Mafioso's workers cleaned 1b+ off an end game 2233 ironman...

In situations where an account's bank goes missing, it is nearly impossible to tell who is responsible for the theft. I have gone through all the evidence presented and have discussed this with other staff members and we will not be holding @Exxistential liable for the missing items as there is doubt about the security of the account and no concrete proof that his workers stole the bank. @Exxistential please refund @Spencercslv1 for any unfinished services and if you want to offer any further compensation, you are free to do so.
@Spencercslv1 @Yellow_Hat_OSRS_Services I am sorry for your loss.

 

After some discussion with the other admins we're going to be changing the ruling here:

Ordering services comes with many risks, not just to the customer but to the service provider as well. We encourage the use of Terms of Service to both provide protection and to allow for easy dispute resolution. Unfortunately in this situation the ToS did not cover the outcome of a bank being cleared during the service, and given that this is a high value Ironman account, we do have to hold the service provider liable for the loss as it is unlikely that the customer was the one who removed the items from the account.

Compensation for cases like these is difficult to calculate, as many of the items lost involve some form of RNG grind that allows for great variance in the cost to regain these items via services. In a previous report we ruled that 4x the cleaned bank value was a reasonable compensation number. The wealth removed judging from the provided bank GIFs totals to roughly 1.35b, meaning that @Exxistential owes @Spencercslv1 a total of 5.4b 07. I have added a DNT to @Exxistential until this amount has been repaid.

This is an incredibly unfortunate situation for both parties, and there should have been a proper agreement formed beforehand that discussed liability in the event of the bank being cleared, especially given the value of the account that was being worked on.

We hope at the very least this report can act as a reminder to both customers and service providers that risks like this can and should be avoided.

 

The BTC equivalent of the amount owed here is currently being held in the community repayment fund: Funds sent to/from community repayment

Mafioso has requested that it be held until @Sythe reviews this case, which we will be allowing as this case is a complicated one with a significant amount of money at stake.

The DNT's have been lifted as well.

 

These are the facts as far as I can tell (long thread, didn't read everything so feel free to correct me.)

1. There's no indemnity clause in the service provider's terms of service.
2. The service provider chose not to have insurance.
3. The service provider chose to take on this high risk job.
4. The service provider chose not to ensure the bank pin was secure.
5. The service provider chose to employ dubious workers.
6. The buyer followed the service provider's rules.

If the above facts are true then I don't think this is a split responsibility / liability case at all. I think 100% of the liability is with the service provider. I also think repayment in this case, for a unique account and unique items, would naturally be repayment in-kind (that is: with a similar account.) But if the parties want to mutually settle for cash that is their option.

I'm posting my opinion only because one of the parties asked me to. I will leave final decision to the other admins.