Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the statement made by the bank, it said that correct procedures were followed, so this means anyone doing this would be subjected to the same procedure, so it seems that these people feel above the normal procedures and are crying some kind of discrimination.
We always have the bank wire our money, so we have never had this problem having sold a number of homes over the years.
What I don't get is that when something is normal procedures why if the person isn't a white male, anyone else claims discrimination.
Yes, I am in KS, but grew up in MI. Anyone have any idea how much fraud is out there? As long as a procedure is legal and applies to everyone, people are just going to have to live with it!
They did overreact, but the bank simply did what they are supposed to do.
Defrauders do not write a fake check for huge amounts of money, it draws too much scrutiny. Instead, they write lots of checks for $1500 or $5000. Tellers are not paid to think that much however.
The police overreacted, that is clear. Unless there is more to the story than is written (there often is). Wichita press is notorious for stretching facts to create drama. Otherwise they have little to report on. Maybe the area had a rash of people trying to deposit forged fake checks. Maybe the depositors tried to run or struggled with the police, or were intentionally antagonistic. We do not know whether the police had probable cause or not. There is no reason to make such an assumption without all of the facts.
I once had a check on my desk for $44 million (and change). When the client came and picked it up, I really wanted to be in the lobby to see them deposit it. I had never seen so many digits on a check before, I doubt the teller had either.
However business banks get deposits by the sackful. They may be accustomed to seeing gargantuan checks.
Banks do not have to accept any check they find suspicious. They do not have to have a reason. They may not like/trust the bank the check is drawn on, they might think the signature looks funny. Odd thing is, a check of that size usually has a 10 - 15 day hold on it while they determine the funds are good. Typically, they will not give you a dollar of the money until the check clears and is funded by the bank it is drawn on.
Could the bank be doing this entirely based on looks or race? It's entirely plausible. It's also entirely plausible that the bank believed something to be wrong with the check and reporting it to the police is entirely appropriate if that is the case. Banks don't have a magic verification system to check incoming check deposits to see if they are good if they did the banking industry would never have deposits returned for NSF, stop payment, duplicate check number etc
They did overreact, but the bank simply did what they are supposed to do.
Defrauders do not write a fake check for huge amounts of money, it draws too much scrutiny. Instead, they write lots of checks for $1500 or $5000. Tellers are not paid to think that much however.
The police overreacted, that is clear. Unless there is more to the story than is written (there often is). Wichita press is notorious for stretching facts to create drama. Otherwise they have little to report on. Maybe the area had a rash of people trying to deposit forged fake checks. Maybe the depositors tried to run or struggled with the police, or were intentionally antagonistic. We do not know whether the police had probable cause or not. There is no reason to make such an assumption without all of the facts.
I once had a check on my desk for $44 million (and change). When the client came and picked it up, I really wanted to be in the lobby to see them deposit it. I had never seen so many digits on a check before, I doubt the teller had either.
However business banks get deposits by the sackful. They may be accustomed to seeing gargantuan checks.
Banks do not have to accept any check they find suspicious. They do not have to have a reason. They may not like/trust the bank the check is drawn on, they might think the signature looks funny. Odd thing is, a check of that size usually has a 10 - 15 day hold on it while they determine the funds are good. Typically, they will not give you a dollar of the money until the check clears and is funded by the bank it is drawn on.
I don't know if you are still in banking but the bolded is not true according the the expedited funds availability act. Deposits over 5k must release 200 the first business day after deposit, 600 the second and 4800 by the third. There are exceptions for new accounts however and a couple of other things but generally speaking ""checks of that size" do not get 10-15 day holds
Bank and cops were totally out of line. I would be suing the bank and police dept for sure, if I were them.
Well, there is that. There are people out there who will deliberately provoke a confrontation, especially with the police, trying to set up a situation where they can sue.
I have no idea what happened and I don't trust the press to be 100% truthful if they can stir up some drama with some news slant. I do know that people who behave politely and act within societies rules are very unlikely to be arrested for absolutely no reason at all. So, to me, the story is suspect.
But that's not what happens in practice. A check written on toilet paper would not be accepted for deposit. As a challenge, I'd like to see you do it. Post back with your experience.
It appears - from social media who are more familiar with banking at that bank than I am - he didn't have an account, but was trying to open an account with that check, that couldn't be verified. (Not sure why. signature didn't match? written on a foreign bank and they wouldn't verify authenticity?)
Curious that he still has possession of the check.
Why are you "curious" about that? It was ultimately verified. It was a GOOD check, not a bad check - the failure to initially verify was in error. Sounds like you propose that it is not only OK to racially profile a doctoral student and his family and arrest the ENTIRE family for what in actuality would have been the crime of ONE person (not the entire family) but also that we should now confiscate the legitimate property of people we don't like the looks of.
As has been repeatedly mentioned - there are protocols in place to handle the process of verifying a check. You don't decide in the first 5 minutes that its fake in the absence of ANY evidence - you wait out the hold and don't release any funds until the check has been properly verified.
I hope he sues the living crap out of that bank and its bigoted staff.
As for who can print legitimate checks - that would be ANYONE with software and a computer. I've had the capability of printing out my own checks for DECADES by now, and IF I printed one on "toilet paper", if the numbers on it are all properly printed, yes, they would have to honor it. Although it might be difficult to come up with toilet paper that could go through the printer in one piece, the statement is true - whatever its printed on, they have to accept it, given that all the routing numbers are correct and the money is in the account. The "toilet paper" statement is a bit of harmless hyperbole. Perhaps toilet paper from Soviet Russia would stand up to going through the printer, and if so, the bank would indeed have to honor a check so printed.
Well, there is that. There are people out there who will deliberately provoke a confrontation, especially with the police, trying to set up a situation where they can sue.
I have no idea what happened and I don't trust the press to be 100% truthful if they can stir up some drama with some news slant. I do know that people who behave politely and act within societies rules are very unlikely to be arrested for absolutely no reason at all. So, to me, the story is suspect.
^^^THIS^^^.
We've all seen it play out many times (remember Clock Boy?). There's always something in these "profiling" stories that we aren't told. If people don't know that by now, they never will.
What I find Odd is the (Reported) Bank Policy of calling the local police about a suspected "Fraud" check. It was reported that he was making the deposit to Open a account, A Hold on the funds is the appropriate thing to do while you verify / wait for the check to clear.
If the bank thinks there is actual check fraud going on, the local police are not the ones to call, the United States Secret Service would be the appropriate agency to call, they have the resources to investigate a cross state check fraud situation.
A local "Beat" cop is not trained in banking and money fraud laws, especially things that go across state lines.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
