Afraid that does not address the issue raised. While I appreciate your responding to the question, your answer refers to an issue not raised. Question is not how depositors money is insured and by whom or what mechanism, rather that banks are prohibited from lending depositors money or the banks credit. That question might be side stepped by bringing up the point that a credit line is created as a book keeping entry into a transaction account which is considered an "asset" of the bank. i.e. money deposited becomes the banks "property" with the hapless depositor accepting in exchange, a possibly enforceable IOU. However, such transaction accounts must be offset by a matching liability to the demand deposit account. The basic question, remains, unless the IOU answer is used as a defense, how is it legal for a bank to lend "credit", when there are dozens of cases which clearly state they may not do so, nor lend depositors money. Credit unions can lend depositors money, but National Banks cannot. These prohibitions are not assumptions or opinions, they are clearly laid out in several publications of the Federal Reserve. Court cases have also revealed that bank records show there never was any "money lent", and no contract exists where a bank ever claims money was lent. Cases brought by banks always merely state "a credit line was issued, from which card holders benefited from under the terms of the original agreement, which was to pay the sums paid through the use of the card to the bank." However, there is never a mention, nor is it ever decided as to whose funds were used to pay the merchants the amounts signed for at point of purchase. They will claim "unjust enrichment" under the presumption that it is assumed the transfer of book keeping entries from the transaction account to the merchant account, which is a bank "asset" is where the loss may be claimed. However, if the transaction account is in reality merely a reflection and proof of a bank liability to its creditor, the depositor, than that "unjust enrichment" fails as it cannot be proven the bank had any actual "skin in the game". In fact the bank is the debtor to the depositor, and the entries of this arrangement clearly show who is the creditor. Therefore, the bank is apparently operating illegally by failing to disclose the true nature of the "offer to lend money, or credit", when it is never disclosed that applicant for "credit" is actually offering to exchange the use of his cash deposit as the basis upon which a convenient method of using the card instead of cash at point of sale, accepted by merchants in a separate agreement with card enablers, e.g. Visa, Mastercharge etc. and the banks to credit merchants with the amounts signed for at point of purchase. Regarding the bank runs in Greece, I can only comment that most countries in Europe do not print their own money, only central banks do. The USA is only obligated to pay back loans with FRN's, which it can print as many as needed to repay "loans". But countries without a central bank which can print acceptable "money", have to pay with funds earned and created from outside the printing system. That is why Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain etc. are doomed to default in the end, as they have no way of creating enough wealth to pay in real money that which was created for their benefit using book keeping "money of account", unless they have access to some method of offset.