A Very Busy Relationship Manager

[jw5]

The district judge noted that Ms Tham, whom he described as a truthful witness, was a 'high-performing personal banker who had much paperwork to do'

I have been wondering from the beginning how it was ascertained that she was a "truthful witness" and the connection between a "high performing personal banker with much paperwork" and whether she misappropriated funds.

Hence my question "What does her being very busy have to do with whether she misappropriated funds?" A person who is very free can also misappropriate funds. Someone who is very busy can also advise the client properly, ask them to sign in all the right places, and bank in the money according to the bank's operating procedures.

 

[Lestat]

I think for this case the bank should be sued instead of the RM.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Ramseth]

I think for this case the bank should be sued instead of the RM.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

As I've mentioned in an earlier posting, the RM was probably doing bancassurance in the bank for an investment policy to be issued by another insurance company. The RM then had to issue an interim receipt before banking in the money. If the banking in wasn't done, there'd be no bank machinated receipt and the bank can't be sued.

It's the same as if you pay insurance premium to your agent. Your agent issues you a receipt. Only after your agent pays in the premium to the company cashier, would you receive a machinated statement.

 

[jw5]

I think for this case the bank should be sued instead of the RM.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

Not if the bank has already paid the customer back her money.
As scroobal pointed out, this probably has already happened, and the state is now charging the RM on a criminal charge. The customer is not the plantiff.

 

[jw5]

As I've mentioned in an earlier posting, the RM was probably doing bancassurance in the bank for an investment policy to be issued by another insurance company. The RM then had to issue an interim receipt before banking in the money. If the banking in wasn't done, there'd be no bank machinated receipt and the bank can't be sued.

It's the same as if you pay insurance premium to your agent. Your agent issues you a receipt. Only after your agent pays in the premium to the company cashier, would you receive a machinated statement.

If the bank had not paid back the customer, the customer would have been able to sue both the bank and the RM, since the RM works for the bank and is authorised to carry out transactions for the bank.

Just like in cases involving lawyers, the organization must also be held liable, otherwise individual clients will be susceptible to all sorts of hanky panky from individual employees.

In this case, it appears that the bank has paid the customer and the case is between the state and the RM.

 

[Mdm Tang]

Can We Handle The Truth ???​

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hGvQtumNAY

.

 

[Mdm Tang]

.


Greed Is Good !!!
.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vscG3k91s58&feature=related

.

 

[Ramseth]

Thanks ma'am...a few good men and Gordon Gekko...all the way!