Cheques being phased out in Australia by 2030

[nctnico]

My large bank (Bank of America) in the US has implemented ATMs all over its territory, both in branch banks (to reduce their labor force) and in free-standing locations.
They can accept deposits in cash (no coins), as well as dispense cash (in certain denominations).

You can find similar ATMs over here for many years already. More recently ATMs have been standarised so they work for all banks c.q. the bank specific ATMs are dissapearing. But this only goes to show that banks like to work without cash and have people use their debit / credit cards / digital payments for transactions.

[CatalinaWOW]

There still remain the follow the money questions.

ATMs in the US are tied together in networks so virtually any card can be used at any ATM.  But if the ATM is not from your home bank there is a fee.  The fee varies depending on whether the ATM is from a bank or company that is in one of the several alliances, or is a private ATM (often found in bars, convenience stores and places where gambling is allowed).  Those fees are smallest within the close alliances, sometimes even waived and are $3-$4 for the bulk of non-native transactions and go up to $5+ for the private machines.

Back when checks were in vogue no checking account drew interest, and low risk investments brought in 3-5% interest.  The banks covered their costs and made their money on the float in the checking accounts.  In recent years the low risk investments draw 1-2% and banks obviously don't appreciate the reduced profits or even losses.  The fees they charge on electronic transfers don't depend on the float and for credit transactions seem to run in the 2-4 percent range.  The banks must really love the folks making $40 cash withdrawals from the ATMs and paying a $3.50 fee.  Much better rate of return than on credit cards.

The fraud exposure question is interesting.  In more than 50 years of check usage I have never had a check stolen and used to attack my account or had the amount modified on a check I have written, and only a couple of checks which bounced due to insufficient funds in the check writers account.  I have however had fraudulent charges on credit and debit cards on half a dozen occasions, with multiple charges in the majority of those cases.  What is more interesting is that from the banks point of view the risk from checks is lower since (at least at the banks I have dealt with) they don't cover any losses and in fact they often charge a fee to both the writer and recipient for a bounced check.  While (at least here in the US) the banking companies are responsible for a significant part of the losses for credit card fraud and often for debit cards. 

In my mind there are two things going on here.  The Australian government finds use of EFT cheaper and thus wants to eliminate checks.  I suspect one of the biggest savings for the government is mailing costs.  I don't know if Australia uses franking (term in US for the governments use of the mail without paying postage), but even with that the envelopes and checks and machines to stuff them do cost as does the actual delivery, and at government scale it is a sizeable chunk of change.    Meanwhile the banks find EFT more profitable and prefers that business.

The lifestyle benefits or drawbacks probably don't matter a whit in these decisions.

[TimFox]

My experience with checks and credit-card fraud in the US is similar to CatalinaWOW.
I have been using checks since 1966, and have never had a check stolen, nor modified, but had one check to me from a personal sale that bounced, back in 1975.

Since I only use credit cards (along with an ATM card that is not a debit card), I have had a few episodes of credit-card fraud attempted on me.
I believe that each actual fraud attempt was caught by the card issuer (both American Express and Visa), who notified me promptly.
In each case, I still had physical possession of the card, but the numbers had been compromised somehow.
The card issuers were quick to fix the problem, but I had to wait for delivery of a replacement card (with different numbers) and to notify some recurring-payment vendors.

My favorite episode was some miscreant trying to order expensive stuff from Apple, apparently only knowing my name.
The idiot outside agent for Apple handling his request happily looked up my record with Apple, and charged it to my Amex card, but they caught it.
Apparently, they thought it strange that I would order an expensive computer drop-shipped to Hong Kong, instead of Chicago.
This was the morning when I was leaving for Japan.
I dealt with the Amex fraud department about this before leaving, but of course could not get a new card before departure.

My frustration with these episodes (besides logistics on card replacement, which was inevitable) is that, by policy, they never tell me what happened with their attempts (if any) to catch the perpetrator.
I do not look with favor on being forced to do everything online, regardless of my own preference.

[coppice]

There still remain the follow the money questions.

ATMs in the US are tied together in networks so virtually any card can be used at any ATM.  But if the ATM is not from your home bank there is a fee.

This used to be the case in many places. In the UK these days you'll find a lot of ATMs with a "FREE CASH" sign, which might sound bizarre to an outsider, but simply means no fees for an account with any UK bank. We are well beyond the point where running a comprehensive ATM network was a competitive advantage. Cash use is now low enough the banks want to provide an adequate service with the minimum ATMs, so they are happy to share resources.

[nctnico]

The fraud exposure question is interesting.  In more than 50 years of check usage I have never had a check stolen and used to attack my account or had the amount modified on a check I have written, and only a couple of checks which bounced due to insufficient funds in the check writers account.  I have however had fraudulent charges on credit and debit cards on half a dozen occasions, with multiple charges in the majority of those cases.  What is more interesting is that from the banks point of view the risk from checks is lower since (at least at the banks I have dealt with) they don't cover any losses and in fact they often charge a fee to both the writer and recipient for a bounced check.  While (at least here in the US) the banking companies are responsible for a significant part of the losses for credit card fraud and often for debit cards. 

It could be fraud from checks is mostly visible to banks compared the fraud with credit/debit cards which is also visible to the customer. Over here banks are quite lenient towards covering losses due to skimming and phising (and other internet related fraud methods). I guess that is still cheaper for the banks compared to dealing with cash money (which can also be stolen but this is not visible to the customer).

Germany has quite a bit of problems with gangs (from the NL) that blow up ATMs to steal the money for a long time already. Besides tens of millions of euros that got stolen, the cost for the damage caused is in the hundreds of million euros. Not to mention safety for the people living near the ATMs. The criminals don't care about loss of life they may cause at all.

[Halcyon]

... But you don't include such failures in your belief that cheques are unnecessary and desirable.

I don't believe that... society has demonstrated that as a whole. Whether you look at consumer habits, or government organisations and corporations, people have turned their back on cheques. It's not a belief, it's what's actually happening in the real world.

Saying "need better oversight" presumes that more management could improve the issue. I don't believe that, since people are people and the systems are enormously complicated conglomeration of individual systems.

That's one possible solution. Either the management/oversight is insufficient, or they are doing it wrong. Which is it?

So you are now presuming that people that have difficulty getting one account should get several accounts! Ridiculous and impractical.

Not at all. In fact, I demonstrated the opposite by using a single account for the past 25 years. I explained how a single card can have redundancies built-in. I simply said "many people have" multiple accounts, therefore increasing that redundancy even more. That's simply another option and a choice consumers have if they want to diversify their financial products.

I'm glad you aren't in charge of ATC, since you would think that ATC controllers would never need to revert to paper strips (containing flight details) thrown across the room from one controller to another.

I'm glad I'm not either since I'm neither an expert or trained in controlling aircraft. I have no desire to be.

And I have said that I rarely use cheques. Nonetheless, they are useful sometimes. The cost justification for stopping them doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You keep saying that, but you haven't explained HOW. I've already outlined some costs associated with keeping a chequing system alive.

[TimFox]

I don't know about Australia, but the banking industry in the US seems to have figured out how to process checks automatically at a reasonable cost.
They no longer physically return checks by mail, and many checks go immediately to digital, and it seems to work.

[coppice]

I don't know about Australia, but the banking industry in the US seems to have figured out how to process checks automatically at a reasonable cost.
They no longer physically return checks by mail, and many checks go immediately to digital, and it seems to work.

In the UK we don't even submit cheques to the bank any more. We just scan them with our phones using the bank's online app, or at ATM. Only cheques which just won't scan need to be physically submitted. You need to find a full featured ATM, though. Most don't support automated cheque submission. If you go to the big branches in the centre of this city you only get face time with a human if you have something that needs discussing.

[TimFox]

Banks in the US also allow submission of checks by phone camera.
The first time we saw a commercial for that here over 10 years ago, my wife and I laughed because we both immediately thought of shooting a 6 x 12 cm image on 120 roll film.
Every ATM I have used at my bank accepts checks for deposit:
The machine reads the check and asks me to verify the amount before swallowing it.
If the check were unreadable, it would reject it.
With the exception of one machine at my local branch that had gone haywire, ATMs seem to be reliable machines for handling paper (checks and currency).

[tggzzz]

... But you don't include such failures in your belief that cheques are unnecessary and desirable.

I don't believe that... society has demonstrated that as a whole.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Such system failures do occur, all too often. Yesterday part of Barclays Bank systems failed.

Whether you look at consumer habits, or government organisations and corporations, people have turned their back on cheques. It's not a belief, it's what's actually happening in the real world.

Strawman argument.

You might as well state that people have turned their backs on walking in favour of cars.

Saying "need better oversight" presumes that more management could improve the issue. I don't believe that, since people are people and the systems are enormously complicated conglomeration of individual systems.

That's one possible solution. Either the management/oversight is insufficient, or they are doing it wrong. Which is it?

Neither.

The systems are so large and complex that no one person or organisation

• can ever understand the whole
• controls the whole in any meaningful way
• and that's equally true inside an organisation as well as the whole banking system

That's the reality, and hoping/believing otherwise leads to futile policy declarations.

Or maybe you think that a corporate mandate to "write error free code" is a practical management strategy!

So you are now presuming that people that have difficulty getting one account should get several accounts! Ridiculous and impractical.

Not at all. In fact, I demonstrated the opposite by using a single account for the past 25 years. I explained how a single card can have redundancies built-in. I simply said "many people have" multiple accounts, therefore increasing that redundancy even more. That's simply another option and a choice consumers have if they want to diversify their financial products.

Yes, you did, to all intents and purposes. The only way your previous statement (which you conveniently snipped) could have made sense is if you presumed that your experience could be generalised to everybody. Here's what you wrote: "Many people have multiple accounts. It might be debit card account and a seperate credit card. ... If I'm at home and wanting to pay bills online, I have at least 3 different ways of doing it, all from the one bank account."

Your "I'm alright Jack" therefore everybody else could also be alright is naive and doesn't reflect well on you.

I've just read this example of why physical transfer can be useful in some cases: https://twistedsifter.com/2023/10/ive-never-had-a-check-lost-so-you-dont-have-to-worry-tenant-catches-landlord-lying-about-not-receiving-his-rent-and-he-has-video-evidence/ Not definitive of course, but it is illustrative.

I'm glad you aren't in charge of ATC, since you would think that ATC controllers would never need to revert to paper strips (containing flight details) thrown across the room from one controller to another.

I'm glad I'm not either since I'm neither an expert or trained in controlling aircraft. I have no desire to be.

That's avoiding the directly relevant analogy. Not a good debating tactic, which makes it look like you don't want to concede that your position is weak.

And I have said that I rarely use cheques. Nonetheless, they are useful sometimes. The cost justification for stopping them doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

You keep saying that, but you haven't explained HOW. I've already outlined some costs associated with keeping a chequing system alive.

You are the one claiming that cheques are "too expensive" in some way. It is up to you to define the absolute expense and to compare it with alternative expenses.

[Piper259]

In my world, paper checks are a thing of the past, but my dad still thinks it's the best way to give someone money. I use Bank of America ATMs and have never experienced any difficulties, and yet I believe the financial system needs to move forward. I'll add that, for example, I have been following the DashDevs team for a long time, which has successfully launched several dozen fintech products, and I believe such companies are the future. I hope that such innovations and the development of the fintech sector will allow us to take the next step and help everyone master convenient financial management.

[TimFox]

A comment about needing multiple cards:
In my post above about my experiences with fraudulent charges to my Visa or American Express cards, in both cases I had to wait a few days for a replacement card.
(American Express was willing to FedEx one quickly, but I was literally leaving that morning for Japan.)
While waiting for that replacement, I was able to use the other one.

[nctnico]

Not at all. In fact, I demonstrated the opposite by using a single account for the past 25 years. I explained how a single card can have redundancies built-in. I simply said "many people have" multiple accounts, therefore increasing that redundancy even more. That's simply another option and a choice consumers have if they want to diversify their financial products.

If you have a mortgage and/or loan, it is mandatory to have multiple accounts at different banks. Don't keep your money at a bank where you loaned from. The fine print says that if you get behind with payments, they can claw whatever they can from your bank account. That will likely happen at the most inconvenient moment.

[SiliconWizard]

Not at all. In fact, I demonstrated the opposite by using a single account for the past 25 years. I explained how a single card can have redundancies built-in. I simply said "many people have" multiple accounts, therefore increasing that redundancy even more. That's simply another option and a choice consumers have if they want to diversify their financial products.

If you have a mortgage and/or loan, it is mandatory to have multiple accounts at different banks. Don't keep your money at a bank where you loaned from. The fine print says that if you get behind with payments, they can claw whatever they can from your bank account. That will likely happen at the most inconvenient moment.

Yep, quite right. And usually the bank you're getting the loan from will try to pressure you into placing as much money in their bank as you can. If you're a bit short, they will even just refuse the loan if you don't. Don't get intimidated.

Another factor for having multiple accounts is for the case your bank goes uh, bankrupt. There's always a limit for how much of your money will be guaranteed, and even so, if things go real sour, you might be able to shove the guarantee up your bottom. So yeah, not all your eggs in the same basket, that's nothing new really.

[Halcyon]

That's avoiding the directly relevant analogy. Not a good debating tactic, which makes it look like you don't want to concede that your position is weak.

I wouldn't say my position on this is weak at all.

I've explained various different scenarios to you, but because your biases don't let you see past it, you seem to think all my arguments are invalid (or less valid than yours). If I was to turn the tables around, I'd say you haven't presented a strong case why these old methods should be retained. You're also arguing for something that the vast majority of the community have demonstrated that they don't want or need.

You're trying to attack the person, rather than disputing the facts, which is a pretty naive move. All I'm getting from you is "it's a dumb idea, I'm right, everyone else is wrong" and when challenged, you attempt to point out flaws in other peoples' debating tactics. You might as well just call me a "poo poo head" at this point.

Not at all. In fact, I demonstrated the opposite by using a single account for the past 25 years. I explained how a single card can have redundancies built-in. I simply said "many people have" multiple accounts, therefore increasing that redundancy even more. That's simply another option and a choice consumers have if they want to diversify their financial products.

If you have a mortgage and/or loan, it is mandatory to have multiple accounts at different banks. Don't keep your money at a bank where you loaned from. The fine print says that if you get behind with payments, they can claw whatever they can from your bank account. That will likely happen at the most inconvenient moment.

Yep, quite right. And usually the bank you're getting the loan from will try to pressure you into placing as much money in their bank as you can. If you're a bit short, they will even just refuse the loan if you don't. Don't get intimidated.

Another factor for having multiple accounts is for the case your bank goes uh, bankrupt. There's always a limit for how much of your money will be guaranteed, and even so, if things go real sour, you might be able to shove the guarantee up your bottom. So yeah, not all your eggs in the same basket, that's nothing new really.

Precisely! It's actually not a "ridiculous and impractical" idea at all.

[tggzzz]

That's avoiding the directly relevant analogy. Not a good debating tactic, which makes it look like you don't want to concede that your position is weak.

I wouldn't say my position on this is weak at all.

I've explained various different scenarios to you, but because your biases don't let you see past it, you seem to think all my arguments are invalid (or less valid than yours). If I was to turn the tables around, I'd say you haven't presented a strong case why these old methods should be retained.

Mirror. You are the one ignoring use-cases relevant to other people.

You're also arguing for something that the vast majority of the community have demonstrated that they don't want or need.

Majority != everybody.

Your position is an example of "the tyanny of the majority", which is morally and ethically repugnant.

The majority don't need closed caption subtitles on videos, nor tactile pavements to indicate crossing points, nor ramps to get into public building. Unless you are inconsistent, I have to presume that your position is that they should not be provided because savings can be made.

You're trying to attack the person, rather than disputing the facts, which is a pretty naive move. All I'm getting from you is "it's a dumb idea, I'm right, everyone else is wrong" and when challenged, you attempt to point out flaws in other peoples' debating tactics. You might as well just call me a "poo poo head" at this point.

False. I attack your position, not you.

All we are getting from you is, as several others have noted, "I don't need/use cheques therefore you don't need cheques and it is they should be removed".

[mairo]

Lol, I just received a check on the mail for $4 .. I have another check for $30 that I received ~ 10 years ago and is still with me and I thought they never expire untill I read here that they do   

[Halcyon]

All we are getting from you is, as several others have noted, "I don't need/use cheques therefore you don't need cheques and it is they should be removed".

Then you haven't been following at all, because that is completely removed from the truth.

I refuse to go around and around in circles with people who refuse to listen and take the thoughts, experiences and advice of others on-board (and even just think slightly out of the box). I think you've made your point loud and clear.

[vk4ffab]

A comment about needing multiple cards:
In my post above about my experiences with fraudulent charges to my Visa or American Express cards, in both cases I had to wait a few days for a replacement card.
(American Express was willing to FedEx one quickly, but I was literally leaving that morning for Japan.)
While waiting for that replacement, I was able to use the other one.

My experience is the opposite. Got scammed with phony checks a couple of time, not for great sums of money, but enough to implement a no checks policy for my business. But have never had a fraudulent charge put on the debit card. But i keep very little money in that account so if i did get scammed, they would not get much.

[tggzzz]

All we are getting from you is, as several others have noted, "I don't need/use cheques therefore you don't need cheques and it is they should be removed".

Then you haven't been following at all, because that is completely removed from the truth.

I refuse to go around and around in circles with people who refuse to listen and take the thoughts, experiences and advice of others on-board (and even just think slightly out of the box). I think you've made your point loud and clear.

You are the one who "refuse to listen and take the thoughts, experiences and advice of others on-board". Several people have pointed that out, and given many examples.

I, OTOH, completely acknowledge that cheques are very much a minority mechansim for payment, and that cash/electronic means are suitable for most but not all purposes. I rarely use cheques, but expect to use one at Christmas.

I dispute the unproven assertions that cheques are "too expensive" in some undefined way, and that electronic mechanisms are a complete substitute for cheques.

[tggzzz]

A comment about needing multiple cards:
In my post above about my experiences with fraudulent charges to my Visa or American Express cards, in both cases I had to wait a few days for a replacement card.
(American Express was willing to FedEx one quickly, but I was literally leaving that morning for Japan.)
While waiting for that replacement, I was able to use the other one.

My experience is the opposite. Got scammed with phony checks a couple of time, not for great sums of money, but enough to implement a no checks policy for my business. But have never had a fraudulent charge put on the debit card. But i keep very little money in that account so if i did get scammed, they would not get much.

Every time I saw businesses accepting cheques it was in conjunction with either

• a requirement that a cheque cleared before service/goods were delivered, or
• the now-obsolete bank's cheque guarantee mechanism

That seemed entirely reasonable to me; if I had run a business I would have done just that. Nowadays businesses pay third parties to take that risk with electronic payments; the increased costs are offset by convenience. Fine, especially since the consumer doesn't notice.

I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again.

The same happened the next month. Oops.

The same happened the third month.  WTF?!

The bank admitted they didn't know the source and couldn't stop the transfers. Absolutely gobsmacking!

Finally after 3(?) months, the bank was able to work out that an obscure merchant bank had made a data entry error, and get the transfers stopped.

The little I've since learned about the banking industry leads me to be less than surprised: processes assumes everything is in order and that the bank is, by definition, correct. Example: Halifax and John Munden which falsely jailed an ex-police officer and caused his wife to attempt suicide[1]

[1] https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~ids/dotdot/misc/titbits/phantom_ATM_withdrawals.html and http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/18.25.html#subj5

[SeanB]

Have had washed cheques, which were really good counterfiets, until you looked closer at them, and could see the background was printed on with an inkjet printer, with the odd dots of cyan and magenta in the yellow, as the printer attempted to imitate a Pantone colour, which would be a solid even colour halftone pattern. They bleached all the background and text off, except for the signatures, and printed it all back, with a near perfect match to the original. However I also had a cancelled cheque from the exact same book to use for comparasion, and aside from the printing, they were nearly identical, except the cheque form they used was from a different cheque printing company, as the tiny logo and name showed up in the location where the original one was, and was different.

Stolen in the return from the bank, and it would be an inside job, seeing as I was the one who used to go to the bank once every few days to do paper handling, either just collecting cheques, handling FOREX paperwork, or even a few times to get change, or to deposit cash. Suggested strongly to use a CIT company after the second armed robbery, where they took my phone, and the bag containing a deposit book..... After that if I absolutely had to, I drove like a minibus taxi, with all stops being classed as optional. Kind of normal in S Africa to drive like that though, and to exceed speed limits as well. I just do not drive drunk, like our one driver, who we joked braked on impact, and who was rarely sober past lunch.

[tggzzz]

...
Stolen in the return from the bank, and it would be an inside job,
 ...

Many banks' processes are designed to protect the bank from inside fraud by staff, which is equally possible in electronic fraud and paper fraud.

That happened in the "phantom ATM withdrawal" Halifax and John Munden travesty.

[vk4ffab]

A comment about needing multiple cards:
In my post above about my experiences with fraudulent charges to my Visa or American Express cards, in both cases I had to wait a few days for a replacement card.
(American Express was willing to FedEx one quickly, but I was literally leaving that morning for Japan.)
While waiting for that replacement, I was able to use the other one.

My experience is the opposite. Got scammed with phony checks a couple of time, not for great sums of money, but enough to implement a no checks policy for my business. But have never had a fraudulent charge put on the debit card. But i keep very little money in that account so if i did get scammed, they would not get much.

Every time I saw businesses accepting cheques it was in conjunction with either

• a requirement that a cheque cleared before service/goods were delivered, or
• the now-obsolete bank's cheque guarantee mechanism

That seemed entirely reasonable to me; if I had run a business I would have done just that. Nowadays businesses pay third parties to take that risk with electronic payments; the increased costs are offset by convenience. Fine, especially since the consumer doesn't notice.

I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again.

The same happened the next month. Oops.

The same happened the third month.  WTF?!

The bank admitted they didn't know the source and couldn't stop the transfers. Absolutely gobsmacking!

Finally after 3(?) months, the bank was able to work out that an obscure merchant bank had made a data entry error, and get the transfers stopped.

The little I've since learned about the banking industry leads me to be less than surprised: processes assumes everything is in order and that the bank is, by definition, correct. Example: Halifax and John Munden which falsely jailed an ex-police officer and caused his wife to attempt suicide[1]

[1] https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~ids/dotdot/misc/titbits/phantom_ATM_withdrawals.html and http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/18.25.html#subj5

Oh back then just about all business to business dealings were with check, so nothing we did was out of the ordinary, no one in their right minds accepted personal checks though without waiting for clearance or at all because the risk was so high. But it does not take much for a check to bounce, someone over drafted the over draft, someone missed a payment date and the whole accounting system gets thrown out of whack. My business has always used cash accounting, so these things smart when delays happen. Now days with instant bank transfers with OSKO (thats what its called in Australia) the accounts payable in another city can get her done without the minion in another needing petty cash or a check.

I am not so naive to think errors and mistakes do not creep in sometimes and they are bloody terrifying to those that have to endure them, but, whats the alternative? Cash? I have substantial savings there is not a hope in hell I would want that kind of money sitting under my mattress. There is a greater chance my house will burn down that a bank error drains my account. This is Australia after all and the 4 seasons here are summer summer fire and flood and we are in fire season

[tggzzz]

A comment about needing multiple cards:
In my post above about my experiences with fraudulent charges to my Visa or American Express cards, in both cases I had to wait a few days for a replacement card.
(American Express was willing to FedEx one quickly, but I was literally leaving that morning for Japan.)
While waiting for that replacement, I was able to use the other one.

My experience is the opposite. Got scammed with phony checks a couple of time, not for great sums of money, but enough to implement a no checks policy for my business. But have never had a fraudulent charge put on the debit card. But i keep very little money in that account so if i did get scammed, they would not get much.

Every time I saw businesses accepting cheques it was in conjunction with either

• a requirement that a cheque cleared before service/goods were delivered, or
• the now-obsolete bank's cheque guarantee mechanism

That seemed entirely reasonable to me; if I had run a business I would have done just that. Nowadays businesses pay third parties to take that risk with electronic payments; the increased costs are offset by convenience. Fine, especially since the consumer doesn't notice.

I've known individuals that have been severely affected by errant electronic transfers. The worst was my bosses' secretary who discovered that she had "lost" half her monthly salary to an unauthorised transfer. The bank agreed it was unauthorised, refunded her money, apologised (but no more) for the <ahem> "inconvenience", said it wouldn't happen again.

The same happened the next month. Oops.

The same happened the third month.  WTF?!

The bank admitted they didn't know the source and couldn't stop the transfers. Absolutely gobsmacking!

Finally after 3(?) months, the bank was able to work out that an obscure merchant bank had made a data entry error, and get the transfers stopped.

The little I've since learned about the banking industry leads me to be less than surprised: processes assumes everything is in order and that the bank is, by definition, correct. Example: Halifax and John Munden which falsely jailed an ex-police officer and caused his wife to attempt suicide[1]

[1] https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~ids/dotdot/misc/titbits/phantom_ATM_withdrawals.html and http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/18.25.html#subj5

Oh back then just about all business to business dealings were with check, so nothing we did was out of the ordinary, no one in their right minds accepted personal checks though without waiting for clearance or at all because the risk was so high. But it does not take much for a check to bounce, someone over drafted the over draft, someone missed a payment date and the whole accounting system gets thrown out of whack. My business has always used cash accounting, so these things smart when delays happen. Now days with instant bank transfers with OSKO (thats what its called in Australia) the accounts payable in another city can get her done without the minion in another needing petty cash or a check.

I am not so naive to think errors and mistakes do not creep in sometimes and they are bloody terrifying to those that have to endure them, but, whats the alternative? Cash? I have substantial savings there is not a hope in hell I would want that kind of money sitting under my mattress. There is a greater chance my house will burn down that a bank error drains my account. This is Australia after all and the 4 seasons here are summer summer fire and flood and we are in fire season

Yes; all agreed.

But I do have some gold coins secreted away in a hopefully fireproof box. They have increased nicely in value, and, since they are coins of the realm, they are free from capital gains tax