The bank/institution is where the money is leaving from therefore they should implement policies that protect vulnerable customers like seniors, for example. I don't know how that looks but it seems reasonable that they could put limits on an account flagged "vulnerable person"

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the rant about police power and a state? Google isn't the government either. What would legislation provide that banks can't already do today?

▲

limagnolia 12 hours ago | parent [-]

Sure, there are things banks can do, and those are features they can market. But ultimately, if the state isn't pursuing criminals who prey on the vulnerable, then society as we know it has failed and we would need a new society, or a new state, or both...The bank can't arrest anyone!

I never said anything about it being Googles responsability, I agree it is not. And the only legislation that might be necessary over what we have is a budget directly to go after criminal fraudsters.

	▲	hypeatei 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Fraud is already illegal, the issue is that these scammers reside in other countries. I don't doubt there could be pressure applied from really high up at the diplomatic level but I highly doubt the FBI for example is going to be able to do anything even with legislation.