoring (Yay me!) that somewhere along the line, my money and brother-the-elder's money got stuffed into the unclaimed property database as belonging to brother-the-younger. It is my considered opinion that this could have happened in one of two places and I'm leaning toward the bank as the more likely of the two places.
Here's why -- Brother-the-elder's money and mine were shorter term and should have hit the Unclaimed Property database in 1992. Brother-the-younger's money hit the state database in 1994. There is only one entry in the state database. I don't think that the state would take three entries, under three different social security numbers, made two years apart, and combine them into one entry. Maybe they did, but... I don't think so. I don't think it works that way because I've known people who had money from more than one source in the database and it wasn't all listed together. Each instance of missing money got a seperate entry even when it clearly was all for the same person. There isn't supposed to be any combining going on in the state's unclaimed property database... and yet I am reasonably certain that there has been combining going on due to the math detectoring previously mentioned.
Depending on what sort of records the West Shore Branch has, they might could determine that they escheated $4200 (or so) to brother-the-younger and nothing to me or brother-the-elder. It's even possible (but less likely) that they may be smart enough to run some fucking numbers and determine that there is absolutely no fucking way that his account should have been worth that much at the time they escheated it. If they get that far, they will probably figure out that they gave my money and brother-the-elder's money to brother-the-younger. The interesting thing, however, is what they are going to *do* if-when they discover all of this. :) Are they going to *admit* what they did? (Yes, I am on the edge of my seat. This is all very exciting.)
What I'd like to have happen, of course, is for them to say something like, "We're terribly sorry for the delay. Our records for escheating do not show that we transferred your money to the state's unclaimed property database. Our records show that you had some $1200 coming to you. Bring us your thrice-damned certificate and we will give you $1200.00." That would be the best-case scenario. Everyone please to be thinking happy thoughts along this front. (The only downside to this scenario is that it would so totally spoil it if I asked them whether or not they found where my money went and were just not admitting it or if they really did run into a brick wall. I'm not going to get to find that out. Pity.)
Why is it okay for you to try to get more money out of the bank than is rightfully yours?
Well, it isn't okay. I'm going to pursue it, but it's not okay and I am well aware of that.
The 100% OK, fully-approved, ethical, moral, correct thing to do would be to tell the bank that a bit of investigation turned up the fact that they stuck my money and brother-the-elder's money in with brother-the-younger's and that I've done the numbers and can show that it all works out and that since we are all on reasonably good terms, we will sort the money out amongst ourselves and stop bothering hapless Sandy at the West Shore Branch. That would be the absolute right thing to do. That would be super-duper right. (It would still not get me into heaven, you know. It is not by works, but by faith. Works ain't gonna do it. You can go about doing works to show willing, but you gotta have the faith. The faith is the important thing. You cannot get into heaven without the faith. Works are not a criteria for getting-into-heaven. [Pointing this out in confirmation class didn't impress our Pastor.] I guess works is how you demonstrate your faith to other people to guilt them into being better people or something but you're not supposed to be prideful so I don't know why you'd be out demonstrating your faith to others anyway... )
What I am pursuing is not ethical. However, the bank does not KNOW that I know where my money is and can get it back. If they'd given my money to, say, Jennifer Got--- or something, I'd be pursuing the exact same course of action that I am currently pursuing. This makes my course of action reasonably defensible. (I can claim that I didn't know how much brother-the-younger's CD should have been worth. Most people, if you ask 'em how much $1000 @ 10.9% should be worth after five years, would not be able to give you an answer.) Plausible deniability. If I were a NORMAL PERSON and the bank had done this to me, I'd be doing exactly what I am doing right now. It is not MY FAULT that I'm smarter than normal and have figured out which shell the bean is under already. I want to see if THE BANK can figure out which shell the bean is under. (I sincerely hope nobody sends a link to my livejournal to Sandy at the West Shore Branch because that would totally fuck up my plausible deniability and ruin the game.)
I'm pretty sure that the bank fucked up and lost my money. (The fact that I know where the money is has no bearing on the fact that the BANK lost it in the first place.) They should not do stuff like lose people's money. It should be expensive to lose people's money. I'm making it expensive in my own little vigilante way. If the bank can *prove* that my money went into the state's unclaimed property database under my fucking name and my fucking social security number, then I will consider the bank off the hook. If that is what happens, I'll go whine at the state's table to see if they'll throw me a bone to get me to go the hell away.
Escheating, we will all recall, is when the bank dumps your allegedly unclaimed money into the state's unclaimed property database. The bank has to keep records of having done so, showing that everything is all correctly beamed and propped.
Now, when last we visited the issue of the missing CDs, we determined by supreme elite math-based detectoring (Yay me!) that somewhere along the line, my money and brother-the-elder's money got stuffed into the unclaimed property database as belonging to brother-the-younger. It is my considered opinion that this could have happened in one of two places and I'm leaning toward the bank as the more likely of the two places.
Here's why -- Brother-the-elder's money and mine were shorter term and should have hit the Unclaimed Property database in 1992. Brother-the-younger's money hit the state database in 1994. There is only one entry in the state database. I don't think that the state would take three entries, under three different social security numbers, made two years apart, and combine them into one entry. Maybe they did, but... I don't think so. I don't think it works that way because I've known people who had money from more than one source in the database and it wasn't all listed together. Each instance of missing money got a seperate entry even when it clearly was all for the same person. There isn't supposed to be any combining going on in the state's unclaimed property database... and yet I am reasonably certain that there has been combining going on due to the math detectoring previously mentioned.
Depending on what sort of records the West Shore Branch has, they might could determine that they escheated $4200 (or so) to brother-the-younger and nothing to me or brother-the-elder. It's even possible (but less likely) that they may be smart enough to run some fucking numbers and determine that there is absolutely no fucking way that his account should have been worth that much at the time they escheated it. If they get that far, they will probably figure out that they gave my money and brother-the-elder's money to brother-the-younger. The interesting thing, however, is what they are going to *do* if-when they discover all of this. :) Are they going to *admit* what they did? (Yes, I am on the edge of my seat. This is all very exciting.)
What I'd like to have happen, of course, is for them to say something like, "We're terribly sorry for the delay. Our records for escheating do not show that we transferred your money to the state's unclaimed property database. Our records show that you had some $1200 coming to you. Bring us your thrice-damned certificate and we will give you $1200.00." That would be the best-case scenario. Everyone please to be thinking happy thoughts along this front. (The only downside to this scenario is that it would so totally spoil it if I asked them whether or not they found where my money went and were just not admitting it or if they really did run into a brick wall. I'm not going to get to find that out. Pity.)
Why is it okay for you to try to get more money out of the bank than is rightfully yours?
Well, it isn't okay. I'm going to pursue it, but it's not okay and I am well aware of that.
The 100% OK, fully-approved, ethical, moral, correct thing to do would be to tell the bank that a bit of investigation turned up the fact that they stuck my money and brother-the-elder's money in with brother-the-younger's and that I've done the numbers and can show that it all works out and that since we are all on reasonably good terms, we will sort the money out amongst ourselves and stop bothering hapless Sandy at the West Shore Branch. That would be the absolute right thing to do. That would be super-duper right. (It would still not get me into heaven, you know. It is not by works, but by faith. Works ain't gonna do it. You can go about doing works to show willing, but you gotta have the faith. The faith is the important thing. You cannot get into heaven without the faith. Works are not a criteria for getting-into-heaven. [Pointing this out in confirmation class didn't impress our Pastor.] I guess works is how you demonstrate your faith to other people to guilt them into being better people or something but you're not supposed to be prideful so I don't know why you'd be out demonstrating your faith to others anyway... )
What I am pursuing is not ethical. However, the bank does not KNOW that I know where my money is and can get it back. If they'd given my money to, say, Jennifer Got--- or something, I'd be pursuing the exact same course of action that I am currently pursuing. This makes my course of action reasonably defensible. (I can claim that I didn't know how much brother-the-younger's CD should have been worth. Most people, if you ask 'em how much $1000 @ 10.9% should be worth after five years, would not be able to give you an answer.) Plausible deniability. If I were a NORMAL PERSON and the bank had done this to me, I'd be doing exactly what I am doing right now. It is not MY FAULT that I'm smarter than normal and have figured out which shell the bean is under already. I want to see if THE BANK can figure out which shell the bean is under. (I sincerely hope nobody sends a link to my livejournal to Sandy at the West Shore Branch because that would totally fuck up my plausible deniability and ruin the game.)
I'm pretty sure that the bank fucked up and lost my money. (The fact that I know where the money is has no bearing on the fact that the BANK lost it in the first place.) They should not do stuff like lose people's money. It should be expensive to lose people's money. I'm making it expensive in my own little vigilante way. If the bank can *prove* that my money went into the state's unclaimed property database under my fucking name and my fucking social security number, then I will consider the bank off the hook. If that is what happens, I'll go whine at the state's table to see if they'll throw me a bone to get me to go the hell away.
