Did the person making the 'joke' collect remuneration on their 'joke' extortion letter?
If this was a joke the money would have been sent back. If this was an accident the description would have _started_ with "This is a photograph" or somethimg similar, like all other photographs and pictures being sold. If this was intentionally misleading then it would read and play out exactly as it did.
Please note that I am not defending the total idiot who actually managed to read the part saying it was only a picture and _still_ sent the money. I am simply stating my own perceptions concerning motives, because I can't believe people would actually defend the right of anyone to prey on other people. Are we truly no better than common animals?
This is a grey area. Generally, the advertising industry has a fine line that they try not to step too far over. That line is encouraged by government regulations. But just because a marketing company can sometimes get away with acts of 'misdirection' doesn't mean the general public is given the same leeway. Individuals who commit the same acts of 'misdirection' will be punished much more severely.
In other words, it's only marketing when a company does it.
A CEO getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars in salary is also unfair. So is a corporation paying someone seven hundred dollars an hour to wine-and-dine polititions. And the poor dinosaurs getting killed off like that before they had a decent chance to develope intelligence...now that's _really_ unfair! Life itself is unfair.
If we are going to address unfairness let's start with the really big ones and work our way down the list. In the meantime we can get rid of all paid artists by letting machines do the work instead. Now that they have advanced to the point were that is possible.
Living people get declared dead more often then people might think. I know of 3 cases, including my own mother. She was in a POW camp when her step-mom had her declared dead (to remove her from the will). She never did get it overturned, and ended up emigrating here. Initially it even caused problems with that, but things were more relaxed back then so it all worked out in the end.
It may not happen often, but that doesn't make it okay to ignore the issue.
I'm trying to comprehend why they would _care_ about a fake account. They still get the monthly fees and have that much less wear-and-tear on the equipment. An account by someone who doesn't exist is pure win for them.
Also, wouldn't it be safe to assume that the bank had already vetted the person behind the account?
This sounds more like fraud then anything else. I only wonder if the financial manager is doing this solo or if there is a group of them working together. In either case I suppose they could hire Prenda to handle their defense.
Corporations may not have those rights yet, but the very existence of this filing clearly shows how far down that slope we have come.
No business should ever be able to shield the person/people running it. And that includes public corporations such as cities and even nations. Such protections place individuals 'above the law' (*) which (eventually) will completely destroy both the rule of law and democracy as a whole.
The single biggest mistake ever made was to give corporations a set of 'rights' - and especially allowing those 'rights' to _ever_ override human rights in any way.
And having the FBI break down the kid's door should have been more then enough to leave him shitting himself. Follow that up with a quiet warning and you would have a citizen so uptight you could use him as a flag pole.
Taking it to this level not only wastes national resources but is so far past reality that any lesson will be completely lost. Heck, it might even have the opposite effect and turn him into a bitter rebellious 'terrorist' criminal.