Charles Schwab took $650,000 from elderly lady, then went after her!

Now you might think the headline is a bit harsh, but it seems to be a fairly accurate summary of what happened here.

The problem, for them that is, is they picked the wrong 'little old lady' to mess with. lol...

CHICAGO (CN) - Charles Schwab took an elderly woman's $650,000 but refused to invest it as she wanted, needlessly sent police to her house, and lost $14,000 for her while refusing to give the money back, the woman claims in court.

Kathleen Szewczyk sued Charles Schwab & Co. and affiliates, and Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago Department of Social Services, in Cook County Court.

Szewczyk has 35 years of experience in accounting, she says in the complaint. She is listed on LinkedIn, the networking website, as a Chicago-area accounting professional.

They really could have thought things though a whole lot better than they did. I added the emphasis and you'll see next just why it matters. In fact, her professional ability and education level has everything to do with this specific issue.

"Catholic Charities purportedly contacted plaintiff about her mental clarity and ability to manage her own financial affairs based on allegations of elder abuse made by Schwab Bank and related to the accounts opened in June 2011," Szewczyk says in the complaint.

She says she told Catholic Charities "that she had nearly 35 years of accounting experience and was well suited to manager her own financial affairs, and requested that they cease and desist from any further involvement."

Szewczyk says she called the police and told them the same thing.
Nonetheless, she says, "the Hoffman Estates police department and Catholic Charities, at the behest of Schwab Bank, continued questioning friends and neighbors about plaintiff's mental and financial well-being."

Source: Courthouse News

The long and the short of it is, she invested $650,000 with them, they ignored her instructions, and when she got too pushy about HER money? They literally called the guys with the white coats and butterfly nets (add Rosary Beads in this case) to come take her away.

As usual for the source, it's a lengthy story and well worth reading the whole thing.

She has gotten her money back., less some apparent losses ($14,000). She had to fight tooth and nail to get it, in two different pieces though. They had the nerve, the article reads, to say the second portion of her money was being held in protection of "her best interests". :shk:

It would seem at least the guys she dealt with, knew no limits to scumbaggery. Imagine, if she'd ever faltered in her will to fight back? They'd have gotten away with it too, by what this indicates.

$650,000 blurs a lot of lines for both ethics and law, it seems.

reply to post by wrabbit2000



I thought you knew, it is only theft if your poor and you steal a nickel, if your a billionaire you can clean out millions and never get more than a fine of less than 1/10th of what you stole, making the venture a net profit.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


This may sound a bit harsh but sometimes the world needs a good dictatorship and the uses of plain brick walls with cheap bullets would put a stop to these type of fraudulent thieves, Only when they are shown that they WILL be brought to account for misdealing and fraud will they think twice but even then they will still rob the innocent.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
This may sound a bit harsh but sometimes the world needs a good dictatorship and the uses of plain brick walls with cheap bullets would put a stop to these type of fraudulent thieves....

Actually, this does not sound harsh at all. A list of the political/financial/corporate perps would fill a book.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


Is there a precedent for this anywhere? What gave a brokerage firm the idea they were qualified and had the authority to determine a person's competence?

This is a real concern being older and invested in area's that most analyst's would consider unwise and too risky.

The article doesn't say what she wanted them to invest her money in.

What if she was asking them to invest all the 650k into a Nigerian Prince???

If the losses were incurred AFTER her initial request for her funds back, they should cover this.

If the losses were BEFORE her request, and it is shown the money wasn't invested according to her wishes, they should cover the losses PLUS any gains she would have made were they to have invested it as she wanted.

Originally posted by AlienScience
The article doesn't say what she wanted them to invest her money in.

What if she was asking them to invest all the 650k into a Nigerian Prince???

If it was her wish to give every last penny to a homeless guy on a Chicago street that promised 25% returns, she may be guilty of flaming stupidity....but no law or offense to be picked up over. It was their duty to either give it to the homeless guy or give it back to her with their apologies for being unable to follow her directions in good conscience.

As it happens, the story indicates she is an accounting professional, of all things, and so it's a fair thing to start with, in thinking she wasn't trying to give over half a million to the Nigerian Email Scam.

reply to post by AlienScience


From the article in the OP-

Szewczyk she opened two accounts with Schwab in June 2011, funded them with $650,000, and placed orders for Apple and Google shares and call options, she says in the lawsuit.

Link

These seem like reasonable investments, so I wonder why she experienced these problems.

So the corporate dictatorship is now getting so arrogant that they are after well to do investors to rob them of their livelihood.

America is getting better and better this days.

reply to post by wrabbit2000


I agree, and how did we get to the point, where an investment company can determine how someone invests their money. It seem like we are missing part of the story, or the company was seeing just what they can get away with.

Even if they were concerned, there was another way to handle this, without making it seem like the lady had mental issues.

Never invest in anything that involves handing your money over to another person for them to invest it. Thats' the biggest mistake anyone with a bit of extra cash could make. If you have some extra cash just hold onto it. Or maybe invest some in precious metals that you take possession of. Or possibly invest in a business that you start up on a shoe string budget. That's it. Anything else you're taking a huge gamble. Like Charles Schwab? I can't believe anyone would be that dumb.

Well, for a long time now financial institutions have been operating like criminal networks. I figured eventually they'd stop operating "like" criminals, and just begin blatantly acting like thugs...

Although frighteningly, these groups have far more influence and power than the crime organizations we're used to.


Honestly, I think this needs to be stopped. I can easily envision a future where these financial groups and megacorps hold even more power than they do today. And it's a scary vision, if this is a preview....

AlienScience
The article doesn't say what she wanted them to invest her money in.

What if she was asking them to invest all the 650k into a Nigerian Prince???

Actually it is implied in this statement from the OP article

She seeks the lost income from the shares and call options Schwab failed to order, and the lost value of the money held in the general investment account.

That in itself implies she lost money because of their failure to invest in a legitimate instrument as she requested.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000

Originally posted by AlienScience
The article doesn't say what she wanted them to invest her money in.

What if she was asking them to invest all the 650k into a Nigerian Prince???

If it was her wish to give every last penny to a homeless guy on a Chicago street that promised 25% returns, she may be guilty of flaming stupidity....but no law or offense to be picked up over. It was their duty to either give it to the homeless guy or give it back to her with their apologies for being unable to follow her directions in good conscience.

As it happens, the story indicates she is an accounting professional, of all things, and so it's a fair thing to start with, in thinking she wasn't trying to give over half a million to the Nigerian Email Scam.

Actually, if someone particularly an elderly person shows they want to make an extremely questionable investment there is precedent to say they aren't mentally capable of handling their own finances. Banks can and have stepped in for this reason in the past and they're usually cheered when doing so. In this case that seems unlikely though as her investments were to goto Google and Apple, both of which are perfectly legitimate investment opportunities, even something like penny stocks are generally considered legitimate even if they're a bad idea. Where the line usually gets drawn though is between bad investment and scam and honestly it's a good thing that banks can step in, in that circumstance. Someone older who might not be all there anymore doesn't need to lose their life savings to a scam they no longer have the mental ability to recognize.

Anyways, the banks were wrong in this case. I hope she gets everything back and then some.