If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Foobies)   Man keeps interest from €200 million bank error   (thelocal.de) divider line 59
    More: Spiffy, Deutscher Wetterdienst, cognitive robotics, digital library, ESL IH Berlin, Commerzbank, Northern Germany, online banking, Goethe  
•       •       •

15709 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 May 2012 at 10:13 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



59 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-04 09:26:30 AM
Title should read:

"Man refunded interest charged on money he did not ask for."

The money was deposited in his account in error and then the bank wanted to charge him interest for "borrowing" it.

But the bank - which is owned by Commerzbank - is going to appeal. "People who want to use money that does not belong to them generally have to pay interest," a bank spokesman said. "That is the same for everyone."

Yeah, but the thing that isn't the same is that the other people actually, you know, ask for the money.


I sense a new business plan: deposit money in people's accounts without their knowledge, then charge them interest!
 
2012-05-04 09:28:39 AM
So he got to keep, what, €0.97?
 
2012-05-04 09:44:11 AM
This interest is relevant to my story.
 
2012-05-04 09:44:57 AM
www.bargaineering.com
 
2012-05-04 10:16:04 AM
Go to jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
 
2012-05-04 10:17:52 AM
I love the banking system. If there is an error in your favor, they want it back. If they error is in their favor, it's pretty much a 'fark you, we're keeping it' attitude

/Happened to me and took an act of God to get them to fix it
 
2012-05-04 10:20:56 AM

Petit_Merdeux: Title should read:

"Man refunded interest charged on money he did not ask for."

The money was deposited in his account in error and then the bank wanted to charge him interest for "borrowing" it.

But the bank - which is owned by Commerzbank - is going to appeal. "People who want to use money that does not belong to them generally have to pay interest," a bank spokesman said. "That is the same for everyone."

Yeah, but the thing that isn't the same is that the other people actually, you know, ask for the money.


I sense a new business plan: deposit money in people's accounts without their knowledge, then charge them interest!


I think the complication is that he transfered the money into another account that earned interest / had a higher interest rate then his normal account. Trying to move and do things with the money is what causes problems.
 
2012-05-04 10:21:00 AM
I think the issue was he moved part of it out of the account it was erroneously deposited into to begin with. They still shouldn't get to charge him interest though.
 
2012-05-04 10:23:07 AM

Petit_Merdeux: Title should read:

"Man refunded interest charged on money he did not ask for."

The money was deposited in his account in error and then the bank wanted to charge him interest for "borrowing" it.

But the bank - which is owned by Commerzbank - is going to appeal. "People who want to use money that does not belong to them generally have to pay interest," a bank spokesman said. "That is the same for everyone."

Yeah, but the thing that isn't the same is that the other people actually, you know, ask for the money.


I sense a new business plan: deposit money in people's accounts without their knowledge, then charge them interest!


They are only going after the money on the interest for the money that he quickly transferred out of his account. He knew that money wasn't his. Had he done nothing and left the money alone, they would not have charged him anything.
 
2012-05-04 10:24:27 AM
I must be mis-reading something. The bank "demanded" the money, yet somehow the ruling is for them to pay him back the money?
 
2012-05-04 10:25:00 AM
If standard Fark practice is to write "$200 million dollars" for dollar amounts, shouldn't the headline say "€200 million euros"?
 
2012-05-04 10:26:26 AM
Every time I went to my old bank they hassled me to start a savings account. Get this- the interest would have been 0.2%. I use my credit union at work now.
 
2012-05-04 10:26:32 AM
Lesson Learned: Do not put people with epilepsy in charge of decimal points.
 
2012-05-04 10:26:43 AM

Petit_Merdeux: Title should read:

"Man refunded interest charged on money he did not ask for."

The money was deposited in his account in error and then the bank wanted to charge him interest for "borrowing" it.

But the bank - which is owned by Commerzbank - is going to appeal. "People who want to use money that does not belong to them generally have to pay interest," a bank spokesman said. "That is the same for everyone."

Yeah, but the thing that isn't the same is that the other people actually, you know, ask for the money.


I sense a new business plan: deposit money in people's accounts without their knowledge, then charge them interest!


I agree with where you're coming from, the bank farked up and the problem was the bank's fault. But this guy was a huge dick too. The very first thing he did was try to move it around and hide it. He knew damn well there was a huge bank error in his favor. He knew damn well it was not his money:

Michael H. swiftly transferred €10 million of it into his current account in a different bank.

And the way I read it, the bank is not charging him interest, so that after he paid back the €12,000 he would be minus that amount. When he moved the €10 million, it seems the deposit garnered him interest:

the €12,000 interest earned while it was "resting in his account" overnight...
it demanded €12,000 on top - 14.4 percent interest on the money he moved.


Basically, a lump sum landed in this guys lap, he quickly used it to make €12,000, so the bank wants the lump sum plus the amount he made with it. I think the bank is wrong and agree with the ruling but I don't think it is as bad as you portray it.
 
2012-05-04 10:30:53 AM
White people problems.
 
2012-05-04 10:31:53 AM

lennavan: Petit_Merdeux: Title should read:

"Man refunded interest charged on money he did not ask for."

The money was deposited in his account in error and then the bank wanted to charge him interest for "borrowing" it.

But the bank - which is owned by Commerzbank - is going to appeal. "People who want to use money that does not belong to them generally have to pay interest," a bank spokesman said. "That is the same for everyone."

Yeah, but the thing that isn't the same is that the other people actually, you know, ask for the money.


I sense a new business plan: deposit money in people's accounts without their knowledge, then charge them interest!

I agree with where you're coming from, the bank farked up and the problem was the bank's fault. But this guy was a huge dick too. The very first thing he did was try to move it around and hide it. He knew damn well there was a huge bank error in his favor. He knew damn well it was not his money:

Michael H. swiftly transferred €10 million of it into his current account in a different bank.

And the way I read it, the bank is not charging him interest, so that after he paid back the €12,000 he would be minus that amount. When he moved the €10 million, it seems the deposit garnered him interest:

the €12,000 interest earned while it was "resting in his account" overnight...
it demanded €12,000 on top - 14.4 percent interest on the money he moved.

Basically, a lump sum landed in this guys lap, he quickly used it to make €12,000, so the bank wants the lump sum plus the amount he made with it. I think the bank is wrong and agree with the ruling but I don't think it is as bad as you portray it.


Put it this way, if the bank recovers what they are looking for, would the man be ahead or behind where he started when the error was made? The way I read it, he would be in exactly the same place. Bank makes an error. Bank tries to correct the error. Man already tried to take advantage of error. Bank just seeks to make itself whole.

Sorry, I don't see how the bank is wrong at all. The man had no right to the money (and he knew it), in many jurisdictions, what he did would rightly be classified as theft.
 
2012-05-04 10:43:24 AM
If I found a couple hundred million in my account, I would quickly vanish, along with the money.

Well, I may leave 12k in the account as a parting gift.
 
2012-05-04 10:43:54 AM
This interest is relative to my thread
 
2012-05-04 10:46:09 AM

MycroftHolmes:
Put it this way, if the bank recovers what they are looking for, would the man be ahead or behind where he started when the error was made? The way I read it, he would be in exactly the same place. Bank makes an error. Bank tries to correct the error. Man already tried to take advantage of error. Bank just seeks to mak ...


You find a wallet with $100 in it (or more accurately, a stranger mistakenly puts his wallet in your pocket). On your way to turn in the wallet to the proper authorities, you stop at a casino and double you money. This was wrong of you, you should have done that, but you did. Now, do you have to turn in $100 or $200?

I think if the fact that he transferred it caused any delay in getting the money back, then it's their money. If there was no delay, and the money was just sitting for 24 hours in a high interest account instead of a low interest account, then it's his money.
 
2012-05-04 10:46:41 AM

Pants full of macaroni!!: If standard Fark practice is to write "$200 million dollars" for dollar amounts, shouldn't the headline say "€200 million euros"?


Only if he advanced forward to withdraw some of the money from his local ATM machine in order to add an additional wad of cash to his wallet. The bank would of eventually connected together the different kinds of events that he had done previously.
 
2012-05-04 10:47:06 AM

MycroftHolmes: Put it this way, if the bank recovers what they are looking for, would the man be ahead or behind where he started when the error was made? The way I read it, he would be in exactly the same place. Bank makes an error. Bank tries to correct the error. Man already tried to take advantage of error. Bank just seeks to make itself whole.

Sorry, I don't see how the bank is wrong at all. The man had no right to the money (and he knew it), in many jurisdictions, what he did would rightly be classified as theft.


I agree with everything you wrote. I think the second bank, where he deposited the 10 mil, should get the 12k back. Not the first one.
 
2012-05-04 10:49:21 AM

MycroftHolmes: The way I read it, he would be in exactly the same place.



The 12 large is interest they want to charge him for "borrowing" the money. If they got what they want, he would be €12,000 lighter.

It is not the interest earned they are after. What bank is paying a 14.4% interest rate? At today's rates, one day of interest would probably be less than a 100 Euro on 10 million.
 
2012-05-04 10:52:10 AM

MycroftHolmes: Sorry, I don't see how the bank is wrong at all. The man had no right to the money (and he knew it), in many jurisdictions, what he did would rightly be classified as theft


The bank made a mistake. If the bank makes a mistake against me I have to fight tooth and nail to get the money back, and I never get interest. As long as he got it back to them in less than 10 business days (or however long it takes them to fix mistakes), he should be able to keep all the interest.

Also if the banks accidently takes money they never check to see if they should, never corrects mistakes that were made int heir favor, etc.

In short, fark them.
 
2012-05-04 10:52:13 AM

Petit_Merdeux: The 12 large is interest they want to charge him for "borrowing" the money. If they got what they want, he would be €12,000 lighter.


I think you are reading it wrong.

Petit_Merdeux: It is not the interest earned they are after.


According to the article it is:

the €12,000 interest earned while it was "resting in his account" overnight...
it demanded €12,000 on top - 14.4 percent interest on the money he moved.


I'm skeptical just as you are but if you take the article at what it is actually saying, that was 12k interest earned they are after.
 
2012-05-04 10:56:35 AM
Dude was in the wrong the moment he transferred money he knew wasn't coming to him, into a different bank. He shouldn't receive a dime. He can't claim that he didn't ask for a loan, because the moment he acted on that deposit he accepted that deposit as his own.

He should have contacted them to correct the mistake. He should pay up.
 
2012-05-04 10:57:20 AM

liam76: MycroftHolmes: Sorry, I don't see how the bank is wrong at all. The man had no right to the money (and he knew it), in many jurisdictions, what he did would rightly be classified as theft

The bank made a mistake. If the bank makes a mistake against me I have to fight tooth and nail to get the money back, and I never get interest. As long as he got it back to them in less than 10 business days (or however long it takes them to fix mistakes), he should be able to keep all the interest.

Also if the banks accidently takes money they never check to see if they should, never corrects mistakes that were made int heir favor, etc.

In short, fark them.


You do realize that he actively moved the money to a second bank, I assume so that the bank could not get the money back easily.

He has a right to be whole, nothing more. If there were steps he had to do to correct their mistakes, he has a right to be compensated for his time. He did not have a right to the money, or the interest it accrued. if the bank lost the ability to charge interest due to actions on his part (note, they are only going after interest for the 10 million he tried to hide, not the whole 200 million), they have a right to recover that.

IT WAS NOT HIS MONEY!!!!!! He should not be penalized, but nor is he entitle to profit from an honest mistake.

Your 'two wrongs make a right' argument is invalid.
 
2012-05-04 10:58:14 AM
Whenever there's a thread about someone giving back an erroneous windfall or going out of their way to try and correct an error, everyone says, "Put the money in a savings account, make interest, give back the money when asked."

This guy is doing it RIGHT.
 
2012-05-04 10:59:34 AM

lennavan: I think you are reading it wrong.


The more I read it, the more I think the article is not very well written.

The district court in Itzehoe, Schleswig-Holstein, ruled on Thursday that Comdirect should repay the man the €12,000 - plus the interest it accrued over the last year.

Does this mean he had the money (10 or 200 million - who knows?) for a year? Or does it mean the bank took the 12,000 from him a year ago and now they have to give it back and pay him a years interest on the 12,000? I think it is the latter.


"We only implemented normal procedures - it was nothing more than correct protocol."

Well, if depositing 10,000 times the correct amount is "normal" I want to do business with them. I'll just make sure I have the plane tickets and a big suitcase already.
 
2012-05-04 11:01:23 AM

lennavan: Petit_Merdeux: The 12 large is interest they want to charge him for "borrowing" the money. If they got what they want, he would be €12,000 lighter.

I think you are reading it wrong.

Petit_Merdeux: It is not the interest earned they are after.

According to the article it is:

the €12,000 interest earned while it was "resting in his account" overnight...
it demanded €12,000 on top - 14.4 percent interest on the money he moved.

I'm skeptical just as you are but if you take the article at what it is actually saying, that was 12k interest earned they are after.


Now the bank shouldn't get the 12k euros on top, you're right about that. That's just fking usury. Everybody's an asshole in this story, but dude wouldn't be in this mess if he hadn't tried to scam the bank in the first place.

The bank needs to be slapped down hard for the 12K euro penalty fee they put on top. If they want to make dude pay, they need to do it properly and go through the court system to charge him with theft. If they wouldn't win a case for theft, they need to swallow their mistake and let it go.
 
2012-05-04 11:01:38 AM
I wonder how pissed they would be if a massive wad shows up in your bank account right before the FDIC swoops in to shutdown the place.

"I know you accidentally transferred $100 million to my account but it was only insured for $250k, so you're SOL."
 
2012-05-04 11:03:12 AM

lennavan: MycroftHolmes: Put it this way, if the bank recovers what they are looking for, would the man be ahead or behind where he started when the error was made? The way I read it, he would be in exactly the same place. Bank makes an error. Bank tries to correct the error. Man already tried to take advantage of error. Bank just seeks to make itself whole.

Sorry, I don't see how the bank is wrong at all. The man had no right to the money (and he knew it), in many jurisdictions, what he did would rightly be classified as theft.

I agree with everything you wrote. I think the second bank, where he deposited the 10 mil, should get the 12k back. Not the first one.


The second bank is not shorted. They had usage of the 10 million for however long it was in their bank. During that time, they were able to sue that money to generate more money (hence, interest). It is the first bank that was denied the ability to use the money that was rightfully theirs, hence their desire to be made whole.
 
2012-05-04 11:06:38 AM

Petit_Merdeux: lennavan: I think you are reading it wrong.

The more I read it, the more I think the article is not very well written.

The district court in Itzehoe, Schleswig-Holstein, ruled on Thursday that Comdirect should repay the man the €12,000 - plus the interest it accrued over the last year.

Does this mean he had the money (10 or 200 million - who knows?) for a year? Or does it mean the bank took the 12,000 from him a year ago and now they have to give it back and pay him a years interest on the 12,000? I think it is the latter.


"We only implemented normal procedures - it was nothing more than correct protocol."

Well, if depositing 10,000 times the correct amount is "normal" I want to do business with them. I'll just make sure I have the plane tickets and a big suitcase already.


This may be a big surprise to you, but in almost every process, business or otherwise, there are a certain number of mistakes that occur. There is no industry that I am aware of where mistakes never happen. Normal business practice is to have a process to discover and remediate the issue. You do understand that mistake get made, right?
 
2012-05-04 11:07:54 AM
Instead of moving some of it I would have quickly purchased bearer bonds and contacted a Swiss bank to hold them, then grabbed my loved ones and and disappeared into Africa or the South Pacific or something.
 
2012-05-04 11:09:25 AM

BigLuca: MycroftHolmes:
Put it this way, if the bank recovers what they are looking for, would the man be ahead or behind where he started when the error was made? The way I read it, he would be in exactly the same place. Bank makes an error. Bank tries to correct the error. Man already tried to take advantage of error. Bank just seeks to mak ...

You find a wallet with $100 in it (or more accurately, a stranger mistakenly puts his wallet in your pocket). On your way to turn in the wallet to the proper authorities, you stop at a casino and double you money. This was wrong of you, you should have done that, but you did. Now, do you have to turn in $100 or $200?

I think if the fact that he transferred it caused any delay in getting the money back, then it's their money. If there was no delay, and the money was just sitting for 24 hours in a high interest account instead of a low interest account, then it's his money.


Depends, are you ethical or not. If you are ethical, you give him the $200, it was his capital at risk, not yours. Had you lost the money, would you have paid him the $100 out of your pocket?

If you are unethical, you pocket the $100 and go about your merry way.

Look, found money is NOT YOUR MONEY!
 
2012-05-04 11:12:55 AM

Petit_Merdeux: MycroftHolmes: The way I read it, he would be in exactly the same place.


The 12 large is interest they want to charge him for "borrowing" the money. If they got what they want, he would be €12,000 lighter.

It is not the interest earned they are after. What bank is paying a 14.4% interest rate? At today's rates, one day of interest would probably be less than a 100 Euro on 10 million.


If you want to make the argument that 12,000 is too much, I would be incline to agree. i would want to know the no-risk interest rate at the time and the exact amount additional time that the man's actions cost the bank in recovering their 10 million. It is possible that they are asking for 12,000 as a bargaining point or in an effort to be punitive.

Bottom line, I believe that the man is responsible for making the bank whole with regards to what his actions cost him, but not more or less.
 
2012-05-04 11:25:25 AM

Bleck: the interest would have been 0.2%. I use my credit union at work now.


The APY on normal savings at my credit union is only 0.05%. :( I can get up to 0.4% if I have over $50k in a money market account, though.
 
2012-05-04 11:27:50 AM

RDixon: If I found a couple hundred million in my account, I would quickly vanish, along with the money.

Well, I may leave 12k in the account as a parting gift.


You may find it tougher to "vanish" a couple hundred million euros than that. You can't just walk up to the teller and fill out a withdrawal slip, can you? If you transfer it to another bank, they'll just transfer the money back.
 
2012-05-04 11:32:50 AM
MycroftHolmes
You do realize that he actively moved the money to a second bank, I assume so that the bank could not get the money back easily.


I think it's more likely that he did it to earn some interest on it.
This money probably went to his interest-less giro account and he transferred it to something like a "Tagesgeldkonto"(*) with 2-3% interest, hoping that he would be contacted first so that he could move the money back and the transfer the whole shebang to wherever the bank wanted it.

The 14.x% interest they charged him are probably the overdraft fees on the guy's account where the money originally appeared - it's likely that the bank corrected its error by transferring everything back and he ended up with a balance of - (10million + overdraft interest) until he moved the 10million back that he had transferred out. Moving the money back canceled out the 10 million he moved away, but left him with the hefty overdraft fees.


(*) popular account type in Germany, but I didn't find a really good translation; sort of like a savings account, but you've more or less instant access to it
 
2012-05-04 11:33:10 AM
Michael H. swiftly transferred €10 million of it into his current account in a different bank.


What an ass. Sounds like he was trying to be sneaky, and failed utterly.
 
2012-05-04 11:37:15 AM

MycroftHolmes: BigLuca: MycroftHolmes:
Put it this way, if the bank recovers what they are looking for, would the man be ahead or behind where he started when the error was made? The way I read it, he would be in exactly the same place. Bank makes an error. Bank tries to correct the error. Man already tried to take advantage of error. Bank just seeks to mak ...

You find a wallet with $100 in it (or more accurately, a stranger mistakenly puts his wallet in your pocket). On your way to turn in the wallet to the proper authorities, you stop at a casino and double you money. This was wrong of you, you should have done that, but you did. Now, do you have to turn in $100 or $200?

I think if the fact that he transferred it caused any delay in getting the money back, then it's their money. If there was no delay, and the money was just sitting for 24 hours in a high interest account instead of a low interest account, then it's his money.

Depends, are you ethical or not. If you are ethical, you give him the $200, it was his capital at risk, not yours. Had you lost the money, would you have paid him the $100 out of your pocket?

If you are unethical, you pocket the $100 and go about your merry way.

Look, found money is NOT YOUR MONEY!


Generally I agree with you. Although I would argue that if you planned to pay back the 100 dollars if you lost it means you get to keep the 100 dollars that you won. But in either case it was wrong to gamble it in the first place.

However, I think people feel frustrated that individuals are bound by laws and ethics and corporations are just bound by laws, and even then they can use loopholes (no loopholes in ethics) and influence the creation of the laws. I think this makes people more likely to view interactions with corporations as an ethical free zone.
 
2012-05-04 11:55:23 AM

jaylectricity: I must be mis-reading something. The bank "demanded" the money, yet somehow the ruling is for them to pay him back the money?


ok, here it is.
1 bank accidentally transfers 200 million in guys account
2 guy takes 10 million and puts it into a second bank
3 first bank realizes error and demands money back
4 guy and second bank comply and give money back
5 in the short time the second bank had the 10 million, they paid guy 12,000 in interest
6 first bank finds out about this and says, OK but then we get to charge guy 14.4% interest because guy "borrowed" the money and deposited it into the second bank. now because guy doesn't have the equivalent of 14.4% first bank just takes all 12,000
7 a year later court calls first bank a dummy, and declares that first bank must pay guy the 12,000 plus interest for the year they kept it
/i agree with court
 
2012-05-04 12:15:18 PM

Egoy3k: Instead of moving some of it I would have quickly purchased bearer bonds and contacted a Swiss bank to hold them, then grabbed my loved ones and and disappeared into Africa or the South Pacific or something.


I see some flaws with your plan
don't use Swiss banks anymore
Everything in Africa wants to kill you
 
2012-05-04 12:21:37 PM
That's pretty good interest. Like 2% if I did my calculations correctly.
 
2012-05-04 12:23:49 PM

MycroftHolmes: Look, found money is NOT YOUR MONEY!


That's just what rich people say to keep poor people from getting lucky.
 
2012-05-04 12:33:17 PM

jaylectricity: MycroftHolmes: Look, found money is NOT YOUR MONEY!

That's just what rich people say to keep poor people from getting lucky.


I appreciate you calling me rich. Maybe the first person to ever do so.
 
2012-05-04 12:44:14 PM

BigLuca: However, I think people feel frustrated that individuals are bound by laws and ethics and corporations are just bound by laws, and even then they can use loopholes (no loopholes in ethics) and influence the creation of the laws. I think this makes people more likely to view interactions with corporations as an ethical free zone.


Hit the nail on the head there.

Ethically speaking, I have a general problem with theft... but in most cases, I find it hard to see regular people farking over banks as anything but an evening of the score. It's stealing from robber barons.
 
2012-05-04 01:16:23 PM

MycroftHolmes: IT WAS NOT HIS MONEY!!!!!! He should not be penalized, but nor is he entitle to profit from an honest mistake.

Your 'two wrongs make a right' argument is invalid


Banks profit off their "honest mistakes" all the time.

It isn't a case of "two wrongs make a right" it is a case of applying the same standards banks do when they mistakenly take your money.
 
2012-05-04 01:18:10 PM

liam76: MycroftHolmes: IT WAS NOT HIS MONEY!!!!!! He should not be penalized, but nor is he entitle to profit from an honest mistake.

Your 'two wrongs make a right' argument is invalid

Banks profit off their "honest mistakes" all the time.

It isn't a case of "two wrongs make a right" it is a case of applying the same standards banks do when they mistakenly take your money.


Can you provide an example of when a bank did this and their actions were supported by the courts?
 
2012-05-04 01:35:35 PM
I'm torn on this one. The bank made a rather huge and farktarded mistake, and the dude willfully took advantage of that mistake. Probably the bank should get the money back, I guess.

Shouldda withdrew it all in cash and disappeared to South America.
 
2012-05-04 01:38:32 PM

davidab: jaylectricity: I must be mis-reading something. The bank "demanded" the money, yet somehow the ruling is for them to pay him back the money?

ok, here it is.
1 bank accidentally transfers 200 million in guys account
2 guy takes 10 million and puts it into a second bank
3 first bank realizes error and demands money back
4 guy and second bank comply and give money back
5 in the short time the second bank had the 10 million, they paid guy 12,000 in interest
6 first bank finds out about this and says, OK but then we get to charge guy 14.4% interest because guy "borrowed" the money and deposited it into the second bank. now because guy doesn't have the equivalent of 14.4% first bank just takes all 12,000
7 a year later court calls first bank a dummy, and declares that first bank must pay guy the 12,000 plus interest for the year they kept it
/i agree with court


close

5. didn't happen, he never got any interest for his money
6. they charge him 14.4% (yearly) interest for the money he transferred out. backing out to the short time he had it, that 14.4% translated to 12k.
7. he paid them back the money + 12 K out of pocket
8. a year went by, while he was fighting to get it back
9. he was awarded the 12k back + interest on that 12k for the year he was missing it.
 
Displayed 50 of 59 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report