OCBC won't let 92-year-old teacher close $8.8-m a/c
-
why i got this feeling that dbs is an empty shell
-
I don't think OCBC owes the old lady any duty of care, there is a case in N. America about and old lady being cheated by a druggie man while withdrawing money from the bank.
Apparently the old lady made alot of withdrawals which were absconded by another man for drugs, the old lady later filed a claim against the bank citing duty of care was breached by the bank, but the Superior Court dismissed the claim. The old lady then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, but her appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court with the decision of the Superior Court upheld.
Robert M. Santucci et al. v. Citizens Bank of Rhode Island
http://www.courts.ri.gov/supreme/pdf-files/01-163.pdf
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
I don't think OCBC owes the old lady any duty of care, there is a case in N. America about and old lady being cheated by a druggie man while withdrawing money from the bank.
Apparently the old lady made alot of withdrawals which were absconded by another man for drugs, the old lady later file a claim against the bank citing duty of care was breached by the bank, but the Superior Court dismissed the claim. The old lady then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, but her appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court with the decision of the Superior Court upheld.
Robert M. Santucci et al. v. Citizens Bank of Rhode Island
well done.It is the correct way of discussions by doing some home works.
But the case u quotes is different where the old woman withdrew few hundred
and the most few thousand every time in a span of 2 or 3 years.
This is a reasonable amount compared with the initial amt of 39,000.
I have not read the judgement.
I think the uS bank shall be liable if there were any signs that
the woman had been druged or under threat to take out the $$.
@@@@@@@@@@@
OCBC case involves 8.8 million.
I think the court will not order OCBC to bear the cost of another
party if OCBC lose at the end.The court will praise Well done,
even OCBC lose!!
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
well done.It is the correct way of discussions by doing some home works.
But the case u quotes is different where the old woman withdrew few hundred
and the most few thousand every time in a span of 2 or 3 years.
This is a reasonable amount compared with the initial amt of 39,000.
I have not read the judgement.
I think the uS bank shall be liable if there were any signs that
the woman had been druged or under threat to take out the $$.
@@@@@@@@@@@
OCBC case involves 8.8 million.
I think the court will not order OCBC to bear the cost of another
party if OCBC lose at the end.The court will praise Well done,
even OCBC lose!!
Coming from you I find this extremely hilarious.
Since when have you started understanding English? And you want to decrypt legal language?
Ermmm...., under which ambit of the law would you prescribe your "verdict"? Since you said "I think the uS bank shall be liable if there were any signs that the woman had been druged or under threat to take out the $$". Duty of care or breach of contractual obligations?
Seems like lionnoisy has taken a penchant for legal musings.
Suggest you go get a proper primary and secondary education before you proceed on your legal career.
Seriously my dear, what you think of this case is inconsequential and immaterial as far as I am concerned.
-
Maybe OCBC simply doesn't have the ability to cash out that 8.8mil.
maurizio, good case studies, but local courts need not abide to decisions made by other jurisdiction.
-
Originally posted by yamizi:
Maybe OCBC simply doesn't have the ability to cash out that 8.8mil.
maurizio, good case studies, but local courts need not abide to decisions made by other jurisdiction.
Yah, local courts are not bound by judgements from another jurisdiction. It just provides some guidance for the trial judge to make his rulings.
-
this puts them in a dilemma.
if she is adjudged to be 'not in the capacity to withdraw the money' then what will happen to it eventually?
unless she has a will of course.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Yah, local courts are not bound by judgements from another jurisdiction. It just provides some guidance for the trial judge to make his rulings.
True but again, the court can choose not follow that guidiance too.The end thing is, why the bank just doesn't want to payout? 'cos not rich enough?
-
Originally posted by dragg:
this puts them in a dilemma.
if she is adjudged to be 'not in the capacity to withdraw the money' then what will happen to it eventually?
unless she has a will of course.
This is what I am thinking about too!
Don't tell me OCBC going to donate out the 8.8mil to charity?
-
aiya.. 8.8 mil leh... if OCBC let go out that amount hor... maybe they become like the LAYMAN bro....
-
wah lau, this is a joke.
You want to take out money form your own account, still need the bank manager to approve it?
This is not a CPF or what, this is ordinary saving account.
Since when our society become so unreasonable? -
must see the financial status of the bank which you put money in next time. Always remember... cannot take out also your fault. You went in with your eyes open......
-
Originally posted by stupidissmart:
there r 2 sides to a coin
a person cannot even draw out his own money
or it is a precaution against cheaters from cheating other people's money. If such precaution does not exists, maybe a lot of people's money will be cheated by shrewd foreigner preying on people who cannot even go to the toilet themselves
Tis is really not a question on the gov...
No one ever said it was a question on the gov..., and no one is blaming the gov here.
The closest that was mentioned is that the govt may inherit the money, and that's it.
-
does OCBC any key personel got link with the ghamen?
-
Originally posted by dragg:
this puts them in a dilemma.
if she is adjudged to be 'not in the capacity to withdraw the money' then what will happen to it eventually?
unless she has a will of course.
dun worry, her step daughter who quitted a tour guide job to care for her full time is dripping salivate and waiting...patiently 9millions ok, better than kenna toto... -
Originally posted by Display Name:
wah lau, this is a joke.
You want to take out money form your own account, still need the bank manager to approve it?
This is not a CPF or what, this is ordinary saving account.
Since when our society become so unreasonable?
not unreasonable but extremely very ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ unreasonablescare to lose the business of 1 fat account, OCBC should sack that manager
-
It is precisely tat there is a fuzzy line on the limit of duty of care of the bank exists and tat is why there were court cases fought between banks and customers. U can see in the court case shown by maruzio tat customers can sue the bank for nt exercising tis right and tat is why OCBC decides to intervene in tis case. If u look at maruzio website, u can find many many suit case between man and bank such as Griffin v. Centreville Savings Bank etc. I am not sure all cases ended up with the bank having no responsibility at all
Note tat there r many differences between the 2 cases. First, the junkie is no matter wat his real son and guardian while in tis case the adopted girl can be a virtual stranger. Second, it can easily be shown tat there is foreseeability tat the money can be cheated by tis adopted daughter of hers if she is mentally incapacited. Third she refused to let a psychatrist see her condition or let the bank inteview her. Fourth she claims she wanna take care of tis old lady then she can instead just draw 2000 every day till she die to take care of her. Why draw all the money at the same time ? Fifth maruzio case has the old lady took out he money at small amount over a long interval which is less suspicious. Since no one knows the details, the best thing is to let the court decides. DO u want the old lady to be cheated ? Tis is not a small matter
Lastly I think it is silly to say tat the gov is trying to steal all the money. First, she can enact a will and can give the money to anything or anyone such as her dog or a complete stranger or to tis daughter and the gov cannot take the money. In fact she can very well already have a will enacted when she is 60 or something when she is more sane. And if the gov really desperately wanna take the money, tis matter will be very low key and will not be published in the newspaper
-
Lastly I think it is silly to say tat the gov is trying to steal all the money.
What is your motive for bringing this up a second time when no one else is questioning the gov, but instead questioning OCBC?
Are you trying to lead everyone to think so?
-
8.8 million is chicken feed to OCBC & this is not the main issue.
The key issue is the question of how to come up with a proper, fair & equitable management of the large amount of money of this a/c holder.
One must bear in mind that there is some doubt in respect of the lady's mental falcuties particularly in areas of the ability to carry out her activities of daily living which include the managing of her fortune.
-
I thought it will be pretty easy to simply check with our local banking law that whether is there a requirement to do such psychiatric test;
or that when the old lady open an account with OCBC, was it written anywhere that she would be made to do such a test.
Apparently, the matter blew up!
-
what OTC has done before? request to see phyical money from our treasure, where LKY reluctance to let him see, just show him key and paper report.
he force, in the end President die without state funeral
-
What is your motive for bringing this up a second time when no one else is questioning the gov, but instead questioning OCBC?
Are you trying to lead everyone to think so?
Sorry man I see the reply
does OCBC any key personel got link with the ghamen?
It just make me wonder why someone wanna link it to gov again. If u look at the previous replies there r strange remarks on NTUC and gov sucking money from the person as well as PAP denying CPF to people etC. Now even OTC is related to OCBC case
-
Sigh, either you are just stupid, or you cannot read properly.
1) Your quote on OCBC isn't anything on saying the gov is stealing money, nor is it saying it is sucking money
2) NTUC is not the government.
3) The OTC post is after you have posted, and misleaded forumers to a different path not once, but twice.
4) "Strange remarks" is not a question on the government.
-
Sigh, either you are just stupid, or you cannot read properly.
1) Your quote on OCBC isn't anything on saying the gov is stealing money, nor is it saying it is sucking money
2) NTUC is not the government.
3) The OTC post is after you have posted, and misleaded forumers to a different path not once, but twice.
4) "Strange remarks" is not a question on the government.
Well I think u really read with one eye shut. Throughout the replies, there r many hints and suggestions or sarcasm on the gov.The NTUC is gov controlled. CPF (which u r quiet on) is gov controlled. Even a few forumers such as shotgun and skythewood can see there r sarcasms on the gov when it has nothing to do with it. Now another guy mention if there r any key personnel with the gov. Again it serves nothing on the purpose of the thread and judging from the replies he made throughout, it is against the gov.
So I just talk about the point I mentioned before tat is has nothing to do with the gov but rather, the protecting of the poor lady and people shouldn't push and make decisions beause they hate the gov. Some people believed the gov want to suck money and tat is THE ONLY REASON why they r constantly brought into the picture. Why can't i say against such an act ? If I managed to convinced people tat the gov is not gonna get tis money, then the gov will not be involved isn't it ? Then the focus is on whether should we prevent cheat or prevent abuse of bank's power (which is relevant). Should we politicise the matter and force it to be linked with the gov and let the adopted girl girl the money who can very well be a sham ?
And wat is your point in preventing people from asking the thread to delinear from the gov ? Aren't u directly supporting people to politicise the matter and link it to gov ? Wat is your intention ?
Lastly, if u had read properly, I had mentioned "now even" OTC is involved in tis case when it clearly has nothing to do with it. Did I say tat reply is after my previous reply ?
-
what a strong reaction
; what's up with the wall of text?1) If you said it is a hint, suggestion or sarcasm, then it is not a question on the gov. It is also not saying that the gov is stealing money. Make yourself clear.
2) skythewood tells us about the proper protocol, and that it is not a conspiracy by OCBC because it is not a state bank.
3) Shotgun and OTC replies are after your post; which means they have most likely been influenced by your diversion and misleading posts. That was what I meant. Somehow you shut one eye again.
It's mentally degrading to be talking to an immature being of lower intelligence, who cannot understand properly yet wanting to use a wall of text to prove its delusion, and only interested in petty quabbles.
Feel free to reply if you want to tell us you are even more immature than originally thought. I'm out; won't want to be drawn into petty quabbles with lower beings.