[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 allow funds to be withdrawn when you allow for them to be deposited via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