11 ms·

Always involve an attorney and possibly law enforcement rather than trusting that these companies will do the right thing.

by crusso 6y ago

riskable 6y ago
Don't involve law enforcement unless you absolutely have to. The first thing they'll do is investigate TF out of you and your friends/family and they absolutely cannot be trusted to "do the right thing" or especially not to protect you in any way. They are not your friend.
- mtnGoat 6y ago
  100% this! Sorry but trusting local cops with anything technical is a fools errand.
mxskelly 6y ago
Don't talk to the cops about anything, ever. Especially not this. Lawyers are paid to keep your best interests in mind. Cops will investigate the shit out of you and will do nothing to help, at all.
dls2016 6y ago
Cops protect capital.
criddell 6y ago
What difference would it have made in this case?
- cosmie 6y ago
  Superficially speaking, he defrauded a US bank of $70k ($5k of which he transferred to his bank account). Yes, he disclosed exactly how he did it to the bank. Yes, he returned it all. Yes, he had no intent to keep it. And yes, he still defrauded them in the process. Yes, he had permission to do so. But permission doesn't always prevent situations from going awry, even if it can help clear things up after the fact. If you walk into a physical bank and notice a potential security issue, point out the potential security issue to the teller, come back to exploit that potential security issue just to see if you can, succeed and make off with $70k, then bring it all back in and walk the bank manager through how you robbed his bank, he's still going to call the cops on you. Or maybe you spoke to him before and got permission, but his communication to corporate after the fact gets misconstrued/misunderstood and someone else calls the cops. Closing all of the accounts like they did was a crap reaction, but he could have just as easily been hand delivered an arrest warrant by an FBI agent for bank robbery and fraud if someone internally decided to take the position that what he did was analogous to the above scenario. And it may have just as easily occurred due to some internal miscommunication/misunderstanding by a non-technical person or being flagged by some type of automation/reporting, rather than deliberately taking such a stance. That's where involving a lawyer would have been valuable. It may not have protected him from the consequences that did occur, since they could close his accounts for whatever reason they wanted. But a lawyer would have provided greater assurance against substantially worse outcomes, by ensuring more drastic outcomes were identified and addressed/mitigated upfront. And potentially saved his accounts from getting closed - the decrease in his cumulative credit limit plus closure of such long-lived credit cards translates into real economic harm due to the likely impact on his credit score. I could see a lawyer being able to use that fact somehow to persuade Chase that it was not in their best interests to take such an action. Law enforcement - I'd leave that up to the lawyer. As another user commented, your lawyer is explicitly employed to protect your interests. If involving law enforcement furthers that aim, they'll tell you. If involving law enforcement is detrimental to that aim, they'll tell you. So consult with several first, hire one second, and let them direct what happens after. If what they do/recommend ends up being incredibly stupid, you at least have their malpractice insurance to appropriately compensate you for their stupidity. But you have no such insurance to compensate you for your own.
  - ballenf 6y ago
    The article says: > Once I had permission quickly made a proof of concept ... So unless you want to accuse him of lying, there's no fraud here. And the fact that Chase didn't file a police report makes me convinced there was nothing remotely illegal about his actions.
    - cosmie 6y ago
      He mentioned having permission, but not by whom nor any assurances that said permission was appropriately disseminated to all relevant parties internally or appropriate lines of communication established to someone with the authority to expeditiously intercede in the case of issues. As I said, such a situation could have occurred due to a miscommunication/misunderstanding, rather than taking a deliberate stance to prosecute him. A team (or member on said team) or some automated system unaware of that permission could have flagged the fraud and involved the authorities. Communication silos are a fact of big businesses. Politics and power tripping executives are too, who may decide whoever gave such permission didn't have the authority and push ahead anyway for whatever reason. And inflexible legacy systems are too, which may trip some automated fraud detection system that automatically triggers a legal reaction. The charges may have ultimately been dropped when everything got sorted out, or a judge could have dismissed the case based on the permission he was given (if the situation got to that point). But that's not for the law enforcement agent serving your warrant to decide, his job is just to bring you in. And in the event that happens, it's far better for your lawyer to already be prepared on how to address the situation than only getting them involved at that stage.
    - compiler-guy 6y ago
      Whether or not Chase filed a police report has nothing to do with the legality of his actions. There are lots of reasons to file or not file: Publicity, hassle, likelihood of recovery, and on. It seems like he took great pains to keep it legal, but the presence or absence of a police report means nothing.
  - criddell 6y ago
    > he still defrauded them in the process No he didn't. Intent / mens rea matters. He established a pretty solid record of prior communication about what his intent was.
eli 6y ago
Why would you involve law enforcement? Chase isn't doing anything illegal but you might be!
- crusso 6y ago
  Because you want to be on record as having notified an attorney and law enforcement of the problem and your intention to experiment with the company's permission. You want things on record in any way possible. Just getting an emailed "okie dokie" back from some company executive and then doing something that could later be construed as illegal is a bad idea.
  - eli 6y ago
    I understand what you're saying but strongly disagree with the strategy. Telling the police you intend to do something that could be illegal is a truly terrible idea. Are you hoping they will testify in your defense as a character witness? Law enforcement is tasked with making arrests not facilitating security disclosures. Maybe let's just agree to get a good lawyer first and follow their advice about who to talk to.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      Yeah there is a pretty good chance that the police officer responds with a vague answer that implies everything is fine and then you unknowingly end up committing a crime by accident. The police isn't obligated to help you not break the law. It's only there to enforce it.
  - reaperducer 6y ago
    Because you want to be on record as having notified an attorney and law enforcement of the problem You're almost right. You have your attorney notify law enforcement. That's what he's for. He'll keep all the records and act as a buffer between you an any misunderstanding with the police.
hnick 6y ago
At that point why bother? Why would I spend my time and money for something that is simply not my problem? To do the right thing? The bank doesn't consider it the right thing. It's not clear that the law does.

Always involve an attorney and possibly law enforcement rather than trusting that these companies will do the right thing.

by crusso 6y ago

Always involve an attorney and possibly law enforcement rather than trusting that these companies will do the right thing.

riskable 6y ago

Don't involve law enforcement unless you absolutely have to. The first thing they'll do is investigate TF out of you and your friends/family and they absolutely cannot be trusted to "do the right thing" or especially not to protect you in any way. They are not your friend.

mtnGoat 6y ago
100% this! Sorry but trusting local cops with anything technical is a fools errand.

mxskelly 6y ago

Don't talk to the cops about anything, ever. Especially not this. Lawyers are paid to keep your best interests in mind. Cops will investigate the shit out of you and will do nothing to help, at all.

dls2016 6y ago

Cops protect capital.

criddell 6y ago

What difference would it have made in this case?

cosmie 6y ago
Superficially speaking, he defrauded a US bank of $70k ($5k of which he transferred to his bank account). Yes, he disclosed exactly how he did it to the bank. Yes, he returned it all. Yes, he had no intent to keep it. And yes, he still defrauded them in the process. Yes, he had permission to do so. But permission doesn't always prevent situations from going awry, even if it can help clear things up after the fact. If you walk into a physical bank and notice a potential security issue, point out the potential security issue to the teller, come back to exploit that potential security issue just to see if you can, succeed and make off with $70k, then bring it all back in and walk the bank manager through how you robbed his bank, he's still going to call the cops on you. Or maybe you spoke to him before and got permission, but his communication to corporate after the fact gets misconstrued/misunderstood and someone else calls the cops. Closing all of the accounts like they did was a crap reaction, but he could have just as easily been hand delivered an arrest warrant by an FBI agent for bank robbery and fraud if someone internally decided to take the position that what he did was analogous to the above scenario. And it may have just as easily occurred due to some internal miscommunication/misunderstanding by a non-technical person or being flagged by some type of automation/reporting, rather than deliberately taking such a stance. That's where involving a lawyer would have been valuable. It may not have protected him from the consequences that did occur, since they could close his accounts for whatever reason they wanted. But a lawyer would have provided greater assurance against substantially worse outcomes, by ensuring more drastic outcomes were identified and addressed/mitigated upfront. And potentially saved his accounts from getting closed - the decrease in his cumulative credit limit plus closure of such long-lived credit cards translates into real economic harm due to the likely impact on his credit score. I could see a lawyer being able to use that fact somehow to persuade Chase that it was not in their best interests to take such an action. Law enforcement - I'd leave that up to the lawyer. As another user commented, your lawyer is explicitly employed to protect your interests. If involving law enforcement furthers that aim, they'll tell you. If involving law enforcement is detrimental to that aim, they'll tell you. So consult with several first, hire one second, and let them direct what happens after. If what they do/recommend ends up being incredibly stupid, you at least have their malpractice insurance to appropriately compensate you for their stupidity. But you have no such insurance to compensate you for your own.
- ballenf 6y ago
  The article says: > Once I had permission quickly made a proof of concept ... So unless you want to accuse him of lying, there's no fraud here. And the fact that Chase didn't file a police report makes me convinced there was nothing remotely illegal about his actions.
  - cosmie 6y ago
    He mentioned having permission, but not by whom nor any assurances that said permission was appropriately disseminated to all relevant parties internally or appropriate lines of communication established to someone with the authority to expeditiously intercede in the case of issues. As I said, such a situation could have occurred due to a miscommunication/misunderstanding, rather than taking a deliberate stance to prosecute him. A team (or member on said team) or some automated system unaware of that permission could have flagged the fraud and involved the authorities. Communication silos are a fact of big businesses. Politics and power tripping executives are too, who may decide whoever gave such permission didn't have the authority and push ahead anyway for whatever reason. And inflexible legacy systems are too, which may trip some automated fraud detection system that automatically triggers a legal reaction. The charges may have ultimately been dropped when everything got sorted out, or a judge could have dismissed the case based on the permission he was given (if the situation got to that point). But that's not for the law enforcement agent serving your warrant to decide, his job is just to bring you in. And in the event that happens, it's far better for your lawyer to already be prepared on how to address the situation than only getting them involved at that stage.
  - compiler-guy 6y ago
    Whether or not Chase filed a police report has nothing to do with the legality of his actions. There are lots of reasons to file or not file: Publicity, hassle, likelihood of recovery, and on. It seems like he took great pains to keep it legal, but the presence or absence of a police report means nothing.
- criddell 6y ago
  > he still defrauded them in the process No he didn't. Intent / mens rea matters. He established a pretty solid record of prior communication about what his intent was.

eli 6y ago

Why would you involve law enforcement? Chase isn't doing anything illegal but you might be!

crusso 6y ago
Because you want to be on record as having notified an attorney and law enforcement of the problem and your intention to experiment with the company's permission. You want things on record in any way possible. Just getting an emailed "okie dokie" back from some company executive and then doing something that could later be construed as illegal is a bad idea.
- eli 6y ago
  I understand what you're saying but strongly disagree with the strategy. Telling the police you intend to do something that could be illegal is a truly terrible idea. Are you hoping they will testify in your defense as a character witness? Law enforcement is tasked with making arrests not facilitating security disclosures. Maybe let's just agree to get a good lawyer first and follow their advice about who to talk to.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    Yeah there is a pretty good chance that the police officer responds with a vague answer that implies everything is fine and then you unknowingly end up committing a crime by accident. The police isn't obligated to help you not break the law. It's only there to enforce it.
- reaperducer 6y ago
  Because you want to be on record as having notified an attorney and law enforcement of the problem You're almost right. You have your attorney notify law enforcement. That's what he's for. He'll keep all the records and act as a buffer between you an any misunderstanding with the police.

hnick 6y ago

At that point why bother? Why would I spend my time and money for something that is simply not my problem? To do the right thing? The bank doesn't consider it the right thing. It's not clear that the law does.