Should there be a New Restaurant Law?

Quote: AZDuffman

I understand what you are saying. But it it would be called fraud or check kiting.

Which is exactly why banks should verify checks before allowing access to money from that deposited check.

That's ironic, considering how upset you appeared to be when all of the funds for your paycheck were not immediately available.

Quote: KNathan

Which is exactly why banks should verify checks before allowing access to money from that deposited check.

It's not the banks fault you gave them a bum check.

When you deposit money in a bank, you are actually loaning it to them. In this case you represented to them that you had xxx funds and to show their appreciation they believed you and gave you cash.

You are the one who needed to guarantee the funds you claimed that check was worth, if there was actually a check involved? From all your posts, I still haven't figured out if there actually was a check, or you just call everything a check?

Something doesn't add up. Are you saying your Walgreen's kited a payroll check? That would actually be pretty big news.

Quote: petroglyph

It's not the banks fault you gave them a bum check.

When you deposit money in a bank, you are actually loaning it to them. In this case you represented to them that you had xxx funds and to show their appreciation they believed you and gave you cash.

You are the one who needed to guarantee the funds you claimed that check was worth, if there was actually a check involved? From all your posts, I still haven't figured out if there actually was a check, or you just call everything a check?

Something doesn't add up. Are you saying your Walgreen's kited a payroll check? That would actually be pretty big news.

I'm not saying Walgreen's kited a check. I was just saying that Banks should verify checks before accepting them because of the scam where fraudsters make their own fake but legitimate looking checks and then deposit the fake checks into their bank account. A guy told me personally that he did something slightly similar. Before the days of electronic deposits, you would deposit money in a paper envelope in an ATM. The guy told me he put worthless slips of paper in an envelope and punched in "$200," on the ATM, the ATM accepted the worthless paper slips as "$200," and he then withdrew $200 of real money and went shopping with the technically stolen money before the bank realized he actually gave them literal paper. Just the fact that he supposedly deposited $200 and then withdrew $200 seconds later would look like a huge red flag. He was labeled as "Suspected Fraud," on his bank account after that shady stunt he pulled.

Quote: KNathan

I'm not saying Walgreen's kited a check. I was just saying that Banks should verify checks before accepting them because of the scam where fraudsters make their own fake but legitimate looking checks and then deposit the fake checks into their bank account. A guy told me personally that he did something slightly similar. Before the days of electronic deposits, you would deposit money in a paper envelope in an ATM. The guy told me he put worthless slips of paper in an envelope and punched in "$200," on the ATM, the ATM accepted the worthless paper slips as "$200," and he then withdrew $200 of real money and went shopping with the technically stolen money before the bank realized he actually gave them literal paper. Just the fact that he supposedly deposited $200 and then withdrew $200 seconds later would look like a huge red flag. He was labeled as "Suspected Fraud," on his bank account after that shady stunt he pulled.

So you know a guy that told you he defrauded a bank through an ATM, and got away with it but is only on a watch list?

I thought you would have retired from the bus accident.

Quote: petroglyph

So you know a guy that told you he defrauded a bank through an ATM, and got away with it but is only on a watch list?

I thought you would have retired from the bus accident.

The guy that told me about the $200 fraud at the ATM happened a long time ago. That was in 2007. A hint that it was a long time ago was that most or all Banks don't take paper deposits anymore. It's electronic deposits now for the most part.

Quote: KNathan

The guy that told me about the $200 fraud at the ATM happened a long time ago. That was in 2007. A hint that it was a long time ago was that most or all Banks don't take paper deposits anymore. It's electronic deposits now for the most part.

Of course banks still take paper deposits. Any bank processes thousands of checks a day. This whole thread is nonsense and misdirection. The "hint" is that you keep changing the story on this thing, both here and at WoV.

And before you get yourself in trouble, no, you can't make up a fake check, get money against it, and then go get the check back. They will have stamped it for deposit and accounted for it 1 minute after you cash it.

And when it gets returned by the bank as a forgery, they will take your picture from the security tape and your ID copy they put with your check and have you arrested and jailed for forgery and/or fraud.

Good grief.

Quote: KNathan

I'm not saying Walgreen's kited a check. I was just saying that Banks should verify checks before accepting them because of the scam where fraudsters make their own fake but legitimate looking checks and then deposit the fake checks into their bank account. A guy told me personally that he did something slightly similar. Before the days of electronic deposits, you would deposit money in a paper envelope in an ATM. The guy told me he put worthless slips of paper in an envelope and punched in "$200," on the ATM, the ATM accepted the worthless paper slips as "$200," and he then withdrew $200 of real money and went shopping with the technically stolen money before the bank realized he actually gave them literal paper. Just the fact that he supposedly deposited $200 and then withdrew $200 seconds later would look like a huge red flag. He was labeled as "Suspected Fraud," on his bank account after that shady stunt he pulled.

That is IMPOSSIBLE. Banks NEVER took an ATM deposit on faith. Today my bank actually scans what you deposited, cash or checks, and verifies it then and there. Later an employee (probably two at once for security) will verify everything. Back in the day, I know for sure they had 2 empty the machine and check everything together. That way to prevent employee theft they would need 2 people to be in on it, and even if they were it would not work more than once. Cameras were there, too, to verify who deposited or withdrew what.

I had an account with an ATM as early as 1986 or so for my paper route. I got paid 95% in cash. I almost always made the deposit after hours. It would be until the next morning, late that morning, that the funds were available.

That is a real life example. Now a logic example. Do you honestly think there is a bank stupid enough to let people withdraw $200 based on an uncleared deposit? There is the possibility that ONE person who was on the "ATM Team" when they set up how to take deposits would not have thought of this (say they were just a computer programmer who did not know about funds clearing), but for a TEAM to not see the massive chance for fraud? IMPOSSIBLE. Even if it were possible, after it happened ONCE, word would spread around the banking industry like wildfire to close the loophole.

Add another GOOD GRIEF!

Quote: AZDuffman

That is IMPOSSIBLE. Banks NEVER took an ATM deposit on faith. Today my bank actually scans what you deposited, cash or checks, and verifies it then and there. Later an employee (probably two at once for security) will verify everything. Back in the day, I know for sure they had 2 empty the machine and check everything together. That way to prevent employee theft they would need 2 people to be in on it, and even if they were it would not work more than once. Cameras were there, too, to verify who deposited or withdrew what.

I had an account with an ATM as early as 1986 or so for my paper route. I got paid 95% in cash. I almost always made the deposit after hours. It would be until the next morning, late that morning, that the funds were available.

That is a real life example. Now a logic example. Do you honestly think there is a bank stupid enough to let people withdraw $200 based on an uncleared deposit? There is the possibility that ONE person who was on the "ATM Team" when they set up how to take deposits would not have thought of this (say they were just a computer programmer who did not know about funds clearing), but for a TEAM to not see the massive chance for fraud? IMPOSSIBLE. Even if it were possible, after it happened ONCE, word would spread around the banking industry like wildfire to close the loophole.

Add another GOOD GRIEF!

Show Spoiler

Did this guy give you his phone number on the back of an ATM receipt with a huge balance?

I was actually THERE in the bank with him when the Banker told him about the suspected fraud. He was kind of my boyfriend at the time, so no, this wasn't just what he told me, the Banker pulled up his file and told us in his face about his suspected fraud.

Quote: KNathan

I was actually THERE in the bank with him when the Banker told him about the suspected fraud. He was kind of my boyfriend at the time, so no, this wasn't just what he told me, the Banker pulled up his file and told us in his face about his suspected fraud.

I am adding an even bigger GOOD GRIEF. If he did this himself and you were at the bank, it would not be the banker he was talking to, it would have been the cops. Not to mention that the bank would certainly have frozen his account solid the second the pieces of paper were found in the envelope.