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.
I've worked for a bank in the past. Tellers do not and should not ask where the check came from due to the amount! That's a privacy issue and it's actually none of their business. Had the teller or manager thought it was fake they could have easily had the person wait while they verified the check by calling the issuing bank. Most financial institutions are not going to cash a large check anyway and the check would be deposited for further verification with an extended hold placed on it; therefore, not allowing the account hold to get access to the funds till the check cleared. There was no reason to get the police involved unless the teller or manager did call to verify the check and found it to be fraudulent.
You can ask where the money is coming from for any deposit I believe. Knowing your customer and making sure as the financial institution you make best efforts to know source of your customer funds is something the govt expects you to do
Nope, you're clearly the one parsing "arrested" vs "detained" - if there's no difference, then why argue about it?
There is a difference between the two but I never argued it just simply pointed out there is a difference and if arrested the police are required to have probable cause and the probable cause is a police issue not the bank
Whatever the policies, however you look at the incident, it's clear that the incident was mishandled.
The bank's suspicions were unfounded. We know this because the check was verified in the end. The police detention was unfounded. The police calling the son's school to tell them the family was being detained at the police station, unfounded.
The family certainly is entitled to ask questions about why this was so grossly mishandled.
You can ask where the money is coming from for any deposit I believe. Knowing your customer and making sure as the financial institution you make best efforts to know source of your customer funds is something the govt expects you to do
The government is not entitled to know your source of funds. There's a presumption of innocence in this country.
And the bank *was* provided with documents showing the source of funding. It's all in the article.
The government is not entitled to know your source of funds. There's a presumption of innocence in this country.
And the bank *was* provided with documents showing the source of funding. It's all in the article.
I didn't say the government was entitled to know however they expect financial institutions to Know their customer also known as KYC. You clearly don't work in the financial world or deal with KYC or anti money laundering issues because the bank is absolutely allowed to ask where he funds are coming from. The fact they were given docs is immaterial to the fact another poster who I responded to said they couldn't ask for the source when they absolutely can
Well, all bank deposits of more than $10,000 are flagged nowadays. But, if what is presented in the article is true or even mostly true, this was completely unacceptable.
Whatever the policies, however you look at the incident, it's clear that the incident was mishandled.
The bank's suspicions were unfounded. We know this because the check was verified in the end. The police detention was unfounded. The police calling the son's school to tell them the family was being detained at the police station, unfounded.
The family certainly is entitled to ask questions about why this was so grossly mishandled.
It was mishandled but having suspicion isn't unfounded simply because the check ultimately verified. If the check appeared altered in anyway it could still be good and the suspicion totally reasonable.
What would be interesting would be to hear the 911 call the bank placed to report it. I wonder if it will be released with a freedom of information request. That might provide context and even highlights racial or religious reasonings for this being done
It was mishandled but having suspicion isn't unfounded simply because the check ultimately verified. If the check appeared altered in anyway it could still be good and the suspicion totally reasonable.
What would be interesting would be to hear the 911 call the bank placed to report it. I wonder if it will be released with a freedom of information request. That might provide context and even highlights racial or religious reasonings for this being done
Whatever the check's appearance, the fact that it ultimately did verify means it wasn't fraudulent, and detaining this man, and his family for hours at a police station, and contacting his son's school, was beyond acceptable.
It was mishandled but having suspicion isn't unfounded simply because the check ultimately verified. If the check appeared altered in anyway it could still be good and the suspicion totally reasonable.
So then you call the other bank, says my banker wife.
According to her, a conservative white lady, this whole thing was ridiculously mishandled.
And she has no idea why cops were involved, least of all to verify the check. You just effin (her words, not mine) call the other bank.
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.
