This claim will be judged "YES" if either: 1) A major financial publication (Wall Street Journal, Barron's, or London Economist) reports a successful computer theft from a US bank in excess of $1,000,000 (in 1995 dollars to be adjusted for inflation) by the end of 2010. The theft will be regarded as successful if and only if the perpetrator of this theft is not caught, the money is not retrieved and the loss is large enough that the bank publicly admits the loss. or 2) A major financial publication(Wall Street Journal, Barron's, or London Economist) reports a major US bank (on the 50 largest) seeking FDIC reimbursement for its depositors for reasons that include major losses due to computer assisted theft. This second portion of this claim would be true even if some perpetrators are caught. The bank simply needs to fail for reasons that include a significant component of computer assisted fraud.
Here's how I'd rule on an example. Back in 1995, Citibank was penetrated by Russian crackers. About $3.7 million was transferred, but only $240,000 was actually withdrawn. The crooks were apprehended rather quickly. I would rule that the $240,000 (not the $3.7 million in transfers) was successfully stolen, but that the perpetrators were caught. Note that the numerous conditions of the claim will require some time on my part. I expect consideration of a potential YES to take several days or even weeks.
If no potential YES event has been brought to my attention by the deadline (December 31, 2010), then the claim will be judged NO.
Web pointers to fairly stable web pages on bank computer security are welcome. Please send suggestions to me via email.