The idiot who wrote this article goes on and on why he thinks he is in the right and actually justifies why he should have the money in some points.
First, he misunderstands the 10-day-24-hour rule. The bank has 10 days to be notified by the clearing house then they have 24 hours to notify him. Not 24 hours from when he deposited the check.
Second, even though he read that the ‘non-negotiable’ isn’t valid, that doesn’t change that he knowingly deposited a fraudulent check.
Third, by cashing out the $95K to ‘protect it’ so he could give it back, this raises even more red flags of purposeful fraud. The bank can’t just reverse the charge now if you don’t have the $95K in your bank so you purposefully and knowingly deposited a fraudulent check then you removed the funds from your bank so it couldn’t be reversed.
This almost sounds like some idiot trying to justify his way out of committing a crime- and his findings in the law are just as stupid as the guy who goes to court and claims it isn’t a valid court because there is fringe on the flag.
I hope this smug punk reporter gets a few days in jail.
Yes, he seems to think the Bank stole the money from him! The bank only acts as an agent between the two parties, the check writer and the check casher. I’m sure his experience would have been different if he had gone to a teller to cash or even deposit the check. And why should the bank be all sweet to him when they think he’s trying to commit fraud! What an idiot.
This is old news. The story doesn’t mention dates for some reason. This guys does a one man show about his experience, which I’ve seen. He’s been doing it for years.
He didn’t knowingly deposit a fraudulent check. He knowingly deposited a fake check, which he expected to not work. What he learned was the check turned out to be perfectly legal. The get rich quick company had sent out valid checks in its mailings.
If you get a valid check in the mail, even if you don’t realize it, is it your fault if the bank processes it? Or is it the fault of the party sending out lots of valid checks?
Also, he didn’t cash out the money for weeks. He kept checking with the bank. He never spent the money.
the requirement is guilty mind WITH a guilty act.
If we take it at face value, he has no intention of keeping the money.
That said, this article could be an alibi effort to remove the guilty mind from the guilty act.
I would imagine the bank is humiliated enough not to press charges.