While people decry the inability for crypto transactions to be adjudicated in court, what we don't talk about as much is that this is also the direction of non-crypto transactions. As the article stated, the police initially refused to even consider the theft of the man's house a crime.
We used to say possession is 9/10ths of the law. Now it seems the algorithm is 9/10ths of the law.
You have maybe 10% chance to reverse a transaction that was approved by the computers. Or at least we're headed that way.
That's not what they said. They said it was not criminal but civil, which a lot of contract and tort law falls under, it means the police won't do the investigation for you.
I don't know why they considered that this was not fraud, which is criminal but maybe they couldn't point to a detail that showed where the fraud took place.
The article says "Police initially told him it was not fraud but are now investigating." My guess is the police couldn't be bothered.
A friend of mine had a problem with squatters moving into his house (which wasn't empty). Initially the police refused to get involved until he got his solicitor to point out it was a criminal issue.
Even in criminal matters, they don't do the investigation for you, they do it for public prosecutors, which may or may not have incidental utility to you.
We used to say possession is 9/10ths of the law. Now it seems the algorithm is 9/10ths of the law.
You have maybe 10% chance to reverse a transaction that was approved by the computers. Or at least we're headed that way.