NEW YORK – Charles Schwab Corp is suing one of its former clients after the retail brokerage reportedly sent more than $ 1.2 million to an account of the Louisiana woman and subsequently failed to get the money back.
Schwab planned to send $ 82.56 to Kelyn Spadoni’s Fidelity Brokerage Services account in February, but a computer problem caused it to falsely transfer more than $ 1.2 million, according to the lawsuit.
Schwab tried to get the money back, but repeated calls and texts to Spadoni, who lives in a New Orleans suburb, were not returned, the broker said in the lawsuit.
CHARLES SCHWAB ON HOW HE BUILT HIS FINANCIAL EMPIRE
“We are fully working with the authorities to resolve this issue,” Schwab said in a statement Tuesday. Fidelity declined to comment.
After receiving the money in her account, Spadoni transferred a quarter of the money to another account, after which she bought a house and a car with the money, Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office spokesman Captain Jason Rivarde said in an interview. on Tuesday.
“Of course you don’t intend to return the money if you spend it,” he said.
When Spadoni signed up with Schwab in January, the agreement she signed included a section stating that overpayments must be refunded, according to the lawsuit filed on March 30.
Schwab filed a complaint on April 6, Rivarde said. Spadoni was arrested April 7 and charged with bank fraud, illegal money transfers, and theft of more than $ 25,000. She was released on April 8 after posting $ 150,000 bail, Rivarde said.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ABOUT FOX BUSINESS
Most of the money has been recovered.
A message from Reuters to a number stated to belong to Spadoni was not immediately returned. Attempts by other media to reach Spadoni also went unanswered. Rivarde said he had no contact information for Spadoni or any attorney affiliated with her.
Some media reports compared the case to Citigroup Inc. Revlon Inc failed payment, when the bank mistakenly sent a group of Revlon lenders $ 504 million. A judge in February said the asset managers were allowed to keep the money because they received the money they owed, and there was a “strong suspicion” that they were free to use it.