> BM>I wouldn't think that a bank would consider embezzlement to be of a 
lower
  >priority than usual daily business.  From media reports, I would say that
  >embezzlers go for high stakes, not petty theft. It is therefore, IMO, not 
at
  >all unreasonable for a victim to assume "emergency." Otherwise, this 
practis
  >would not succeed at all.
 > There really is no comparison between "Commandeering"
 > and the
 > "embezzelment" situation you posit.  While banks are
 > admittedly not
 > too happy about being victimized I don't see that an
 > embezzelment would
 > rise to the level of being an "emergency" as defined
 > under the law and
 > in Webster's.
What I was trying to convey is that unknowledgeable LAC's can make 
assumptions that are entirely erroneous, though logical from their point of 
view.
        >--->
---
---------------