[ale] OT - bank fun
Christopher Bergeron
christopher at bergeron.com
Mon May 14 23:09:50 EDT 2007
I _really_ shouldn't chime in on this, but I actually saw this on Oprah
a couple of weeks ago (May 2007). They had women on that had actually
sent thousands of dollars away and had their money stolen. It was the
first time I had ever heard of that scam, so I can now justify letting
my girlfriend/wife watch Oprah (she's an attorney and we both work from
home; in the same office). ;)
It sounds like they are increasing the [relative] intelligence threshold
with their scams...
Kind regards,
Chris Bergeron
Jeff Lightner wrote:
> Well as I said it happened in the 80s. The bank involved of course
> denied they did it and someone as poor as me wouldn't have had much luck
> suing them - I'd probably still be in court today because that's what
> big companies do.
>
> My point was the law was changed much later (sometime between 86-90) to
> expedite check processing. They couldn't get away with it now because
> there are time limits for everything. The main reason for the time
> limits were another abuse - your own bank telling you that you couldn't
> have access to deposited funds until they were "collected" and then
> making arbitrary rules about when it was considered "collected" which
> often let them float money they'd gotten in wire transfer. Don't
> underestimate the value of interest on 3 days float of millions of
> dollars.
>
> Rather than depositing at another bank you do what I and my coworkers
> did after the above incident. We cashed the checks at the bank they
> were drawn on - the bank has to cash it for you even if you're not their
> customer. Even if you had deposited the money in another account and
> manually transferred it out you'd be liable for the returned check and
> ALSO your own bank would charge YOU overdraft fees for paying out the
> check you'd originally deposited.
>
> All that leads to another rant - why the hell you have to sign up to
> allow funds to be withdrawn when you allow for them to be deposited via
> direct deposit. There ought to be a law with time limits for that as
> well. I once saw a person complaining that the contract agency he'd
> worked for suddenly withdrew all the money they'd paid him when he was
> working for them after he no longer did. They used the flimsy excuse
> that he hadn't submitted the proper time sheets but couldn't explain why
> they had paid him all along without those time sheets. It is one thing
> to have a company make a payroll mistake and be allowed to correct that
> within a week but quite another to allow them unlimited access. Also
> those agreements don't "expire" so once you move on unless you change
> your account your vulnerable to shenanigans.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Bob
> Toxen
> Sent: Monday, May 14, 2007 11:42 AM
> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
> Subject: Re: [ale] [Fwd: Employment Advert] New Scam!!!
>
> The bank may have violated the law.
>
> *I* would have told them to honor *my* paycheck or I would charge
> them with embezzlement, file a complaint with the Federal Banking
> Commission, and sue them and then done so. You probably would have
> won the suit.
>
> At the same time (or in the same suit) also name the
> company which, clearly, has real estate. Payroll gets second dibs
> on a bankruptcy only to the IRS.
>
> That being said, a similar thing happened to me when I was young and
> naive. Word to the wise: in such a situation deposit the check to
> a bank account at a bank where you have NO other business. As soon
> as the funds are available withdraw in cash.
>
> The bank is unlikely to try to sue you to get back your paycheck. That
> is what I SHOULD have done.
>
> Bob
>
> On Mon, May 14, 2007 at 08:56:50AM -0400, Jeff Lightner wrote:
>
>> Having been a victim of the "intended" reason fro this rule I think
>>
> I'd
>
>> be happy to keep it in place and let people that don't know "something
>> that is too good to be true probably is" be burned by their own greed.
>>
>>
>>
>> Prior to the rule banks could do things like hold checks and claim
>>
> they
>
>> were NSF after the fact. I once worked for a company where several
>> successive paychecks were suddenly declared NSF all at once and
>>
> returned
>
>> to my bank where I'd foolishly deposited them. Why would a bank do
>> this you ask? Because the company had a mortgage and a payroll
>>
> account
>
>> at the same bank. They were in arrears on the mortgage so their bank
>> simply waited until they'd deposited enough funds in the payroll
>>
> account
>
>> (over a period of a few months) then used a little known law called
>> "right of offset" and transferred all those funds from the payroll
>> account to pay off the mortgage arrears. Once they did that they
>>
> were
>
>> free to send all the checks back as NSF despite the fact they had
>> previously accepted them from the clearing house without comment.
>>
>>
>>
>> The law that changed how quickly banks must process checks was a good
>> thing because it prevented abuses like the above which were common in
>> the 80s. They even require target banks of scams to report fairly
>> quickly so you don't find out a year later but somewhat more quickly
>> when you've been a victim of such a scheme.
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of
>> Brian Stanaland
>> Sent: Friday, May 11, 2007 10:57 PM
>> To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts
>> Subject: Re: [ale] [Fwd: Employment Advert] New Scam!!!
>>
>>
>>
>> In another instance of unintended consequences, banks are obligated by
>> federal law to either post funds to your account or declare checks
>> unfunded within a specified number of days. If the check hasn't been
>> denied by the issuing bank they have to deposit the money. When the
>> check finally gets to the bank and bounces, which it will, YOUR bank
>> takes the money back.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>> On 5/11/07, Scott Castaline <hscast at charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> Howard A Story wrote:
>>
>>> Sounds like.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Levin
>>>
>>> And there is some sort of IRS un-reportable limit??
>>>
>>>
>>> Bob Toxen wrote:
>>>
>>>> It can take as much as 1-2 months for your bank to discover that a
>>>>
>> check
>>
>>>> that you deposited and "cleared" really is no good and "ask" you to
>>>>
>
>
>>>> reimburse the funds. The fine print in your banking agreements
>>>>
>> legally
>>
>>>> obligates you to this so if you have any net worth at all the bank
>>>>
>> will
>>
>>>> get it.
>>>>
>>>> If you resist they may charge you with criminal acts for defrauding
>>>>
>> the
>>
>>>> bank.
>>>>
>>>> If you actually "get away" with such a scam, the IRS then will hunt
>>>>
>> you
>>
>>>> down.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Advice:
>>>> 1. Avoid any such offer to be a middleman in handling funds. If it
>>>>
>
>
>>>> were legal and easy they either would do itself or work through
>>>> a legitimate bank, lawyer, etc.
>>>>
>>>> 2. Avoid any "generic" ad of any type. Note that this one said
>>>> "your state/county/country" rather than "DeKalb County, GA".
>>>>
>>>> 3. If it is a legitimate bill, it can be handled via U.S. Mail
>>>> for $0.39. If they need you either it's a scan or you're being
>>>> hired for "Collections," which is a HARD job as the consultants
>>>> on this list know.
>>>>
>>>> Bob Toxen
>>>> bob at verysecurelinux.com [Please use for email to me]
>>>> http://www.verysecurelinux.com [Network&Linux/Unix security
>>>>
>> consulting]
>>
>>>> http://www.realworldlinuxsecurity.com [My book:"Real World Linux
>>>>
>> Security 2/e"]
>>
>>>> Quality Linux & UNIX security and SysAdmin & software consulting
>>>>
>> since 1990.
>>
>>>> "Microsoft: Unsafe at any clock speed!"
>>>> -- Bob Toxen 10/03/2002
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 09:46:54AM -0400, Jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> James P. Kinney III wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I got pounded with these last night.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Clark Howard has talked about this one. Seems you get to cash
>>>>>
> phony
>
>>>>> checks/money orders and forward the funds to the company. Then a
>>>>>
>> while
>>
>>>>> later you find out the checks are no good. That's a real
>>>>>
>> opportunity
>>
>>>>> alright!
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim.
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Ale mailing list
>>>>> Ale at ale.org
>>>>> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Ale mailing list
>>>> Ale at ale.org
>>>> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ale mailing list
>>> Ale at ale.org
>>> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>>
>>>
>> uhh according to the article Levin would have been 14 unless my eyes
>>
> and
>
>> math have really slipped in my old age. It says he was born 1980 and
>>
> he
>
>> started this in 1994.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> "Anyone who has the power to make
>> you believe absurdities has the power
>> to make you commit atrocities."
>>
>> -- Voltaire
>>
>>
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ale mailing list
>> Ale at ale.org
>> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>
>
More information about the Ale
mailing list