I see some nit-picking of this but I couldn’t help but think something was wrong with the criticism of Cory’s rhetoric.
The people who are having their signatures forged are already customers who really have signed real documents to open real accounts.
You see what I mean? Having your signature forged to create new accounts is therefore a consequence of having opened a real account.
So, by having your signature forged on a fraudulent application, an effect of having opened an account with the bank, you have effectively had your right to sue erased. If the governmental body responsible for oversight hasn’t stepped in to prosecute the bank, and they have not, the effect is you have lost your right to sue for having your signature forged to open a false account.
The action of really signing the real account agreement, tmaking it impossible to sue for the opening of false accounts is bad and is also a thing. But the tacit implication by the governmental body responsible for prosecuting the banks when they break the law is 'Your forged signatures are legally binding".
There’s a desire to be very specific with the law here and it is being expressed just so, from within the context of the specially relevant sections of the law.
But from the perspective of those defrauded in this manner, it’s pretty much as Cory says. The effective message to those people is “This institution has done no wrong by forging your signature,” and it does come through rather loud and clear when you’re not focusing solely on the legal language structure which may very well be the best attempt at describing some of reality in a project spanning thousands of years but BOY OH FUCKING BOY it could still use some work.
LOL, this is very badly formulated and I’m willing to attempt to hone it down to an actual meaningful statement if anyone would care to help but I’m tired and cranky and insomniac right now. 
