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

Featured Articles

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel releases tiny 3G cell modem

Intel has released a 3G cellular modem with an integrated power amplifier that fits into a 300 mm2 footprint, claiming it…

More...
Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

Braswell 14nm Atom slips to Q2 15

It's not all rosy in the house of Intel. It seems that upcoming Atom out-of-order cores might be giving this semiconductor…

More...
TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC 16nm wafers coming in Q1 2015

TSMC will start producing 16nm wafers in the first quarter of 2015. Sometime in the second quarter production should ramp up…

More...
Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S LGA is 35W to 95W TDP part

Skylake-S is the ‘tock’ of the Haswell architecture and despite being delayed from the original plan, this desktop part is scheduled…

More...
Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool Dead Silence reviewed

Aerocool is well known for its gamer cases with aggressive styling. However, the Dead Silence chassis offers consumers a new choice,…

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