Community Forums

catonine · 04-05-2012, 11:01 AM

This individual is a thief, plain and simple. This thief in turn stole from another thief, the bank. Greed is the culpret that induced both to do what they did. Even though it was one thief stealing from another thief, it is still wrong. The difference is the first thief will get caught and punished while the second thief (bank) will face no consequences for its acts. The bank thieves will simply tack on more fees for customers to make up for any lose. To me, both are thieves, IMHO.

rf4 · 04-05-2012, 11:27 AM

"North Shore's only solace might be knowing it wasn't Ott's only victim. "During its investigation, the bank discovered that Ott had defrauded several other financial institutions of millions of dollars," according to the appellate decision"

Ott is a master of fraud. Who knows if his business was really making money or not, it may have been there as a shell for the rest of his crimes. I hope he is punished for all his crimes. As do all criminals, the ones who are really screwed is all of us, the non-criminals. We are the ones who have to pay the added "fees" to reimburse for his crimes.

Fred and Bonnie · 04-05-2012, 11:43 AM

Travelers?

Ramblin · 04-05-2012, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catonine

This individual is a thief, plain and simple. This thief in turn stole from another thief, the bank. Greed is the culpret that induced both to do what they did. Even though it was one thief stealing from another thief, it is still wrong. The difference is the first thief will get caught and punished while the second thief (bank) will face no consequences for its acts. The bank thieves will simply tack on more fees for customers to make up for any lose. To me, both are thieves, IMHO.

IMHO, corporations cannot be 'greedy'. The term 'corporate greed' is a misnomer. Corporations exist for only one purpose: to generate as much profit as possible for their stockholders. The more efficient a corporation is at generating this profit (measured as profit margin), the better it is for the stockholders. They have to keep their customers happy, while still keeping their stockholders happy. It's a delicate balancing act.

As a customer, if you think your bank is profiting too much at your expense or behaving unethically, you have the freedom to fire them and hire a bank that operates more to your liking. Once enough people walk, the bank will change its tune, or fail ("too big to fail" status notwithstanding).

My bank (Truliant Federal Credit Union) treats me fairly, and I'm happy with their fee structure and their service. I kicked Bank of America to the curb a couple years ago because I found their banking practices unethical and unacceptible. If you think your bank is a thief, why do you continue to bank there? If you think ALL banks are thieves, I will respectfully disagree.

EngineerMike · 04-05-2012, 12:16 PM

The VIN falsification is interesting. When I brought our motorhome to CA, the Highway Patrol had to verify the VIN. The actual VIN tag is on the frame, under the coach. There is a plasticized label also indicating the VIN, behind the gen slide that can be read standing up w/the gen slide open. The Patrolman read the gen slide label, and refused to crawl under the coach to see if it was the same.

Had Ott tried to register his '07' Beaver in CA, it would have worked slick. Guess the bank isn't the only less-than-thorough outfit in the loop.

But then there is the series of judges, making bad law. If that Cert of Origin wasn't counterfeit, then what is? What a stupid precedent to set just to hang the bank with failure to do proper due diligence!!!! Now there will be some series of other poor saps caught in non-counterfeit-counterfeit scams because some dumb ass judges needed a technical ruse instead of simply finding the bank guilty of bad due diligence. (Note: this assumes the reporter actually got the facts of the case reported correctly, which is a big assumption, Always read the fine print)

Midniteoyl · 04-05-2012, 01:12 PM

OMG! Where do you guys get off thinking I'm a 'stick it to the bank' person or that I dont think Ott is a thief???

Of course he is - he stole and is therefore a thief. I do NOT condone this type of behavior.

All I said was I did not feel sorry for the bank as they are the ones who were sooooooo happy to give out the loan they did not do due diligents..... just as I dont feel sorry for those that took out more mortgage than they could realisticly afford and didnt even make the first payment...

Not feeling sorry for an action taken is not the same as condoning...

Midniteoyl · 04-05-2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngineerMike

The VIN falsification is interesting. When I brought our motorhome to CA, the Highway Patrol had to verify the VIN. The actual VIN tag is on the frame, under the coach. There is a plasticized label also indicating the VIN, behind the gen slide that can be read standing up w/the gen slide open. The Patrolman read the gen slide label, and refused to crawl under the coach to see if it was the same.

Had Ott tried to register his '07' Beaver in CA, it would have worked slick. Guess the bank isn't the only less-than-thorough outfit in the loop.

But then there is the series of judges, making bad law. If that Cert of Origin wasn't counterfeit, then what is? What a stupid precedent to set just to hang the bank with failure to do proper due diligence!!!! Now there will be some series of other poor saps caught in non-counterfeit-counterfeit scams because some dumb ass judges needed a technical ruse instead of simply finding the bank guilty of bad due diligence. (Note: this assumes the reporter actually got the facts of the case reported correctly, which is a big assumption, Always read the fine print)

I dont know about there in CA, but here, the BMV, Bank, and Insurance Co can simplt type the VIN into a data base and see what it goes to. Prolly wouldnt stop someone trying to sell the same model/year as the VIN, but it would have caught a 2003 being sold as a 2007.

bluepill · 04-05-2012, 01:23 PM

Ah.......... My two "favorite" businesses: Banks and Insurance companies. And one sticks it to the other.................With the help of my third fave - A motor vehicle dealer.

Priceless.

two-niner · 04-05-2012, 01:25 PM

Envy is ugly. I can hear all the head slapping "Dang, why didn't I think of that first".

LOL.

Kerry

Ramblin · 04-05-2012, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midniteoyl

OMG! Where do you guys get off thinking I'm a 'stick it to the bank' person or that I dont think Ott is a thief???

I apologize. I singled your post out because it had a flavor of the idea that because many big banks have been so unethical in their business for so long that many people feel no compassion for them when they become victimized. I did not mean to say that you were a 'stick it to the bank' person or that you condoned this guy's behavior. If others read that into my post, this one is to correct that misreading.

Lincolnboy2 · 04-05-2012, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wa8yxm

You know.. Normally I'm not a big fan of the banks.

But I hope OTT is apprehended, charged, convicted, and asked to serve a number of days equal to the dollar amount of his fraud.

Lincolnboy2 · 04-05-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnRR

I wonder how the next person is going to be treated by that bank when they go in for a MH loan

I thought the SAME thing myself.

RovinOn · 04-05-2012, 02:42 PM

What goes around, comes around for both parties involved!.

Ramblin you said it all right here,,,,

Quote:

Truliant Federal Credit Union

Credit Union.

I haven't done business with banks in years!

Quote:

Ah.......... My two "favorite" businesses: Banks and Insurance companies. And one sticks it to the other.................With the help of my third fave - A motor vehicle dealer.

Priceless

Absolutely!

doc · 04-05-2012, 04:01 PM

What makes the bank a thief? If they had offered you folks a good deal on a loan and you took it, then they would be your hero. Just because stupid people borrowed more money than they could repay and lost their homes does not make the bank a bad person. Did the bank come knocking on their doors begging them to take a loan? Not likely. More likely these people came to the bank and asked for a loan, then failed to comply with the contract they signed and defaulted. Does that make the bank the bad guy?
In this particular case Ott is just a common criminal with a bold imagination and a soul of larceny. How any of you can rejoice, in a loss that will cost any customer of that bank, says a lot about how you would be do deal with and your character. Hope I am wrong but you guys are made the statements. Were you blustering or genuine?