Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Victor Ollis denies fraud over $11m 'bank error'

Discussion in 'The Pub' at netrider.net.au started by Justus, Aug 21, 2007.

  1. https://netrider.net.au/forums/viewtopic.php?t=41164

    Couple refuse to return $11m
    By Kim Arlington
    August 21, 2007 12:00am

    ONE of the country's major banks has taken a former customer to court
    in a dispute over $11 million it says was mistakenly transferred to his

    Westpac Bank launched the legal action against North Coast real estate
    agent Victor Ollis who drew cheques but denies any fraud.

    He yesterday told the Supreme Court that if Westpac "can't do their job
    properly... it's the bank's responsibility".

    Mr Ollis had an automatic transfer facility with the bank, which topped up
    his business account using funds from his personal account.

    The transfers should have been stopped after his personal account was
    overdrawn in February 2004, the court heard yesterday.

    But due to an error at Westpac, his account continued to be replenished -
    only with money "from the bank's own pocket".

    Between June and December 2005, Westpac honoured cheques totalling
    about $11 million written by Mr Ollis.

    The bank launched legal action against him after the mistake came to light
    in January 2006.

    Hearing details of the transactions, Justice Clifford Einstein remarked it
    was a situation that could arguably bring a bank down.

    Westpac is also suing Mr Ollis's partner Gail Shields over $4.8 million he trans-
    ferred to her.

    The Kempsey couple, whose assets have been frozen by the NSW Crime
    Commission, are representing themselves as the bank seeks to recover the

    Counsel for Westpac, James Stevenson SC, argued that Mr Ollis must have
    realised the "improbability of there being any innocent explanation" for the
    continuing bank transfers, especially due to the large amounts of money involved.

    But Mr Ollis told the court: "I haven't fraudulently misused the bank in any way."

    "I never deviated or varied in any way, shape or form from normal banking policy
    and everything I did was standard,"
    he said from the bar table.

    "If the bank can't look after their money, if the bank can't do their job properly ...
    it's the bank's responsibility."

    Ms Shields is defending the case on the grounds that she believed the money
    she borrowed from Mr Ollis was legitimately his.

    Mr Stevenson said Mr Ollis started out cautiously by writing a cheque for

    By the end of 2005, he was writing cheques for more than 10 times that amount.

    During that period he did not deposit any money into either of his accounts, the
    court heard.

    Mr Stevenson said: "A human error meant the facility "kept working, except it was
    drawing money from the bank's own pocket."

    The case continues.

    Bank bungle ... Victor Ollis and Gail Sheilds leave the Supreme Court in
    Sydney yesterday

    Story: http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=287962
  2. Where did most of his cheques go? McDonalds?
  3. I just KNEW you'd pick up on that story, MG :rofl:.
  4. What asshats.

    The solution seems simple..

    Make anonymous donations to hundreds of charities. That way they can't track it back

    PLUS even if they did, the PR would be too bad to take the money back from charities.

    Wow I'm on fire..
  5. i was watchin the new,
    apparently the bank doesnt want its 11 mill back.
    The fat couple offered to settle (give back) 20 million to the bank.

    However the bank wants
    all the property the bough with the money which im assuming is over 20 million.
  6. Dishonest cnuts Vs. Dishonest cnuts.

    I hope they both lose.
  7. The banks wouldn't bat an eyelid. After all, they regularly post obscenely huge multi-billion dollar profits, so why would taking money back off charities bother them?
  8. How can the banks justify getting the property as well? Seems like an ambit claim.

    There might be the air of fraud in this particular case since he would KNOW that his personal account was EMPTY even though his business account was still being topped up...

    MG's case is different - but I knew he'd pick up the story!

    What's your point of view MG?
  9. [​IMG]
  10. 768678_ZO5QNW. You's know I read the news websites daily eh

    I'm thinking bank has gone after their property because couple no longer
    have the cash & mustve spent it on property or spent it elsewhere however
    their property is equal to the value of the money put into their account.

    So if couple are not able to pay the money back, they must be going after
    sale of their property to recoup their losses.

    My view(s)?

    Mixed. In the David's Vs Golliath's we like to support the little man. So
    good on em for sticking up to the banks. Would be good if they were
    able to pull it off.

    The Judge appears to hint that this may be the case (highlighted OP).

    I'm not a law man, but ethically, if push came to shove, I'd take the same
    views as majority of posts in the related thread; that is, they should repay
    the money that wasent theirs.

    Especially if he knew it wasent his; which is confirmed by his actions during
    the time money was being deposited, in addition to his testimony.