"Ms. Worden [the 'estranged spouse'] put her intelligence background to work, asking her bank about the locations of computers that had recently accessed her bank account using her login credentials. The bank got back to her with an answer: One was a computer network registered to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration."
That's why it's an investigation, not a conviction.
"Anne McClain acknowledges accessing the account from the ISS but denies any wrongdoing, the New York Times reports."
Space law is obviously the somewhat interesting story angle. Other than that it's certainly a complete non-story.
Also, if one does want to make sure a previously-authorized individual can no longer access something, the responsible thing is to change the locks ASAP, thus revoking that implicit authorization.
There's plenty of reasonable reasons for her to have access. Especially if she had access to the account previously in a shared role and only read the information instead of modified it somehow. But that of course depends on whether the individual made it clear it was now off limits because (for example) it is now a strictly personal account again or the divorce was finalized and there was zero financial connection which exists between them.
Plus things like how reasonable it would be to not say anything about it but expecting them to know better. Which is why the exact details of the arrangement needs to be clear.
1) she somehow got them illicitly (e.g. stealing them from Worden)
or
2) she previously had legitimate and authorized access to the account (e.g. while she and her spouse were not yet estranged / filing for divorce)
If #2, then I reckon this becomes a much harder case to prosecute, given that McClain was implicitly authorized to access the account (else, Worden would have changed the password or otherwise revoked that access). Unless, of course, there's documentation of Worden having told McClain not to access it (and yet still didn't change the password...).
Disclaimer: IANAL
Does that mean her training suggested a possible thing she should check? Or does it mean she somehow used her position or contacts within the intelligence community to get information which would not otherwise be provided?
I've never asked my bank for this type of information; I've no idea whether or not a bank would provide it (although it seems a reasonable request)... But if she used her official position to get information she would not otherwise be provided, that's a pretty clear ethics violation.
I'm not throwing stones here;I just wish the Times quote was clearer.
"If you take out the interesting aspect of the story it becomes uninteresting"