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.
If the bank believes the check could be fraud or forgery the process isn't deposit it and see, you don't deposit something you believe could be fraudulent
To protect the bank from stop payments, nsf or a host of different issues. Those are things unknown at the time of deposit but if upfront a teller suspects forgery I don't know of any bank that had a policy that would guide the employee to just deposit it and see what plays out.
To protect the bank from stop payments, nsf or a host of different issues. Those are things unknown at the time of deposit but if upfront a teller suspects forgery I don't know of any bank that had a policy that would guide the employee to just deposit it and see what plays out.
So your position is that if you go to a bank with a check, and the teller thinks it's questionable, it's fine and dandy for the teller to call the police and for you to spend the afternoon in jail while the check is verified?
So your position is that if you go to a bank with a check, and the teller thinks it's questionable, it's fine and dandy for the teller to call the police and for you to spend the afternoon in jail while the check is verified?
I haven't seen the check so I can't make that determination. The bank attempteted to verify through whatever their channels were and couldn't and there was an issue with the routing number. If after seeing the check it appeared to be altered with what I thought was intent to deceive I'm okay with the police being called.
My position in our actual conversation is that you don't deposit something you suspect as fraudulent
I haven't seen the check so I can't make that determination. The bank attempteted to verify through whatever their channels were and couldn't and there was an issue with the routing number. If after seeing the check it appeared to be altered with what I thought was intent to deceive I'm okay with the police being called.
My position in our actual conversation is that you don't deposit something you suspect as fraudulent
There cannot have been an issue with the routing number, because the check was verified, that same day.
Bottom line, the bank is interested in protecting its money. Since this person wasn't trying to cash the check or to make a withdrawal, the bank had ample time to verify the check. Calling the police was overkill. The police handcuffing this man for trying to make a deposit was overkill. The police taking his family into custody was overkill.
Your position in this conversation is that it's okay for the bank to have police arrest someone because they don't like the way the check looks. I suspect, strongly, that if you were the person who spent the day in a jail cell while your check was being verified, you wouldn't be so supportive.
If the depositor had wanted to cash the check, or to withdraw funds against the check, you might have a point. But I've deposited checks before that ended up being no good, and the bank had no problem reversing the deposit. The teller could simply have referred the customer to someone in customer service. Calling the police on a customer who wasn't taking out any money was a mishandling of the situation.
There cannot have been an issue with the routing number, because the check was verified, that same day.
You can't say there wasn't any possible issue as you haven't seen the check, you didn't attempt to scan he deposit it to see if it read the routing properly. You don't even know how any of this works and yet you are arguing what could or couldn't happen. It being verified hours later doesn't mean there was nothing wrong with it. I could tear a hundred dollar bill into 100 pieces and it could still verify
Quote:
Bottom line, the bank is interested in protecting its money. Since this person wasn't trying to cash the check or to make a withdrawal, the bank had ample time to verify the check. Calling the police was overkill. The police handcuffing this man for trying to make a deposit was overkill. The police taking his family into custody was overkill.
You shouldnt accept a check from anyone that you think is fraudulent and deposit it i your account just to see and neither should a bank
Quote:
Your position in this conversation is that it's okay for the bank to have police arrest someone because they don't like the way the check looks. I suspect, strongly, that if you were the person who spent the day in a jail cell while your check was being verified, you wouldn't be so supportive.
The bank didn't have anyone arrested, the police did that allegedly after establishing probable cause. I do think it's okay to call the police if you believe someone is committing a crime
Quote:
If the depositor had wanted to cash the check, or to withdraw funds against the check, you might have a point. But I've deposited checks before that ended up being no good, and the bank had no problem reversing the deposit. The teller could simply have referred the customer to someone in customer service. Calling the police on a customer who wasn't taking out any money was a mishandling of the situation.
Depositing a check that ends up being no good vs accepting something you believe to be fraud upfront aren't the same thing. Comparing the two is a false comparison
You can't say there wasn't any possible issue as you haven't seen the check, you didn't attempt to scan he deposit it to see if it read the routing properly. You don't even know how any of this works and yet you are arguing what could or couldn't happen. It being verified hours later doesn't mean there was nothing wrong with it. I could tear a hundred dollar bill into 100 pieces and it could still verify
You shouldnt accept a check from anyone that you think is fraudulent and deposit it i your account just to see and neither should a bank
The bank didn't have anyone arrested, the police did that allegedly after establishing probable cause. I do think it's okay to call the police if you believe someone is committing a crime
Depositing a check that ends up being no good vs accepting something you believe to be fraud upfront aren't the same thing. Comparing the two is a false comparison
The problem was that the family spent the afternoon in a jail cell. When they did nothing wrong. That you think that this is okay is a problem. The bank stood to lose.....nothing. The police detained this man and his family for hours....and they did NOTHING wrong.
You keep insisting there was an issue with the check. But you don't know that. All you know is that this man entered the bank with a GOOD check, and with the paperwork to support the check. He didn't want to cash the check. He didn't want to withdraw any monies against the check. He simply wanted to deposit it. The bank deals with bad checks every day. They have systems in place to deal with bad checks, and since this man didn't ask for any money, the bank did not stand to be defrauded in any way. I know exactly how this works. You're defending a complete and total mishandling of a simple transaction that the bank could have easily handled without contacting the police.
Please show me the privacy law that prevents a financial institution from asking the source of funds of a deposit or where the money is coming from.
Have you ever worked in a bank? I was a Branch Manager for many years. You don't interrogate someone on where a check came from. If you are ever asked this of a teller I suggest not only do you ask for a Manager, but you move your funds to another bank! I have seen many checks that appear to look fake, but they were not. Checks that are $5.00 could be fake and checks that are $100k could be as well. That's why there's a process to verify. A bank could careless where the funds came from. That has nothing to do with if a check is good or not. If the check was forged that's a totally different scenario. The bank has processes for that too; however, the person in the article was not trying to cash a check off someone else's account. He was trying to deposit it, in HIS ACCOUNT! He wasn't getting any money back. The bank had nothing to lose by depositing it and placing a hold on the check. Just in case you don't know.....if there is a hold on the funds the account holder can not withdraw them and the bank would stand to lose nothing.
The bank in question and the police handled this terribly wrong and I wouldn't be surprised if the family sued over it, as they should!
The problem was that the family spent the afternoon in a jail cell. When they did nothing wrong. That you think that this is okay is a problem. The bank stood to lose.....nothing. The police detained this man and his family for hours....and they did NOTHING wrong.
You keep insisting there was an issue with the check. But you don't know that. All you know is that this man entered the bank with a GOOD check, and with the paperwork to support the check. He didn't want to cash the check. He didn't want to withdraw any monies against the check. He simply wanted to deposit it. The bank deals with bad checks every day. They have systems in place to deal with bad checks, and since this man didn't ask for any money, the bank did not stand to be defrauded in any way. I know exactly how this works. You're defending a complete and total mishandling of a simple transaction that the bank could have easily handled without contacting the police.
I don't know the issue other than what the bank claimed and I've said many times maybe more than once is response to you that I'd have to see the check myself to make a call. I never said I was okay with the entire family being detained/arrested. I'm not defending any mishandling but simply adding in where you and other may not understand on how things work. Again comparing bad checks everyday to things you suspect to be fraud upfront is a false comparison the fact you don't understand the difference is part of the problem, you don't understand how check deposit and the functionality works
Have you ever worked in a bank? I was a Branch Manager for many years. You don't interrogate someone on where a check came from. If you are ever asked this of a teller I suggest not only do you ask for a Manager, but you move your funds to another bank! I have seen many checks that appear to look fake, but they were not. Checks that are $5.00 could be fake and checks that are $100k could be as well. That's why there's a process to verify. A bank could careless where the funds came from. If the check was forged that's a totally different scenario. The bank has processes for that too. This person in the article was not trying to cash a check off someone else's account. He was trying to deposit it, in HIS ACCOUNT!
The bank in question and the police handled this terribly wrong and I wouldn't be surprised if the family sued over it, as they should!
Yes I have worked in a bank and I didn't say interrogate but you can ask the source if the funds. With your past tense comment you clearly haven't been in the business for some time. Anti money laundering, KYC, patriot act have all changed the business. You saying a bank doesn't care where the funds came from is not accurate
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.
