Error
  • JUser::_load: Unable to load user with id: 67

Featured Articles

Apple iPad Air 2 costs $275 to build

Apple iPad Air 2 costs $275 to build

IHS has told Recode that the Apple iPad Air 2 16GB Wifi costs only $275 to build -- not bad…

More...
LG sells 16.8 million smartphones in Q3 14

LG sells 16.8 million smartphones in Q3 14

As Samsung is losing market share, another Korean company, which many had written off, is gaining.

More...
LG G Watch R EU price set at €299

LG G Watch R EU price set at €299

LG G Watch R is probably the best looking Android Wear device on the market and many have been waiting for…

More...
Nvidia GTX 970 SLI tested

Nvidia GTX 970 SLI tested

Nvidia recently released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture, with exceptional performance-per-watt. The Geforce GTX 970…

More...
Gainward GTX 970 Phantom previewed

Gainward GTX 970 Phantom previewed

Nvidia has released two new graphics cards based on its latest Maxwell GPU architecture. The Geforce GTX 970 and Geforce GTX…

More...
Frontpage Slideshow | Copyright © 2006-2010 orks, a business unit of Nuevvo Webware Ltd.
Friday, 02 January 2009 13:13

Computer glitch costs Chinese bank dearly

Written by

Image

A golden opportunity, almost


Someone
at the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is not a happy camper these days. Due to a computer glitch last week, the bank offered a bid price for gold of 848 yuan per gram, nearly six times more than the actual going rate.

Greedy traders pounced on the offer, although it lasted just 23 minutes, and the Beijing Times thinks these 23 minutes cost the bank 10 million yuan, or $1.46 million. However, the traders' luck didn't last long, as on Saturday the bank posted a statement on its website claiming that its gold trading system had gone ape, and kindly asking users to return the windfall. Under the agreement signed by the users of the bank's gold trading platform, the bank has a right to ask for reimbursement, or at least it thinks it does.

However, on Monday, several differing points of view were offered by numerous lawyers, which isn't much of a surprise as we are, after all, talking about lawyers. Some pointed out the bank had no legal basis for seizing the money, as the clients didn't cheat it intentionally, and should shut up and take the loss caused by its own negligence. Others however, claim the profits constituted "unjust enrichment" and hat to be returned to the bank.

More here.

 

E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Facebook activity

Latest Commented Articles

Recent Comments