The first of Andy's examples is analogous to the main story, the other two are not. Once somebody has voluntarily and deliberately taken cash from the bank, what happens to them and it can't reasonably be held to be the bank's responsibility.
The interesting question is about the first example. Banks definitely care about authorisation. But it's not obvious why they should care - or be made to care - about consent. The individual is clearly the victim of a crime. But why should it be the bank's responsibility to provide restitution? Does that feel right just because banks have money? Or is there a reason why victims of this crime should get compensation when victims of so many other crimes don't?