This shady character, traveling from the East to West coast had made many stops in route to the California gold fields. He also made various changes to the gambling game he called Banco. After a few years the game and activity was re-christened Bunco or Bunko.
Could have been a dodgy “Banco bank” or “bank bank”
He might have been Spanish - Banco Bunco
Well banco came from Italy to mean bench as where you did your financial meeting.
So a dodgy bench. 
Out of interest, how does the text display on those screens?
Taking the image in the first post:
1.There is a large gap above ‘New Allowances’;
2. Expired is already on a line by itself, if you changed frauded to defrauded, than you could move ‘or’ to the next line if needed; or
3. You could just delete the words “You won’t get any free card deliveries” and start at “unless…” which also gives you space to say ‘victim of fraud’ if you wanted.
Edit: 4. Or just change ‘free card deliveries’ to ‘free replacements’ to free up some characters.
There are so many more simple and elegant ways than using ‘frauded’.
I’m disappointed with the Monzo response.
The way the response is worded is gleeful and unapologetic in the use of a made up word.
Spurious reasoning is given for its use (spacing on a mobile phone screen and using a confusing word to avoid confusion by making readers question the word and look it up to find what it should be).
The tone of that post perhaps offers a glimpse through the window of what’s going on at Monzo. Breathtaking arrogance that’s ignorant of consumer views.
If you want to make copy fit on the screen, I’d suggest drop the emojis and use proper English.
Emoji or emojis as the plural?
A long time ago I learned a song about this:
One Gojira, two Gojira, three Gojira, four
Four Gojira rising from the murky ocean floor
See them crushing Tokyo, breathing smoke and flame
Even though there’s more than one, the noun is the same
Tra la la! Japanese nouns!
Tra la la! Don’t change their form!
Tra la la! Japanese nouns!
Tra la la! Don’t change their form
Regretfully, I’m inclined to agree with your take, especially upon reading a second time and taking some time to reflect on it. The emoji use certainly doesn’t help. The choice of emoji at the end of paragraph two is completely inappropriate. But there’s just one sentence I want to draw some attention to, upon discussing it with one of our accessibility experts at the OU:
This point of view is not one of fact, and stems from a place of privilege. In terms of education and mental capability. Someone really didn’t bother to do any user testing among the mentally disabled here, as for some groups it is hard to know what they mean by it, and by not using the appropriate and expected language they are disadvantaging those users.
Now I admit, it’s used in very few areas, easy to miss, and doesn’t seem like a big deal, as the correct terminology is used in the formal terms and conditions, and could just be construed as a typo. But there will be people out there who won’t understand what is meant, either because of a mental disability, language barriers, or poor education. To assume those people don’t exist because none of them have brought it up on social media is a naive and privileged assumption. It’s a precedent, that if it stems deeper, within Monzo, doesn’t sound promising going forward, and gives a clear impression that usability, accessibility, and inclusion, are no longer at the forefront of their values.
Is there much difference between frauded and defraud? If you know the meaning of one you’re going to know the meaning of the other.
This is the worst part for me, Clive. Lots of things in life could be done and it wouldn’t hinder, but sometimes you want to help.
The saving two character thing seems to me like the best excuse you could come up with afterwards while digging your heels in about changing it.
I mean is it? Wouldn’t they just find out in the same way as if they didn’t know what defrauded means?..
Frauded isn’t in the dictionary, and it’s not what people are taught naturally. It’s also not the expected language is not use by other banks. This can completely throw someone with learning disabilities.
It’s generally not best to make the assumption that everyone else will understand what something means just because you. Likewise, with how to use things. Accessibility is too input, you need to test, test, and test again. There are legal requirements on this, but that’s beyond my depth of knowledge and I’m not sure in this instance Monzo fall foul of the requirements by shifting from the norm and using unusual and unexpected language.
Your picking up on the word binder is a good one though. Perhaps it doesn’t hinder the experience too much, but it doesn’t help them either.
Objectively, yes, it is. For some people. Not you.
I just asked my Mexican friend what frauded means. His answer: No. What does it mean?
Perhaps, but why should they have to? Before posing questions like that, it’s often best to imagine it in the context of a physical disability first. Mental disabilities can be hard those with no experience to conceptualise.
I agree with you and @anon70107404 here.
I was trying to be diplomatic and polite in my post earlier, but I’m disappointed in the response too.
It is certainly concerning that a bank would expect customers to air grievances over Twitter and then use that as some kind of straw poll - Twitter is not at all representative of the public at large. I’m irritated by the word choice, so have chosen to participate in this thread. I haven’t tweeted about it and never would do.
And so, the whole “defrauded is weird and people wouldn’t understand it” point is answered by this?
If you Google frauded, you don’t get a Google dictionary box. You do for defrauded, so it’s actually easier to find out what that means.
Also, to be deliberately making a point about making up words, if Monzo want to write every past-tense verb as ending in -ed with no exceptions the copy should read “stealed” instead of stolen!
Kind of ignores what I meant, if you don’t know its not hard to find out, not that it’s just easy to know. You can say that for any word that someone doesn’t already know, it’s not specific to the word frauded.
Not sure what you’re getting at here but if someone doesn’t know a definition and they want to then they have to look it up. Just like if they didn’t know the word defrauded, they’d have to look that up?
I did do this, I imagined someone who had the ability and the means to get to that screen on the app in the first place, and thought if that’s the case then they should have the ability and means of finding out a word’s definition. Again, the same argument can be made for any word they may not already know on that screen or any other, even if it was defrauded, this situation isn’t unique to the word frauded.
Sure, I agree with you there.
Where the potential problem comes in is that frauded isn’t that easy to look up, especially when compared to defrauded (or even “victim of fraud”).
This is largely because (in it’s archaic form) it has fallen out of use and in it’s new/Twitter form it is effectively modern slang not widely adopted enough to be put into dictionaries, etc.
This lack of common usage also arguably results in people being more likely to need to look it up - creating a double-whammy of less clarity and more difficulty in finding what the meaning is.
I think you’re missing the point. Depending on the user’s circumstances, it may not be as simple as you make it sound, or as simple as it is for you.
Wiktionary is not a standard method for getting a definition of a word.
But out of interest. I sent that wiktionary link in response to my friend’s question. He’s still not sure what it’s supposed to mean. And this is someone intelligent enough to communicate with decent fluency in four languages. Frauded has confused him, and the wiktionary link further so, so I’m now trying to explain how, and why frauded means defraud. 
This is kind of what I was getting at in my post just above, I think that English as a Second Language speakers would be particularly more likely to be confused.
This really isn’t desirable, and if frauded does get widely adopted, it will lead to a situation similar to flammable and inflammable, where people get regularly confused about the difference.
It does almost seem like Monzo doesn’t like “defraud” as it sounds old-fashioned and isn’t edgy or cool enough for their brand. That is just silly when it’s a dictionary word.
In the same way that my understanding it doesn’t prove anything, neither does your friend not prove it the other way.
Defraud and frauded have fraud in them. If you know what fraud means then you’re going to understand it. If you don’t, then there’s not much Monzo can do.
This is overly simplistic and doesn’t take into account difficulty looking it up, etc.
Also, there is something obvious that Monzo can do - use the more common, accepted word!
I don’t think it’s that deep. I think it was written thinking it was a logical way of writing it and now refuses to change it and back down.
Customer feedback that this word isn’t clear should be enough for it to have been changed by now.
