Not "overthought", just carefully and precisely reasoned. The issue wasn't as simple as you're pretending it was, and precision is important when reasoning about crimes, particularly when it relates to the identity of the victim. Anyway, that's a rather serious charge to be throwing around so freely. What crime are you accusing me of, exactly? For that matter, you also accused participants in the derivatives market of criminal intent for no better reason than your own failure to understand it. Perhaps the problem isn't with me or with them, but rather with you.

For the patience-impaired, here's the short version: Yes, a crime was committed. The victim of the crime was the property owner--the bank--not the account holder who was impersonated. The crime was fraud, possibly compounded with theft, but there wasn't enough detail in the original story to be sure of the theft.