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.
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 you actually don't know if race was a factor at all and him being a doctoral student is entirely irrelevant. As to the bolded that's entirely false you don't not accept a check you believe to be fraudulent or forged in some manner. If you deposited something you suspected to be fraud your banking employer would most likely terminate you
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.
I think check fraud/forgery are a police reporting item, I think counterfeit monies is USSS
This one is actually from the above jurisdiction for the OP
Quote:
The Financial Crimes Coordinator Detective assists businesses with true name insufficient funds or closed account check cases, and forgeries. The Coordinator Detective can be reached at (316) 268-4211.
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.
I think the point was if the check was verified as authentic then why wasn't it accepted as deposit and in the possession of the bank pending clearance of funds. Not that the check should have been confiscated.
My guess is that after this ordeal the man did not want to do business with this bank and will deposit the check with another bank. Hopefully, he won't get arrested again. Maybe he should spare his wife and daughter the risk and go alone this time.
So how does he still have the check if he deposited it? I'm not saying he should have been arrested, but I feel like there's more to the story that he's not telling. Did he refuse to fill out the government paperwork? The bank says the check looks like it was forged. That's a serious offense. If he sold a house in Michigan, why not deposit the check in Michigan? We're talking about a HUGE sum of money so that could also be an issue. Was he actually trying to just deposit it or was he trying to cash it or deposit part of it and cash part of it?
In my experience, I've had to fill out government paperwork when depositing anything over $10K such as selling our house. I also could only deposit the check. The bank released funds over 2 weeks. I can't blame them. There's so many frauds out there!
And for the person who claims you can write a check on toilet paper, that is entirely NOT true! All checks have to be printed on paper with security features including MICR which is a special type of magnetic ink that the routing number, account number, and check number are imprinted on the bottom of the check.
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
That has not been my experience. Last time I sold a house - few years ago - the closing check took over 2 weeks to be completely released to us. While there are federal and state policies, each bank also has policies.
The Person Arrested had a Check from the sale of his house in Michigan, Was attempting to Open a Account Kansas, That would put it in the jurisdiction of the Fed's.
I can understand why they call the local police, they would respond in Minutes. The Fed's (If they would show up at all), a few hours.
While, It might be a "Bad" check, It would take a few hours for the Local Cops (If the bank in MI would even talk to them), to determine if the check was drawn on a "Good" account. If the Local Cops and/or Wichita Bank Called the Bank that it was written on, That bank would need to then contact the Writer of the check to see if they actually issued it. Just because the Account is "good" does not mean the account owner actually wrote it. All this checking take time. that's why Bank can hold funds until the check can be verified. This can take hours or a day or two, if the account holder needs to be contacted, Pickup the request to contact there bank, and for them to research if they indeed did issue the check.
It amazes me how people today are so quick to call police.
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.
