Editor,

RE: "When banks become vulnerable to con men” (The New Times, August 18).

Using single collateral to obtain two loans from two different banks may be risky to the lender, but it is not really the biggest problem to me. The problem was how the con man was allowed to withdraw such a huge amount of money at once.

I am sure he told both banks he was borrowing the money for either a huge project or to buy some big items. In both cases banks should have taken steps to ensure that the money is released in a non-risky way.

No serious lender would simply allow the borrower to access to such a huge amount of money immediately without imposing its own conditions.

I will give you an example of how similar transactions involving large amounts of money are done in other places. In North America, for example, if you borrow money from a bank to buy a house, you get the money on paper only.

All transactions are handled by the buyer’s and seller’s lawyers who, in turn, finalise payment transaction with banks.

In the above case, there was no need to use lawyers but both banks should not have allowed the borrower to cash the whole amount at once. If both banks have risk managers, there is no way such theft could have occurred without an inside job.

Kelly