Hacker News Reader

Ah yes, the well-known "if they don't notice you took it, it's not a crime" loophole.

And no, the money wouldn't come from customers, why would it? Citi is a for-profit entity, this came out of their profits.

Profits come from customers.

Right, yes, so it doesn't matter how much they steal from customers.

Got it.

Its double stealing if the consumer pays for the regulation and the scam at the same time.

The point of the regulation is to prevent the scam, or recover for the customer the scammed funds.

Presumably a bunch of that money ultimately came from the very same customers who are receiving this payout. The fact that it’s called a “refund” might help tip the other side off on this.

> why should Citi be forced to "wealth re-distribute" these funds from one set of customers to another set?

Nothing leads me to believe that the second set is different from the first. In fact, the word “refund” suggests they’re the same.

How is this "wealth re-distribution"? Citi wasn't supposed to have that money in the first place.