Hacker News Reader

Comment by benmmurphy | Hacker News Reader

In some countries (not sure about Australia) it is a crime to take on a loan with no intention of paying it back. This is probably why at the start of the article he says: 'It seems unbelievable but my intention was never to take all the money from the St George Bank and not pay it back.'. Obviously it is very difficult to prove that someone has no intention of paying back a loan.

View on HN

But he didn't take out a loan. The bank kept giving him money whenever he wanted to withdraw it. That is not a loan. A loan requires explicit agreement and a fixed amount.

He signed a contract when he opened up the bank account. That contract would have included clauses establishing liability for overdrafts, even if the bank account didn't include an overdraft facility.

Last time I opened a bank account there was only a specific penalty for overdraft, but nothing beyond that in the contract.

> That contract would have included clauses establishing liability for overdrafts

Maybe the contract did not include such a clause? There's a reason why he got acquitted in the end.

He got acquitted of fraud. That doesn't mean he's still not liable for the $2M unless the bankruptcy court relieves that liability.

He was acquitted because they charged him criminally instead of in civil court. He should have had collections go after him while he deals with wage garnishments, not jail time.

Even if the contract did establish that, it's the bank's responsibility to handle the overdraft, it's not his responsibility to avoid overdrafting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com