The banks employee granted NPM a (probably) valid license to distribute the code (quoted below - from the tos). Submitting a DMCA request claiming requires claiming under penalty of perjury that no such license exists. That's (probably) incorrect, any lawyer reasonably knows that a license would have been granted, and as such (probably) criminal. Unfortunately (?) this sort of perjury is never prosecuted in practice.
> (From npm tos) Your Content belongs to you. You decide whether and how to license it. But at a minimum, you license npm to provide Your Content to users of npm Services when you share Your Content. That special license allows npm to copy, publish, and analyze Your Content, and to share its analyses with others. npm may run computer code in Your Content to analyze it, but npm's special license alone does not give npm the right to run code for its functionality in npm products or services
Unlikely, npm has a reasonable belief that a bank employee entering into a contract with them has the right to do so, and that is generally sufficient for the contract to be binding on the bank.
Yeah they can. This whole thing sounds ridiculous. I have a hard time imagining this ending any other way than the code being removed if the bank presses the issue.
> (From npm tos) Your Content belongs to you. You decide whether and how to license it. But at a minimum, you license npm to provide Your Content to users of npm Services when you share Your Content. That special license allows npm to copy, publish, and analyze Your Content, and to share its analyses with others. npm may run computer code in Your Content to analyze it, but npm's special license alone does not give npm the right to run code for its functionality in npm products or services