Why? Well, let's look at a few details here.
1) The amount in this particular transaction was $200,000.
2) The total amount reportedly stolen was "almost $17 million". That's $200,000 TIMES 85.
3) The story given by the interpreter for the $200,000 was that it was for a car loan to a friend. I can see getting away with that story once, but it doesn't really cover the other $16.8 million, does it?
Maybe it's because I'm an accountant who has worked on audits. Maybe I'm just a born skeptic. But I think the bank still has some 'splaining to do.