Chase Bank I spoke to William J. Gerena who is a Personal Banker who said that there was nothing they could do for me. I told him Chase refused to fill out a fraud report. He said that is because this is the c Chase charged my account and threw it into the negative after clearing three money orders. They said it is the customer's fault, not theirs, even though they cleared all three money orders. I am not Chicago, Illinois

But in typical bank defender victim kicker fashion...you are harping on trying to find any errors or way to discredit my posts, without considering the facts at all.

- Okay I have read through the Encyclopedia Ronica and the only things that are facts or could be remotely seen as "facts" were the following.

* Information from the FBI web site - Which I did not discredit or find error with 

* UCC Code - Which I did not discredit, but did bring up that you mis-interpeted it

* MSNBC Article - I just posted more of the article and a section which stated that there is no "real way" to verify if a check is good.  But as was pointed out by Flynrider the "fact" that you posted is highly questionable.  Not because of what you said, but because the article itself didn't mention this "mystery bank" or where they got that information.

* Information on various security features of checks - Again nothing to discredit there.

But since we are on the security features of the checks.  I will ask a question that has been asked and you have yet to answer..but if I missed it in your essays I am sorry.  But have you EVER seen any of these fraudlent checks.  Because I have and they all have had the various security features that would pass any checks(no pun intended) a teller may do.

Did I miss any other "facts" where you can point to a verifiable source?

But in typical bank defender victim kicker fashion...you are harping on trying to find any errors or way to discredit my posts, without considering the facts at all.

Okay so I took it out of context when you stated..

Yes, they should ask EVERY single person where they got the check when they see checks like this knowing d**n well they are 99% frauds.

- From that I take it that you think that the bank has a right to ask every person who trys to deposit a Money Order or Cashiers check where they got it from, because 99% of them are going to be fraudulent.  I don't know about anyone else but I don't think that any bank has the right to ask me where I got the items I am depositing, I also don't think that 99% of the Cashiers Checks or MO's are fakes.  So if I took that out of context please let all of know what you really meant?

Prime example number one. The reason they SHOULD ask every person is because that is the first line of defense to DETERMINE if it is suspect. It is just a question Robert, no one has to answer it...but it can help the consumer if the banks asks the simple question. The banks can then verify the check, or at the very least warn the customer to verify it since it could be a fraud, or that fraud happens...

Copied from an MSNBC website- excerpt.. "Grant said some banks have begun training tellers to offer more detailed instructions about check-cashing liabilities and that such education efforts have worked. At one bank, fake check fraud plummeted 85 percent after tellers were trained to warn consumers about cashing any check for more than $1,000. Her agency is pushing for new banking laws that would require such notification." .....

- In searching I found that this came from a 2007 article where anyone can read the entire article from the link below

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/10/the-cashiers-ch.html

In reading the article to put it "in context" I noticed how you didn't post another section of that article that actually brings an interesting light to your claims.  I guess you didn't like what they said so you figured that it doesn't matter "in context".

From the last paragraph in that article...

To review: According to U.S. law, you are responsible for verifying the authenticity of a check. Just because a check clears and the money is put into your account doesn't mean the check is legitimate and the money is yours. The truth is, there's no real way to verify a check is authentic. You can call the issuing bank and ask, and you can even visit the bank in person, but the answer you get might not be accurate. So never cash a check from a stranger if you can avoid it; and if you have to, never spend or refund even part of the money for at least a month, in case the check is fraudulent.

-  So even the article you quoted stated that the person depositing the check is responsible, and that there is no real way to verify if a check is authentic..what more do you want?

It was not necessary to paste the entire article when it is apparent even to a head up the arse of the bank person like yourself due to all the reports, and this one in particular that the customer is held responsible for the bad checks. I only posted the part of the article which documents the FACT that if the bank takes the simple action of training/educating the tellers, this has cut down on check fraud at that bank by 85%. If I had anything to hide I would not have left the information of where I found this online.

In your stubbornness, arrogance and victim kicking mindset you seem to ignore the fact that this is a problem that has a potential solution. You seem to think that by further hurting and kicking and insulting and BLAMING the victims because they made a mistake does any good or will make it stop. No Robert, it does no good other then your self gratification and feeling of self worth. I admit myself to doing this at times but if there really is a way to help the problem, I look open mindfully at the option. As well when it comes to anything where the banks are involved, I often have a gut instinct/feeling that in one way or another, they have found a way to profit off the financial damage done to their customers. It seems par for the course these days. As I stated previously, the banks diligently EARNED this lack of trust and bad reputation, it did not only happen due to the "few" irresponsible overdrafters who complained.

You have it set in stone that the banks are evil, and are only doing this to get fees.  That is your opinion and you have every right to have that opinion.  But you continue to post out of one side of your mouth saying yes the account holder needs to have responsiblity.  But out of the other side of your mouth you throw out just about everything you can to try and show that the account holder is totally innocent and it is because the bank is unwilling to babysit an account holder they are the ones who are really responsible.

No I do not have it set in stone, that is your opinion only..aka BULLSHIT based on BULLSHIT.. I explained clearly that I do have reservations based on the banks history. If the banks were not doing so much Tom Foolery to encourage overdrating, and had not profited so heavily from it the past several years once they implemented the manipulations and commingling and shadow line perhaps they would have an ounce of credibility. You are the one who consistently uses the word "evil"...but call it what you will. I am not speaking out of both sides of any mouth, I am just reasonable and open minded enough to place blame/suspicion where it is due..and if the blame is due to more then one party, then it is just me explaining THAT out of only one side of my mouth. If you took your head out from way up deep in the banks anal canal (taste kidneys yet?) enough to see the light, you would not be wasting your time debating with me because you can only lose.

Me and just about everyone who you would call a "bank defender" has on more than one occasion "called out" the banks when they are wrong.  So I will say if you can show me one piece of information that a bank actually makes more of a net profit from cashing these fraudulent checks than by not depositing them in the first place I will have to take that into consideration, and post accordingly.

Show me where you called out a bank. A few "ex" bank defenders stopped defending the banks once they saw for themselves what I had been saying on this site regarding the banks since day one..that they encouraged overdrafting for the SOLE purpose of fleecing low balance customers. And they profited from it quite handsomely. And that they failed to properly disclose information and used tactics to turn ONE legitimate overdraft fee, into as many as 10 ILLEGITIMATE overdraft fees. You would trust an institution that does this to Americans that are suffering and struggling financially during a terrible recession?

I admit to having no proof the banks are profiting from accepting bad checks and telling the customers they will clear in two days. I already said that so give it a rest. As well... has anyone presented proof they have not profited? If you need any proof that the banks HAVE however profited from overdrafts, I can with little effort..fill up a page or 10 with solid evidence and documentation. Just say the word.

Okay so I took it out of context when you stated..

Yes, they should ask EVERY single person where they got the check when they see checks like this knowing d**n well they are 99% frauds.

- From that I take it that you think that the bank has a right to ask every person who trys to deposit a Money Order or Cashiers check where they got it from, because 99% of them are going to be fraudulent.  I don't know about anyone else but I don't think that any bank has the right to ask me where I got the items I am depositing, I also don't think that 99% of the Cashiers Checks or MO's are fakes.  So if I took that out of context please let all of know what you really meant?

Next...

Copied from an MSNBC website- excerpt.. "Grant said some banks have begun training tellers to offer more detailed instructions about check-cashing liabilities and that such education efforts have worked. At one bank, fake check fraud plummeted 85 percent after tellers were trained to warn consumers about cashing any check for more than $1,000. Her agency is pushing for new banking laws that would require such notification." .....

- In searching I found that this came from a 2007 article where anyone can read the entire article from the link below

http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/10/the-cashiers-ch.html

In reading the article to put it "in context" I noticed how you didn't post another section of that article that actually brings an interesting light to your claims.  I guess you didn't like what they said so you figured that it doesn't matter "in context".

From the last paragraph in that article...

To review: According to U.S. law, you are responsible for verifying the authenticity of a check. Just because a check clears and the money is put into your account doesn't mean the check is legitimate and the money is yours. The truth is, there's no real way to verify a check is authentic. You can call the issuing bank and ask, and you can even visit the bank in person, but the answer you get might not be accurate. So never cash a check from a stranger if you can avoid it; and if you have to, never spend or refund even part of the money for at least a month, in case the check is fraudulent.

-  So even the article you quoted stated that the person depositing the check is responsible, and that there is no real way to verify if a check is authentic..what more do you want?

You have it set in stone that the banks are evil, and are only doing this to get fees.  That is your opinion and you have every right to have that opinion.  But you continue to post out of one side of your mouth saying yes the account holder needs to have responsiblity.  But out of the other side of your mouth you throw out just about everything you can to try and show that the account holder is totally innocent and it is because the bank is unwilling to babysit an account holder they are the ones who are really responsible.

Me and just about everyone who you would call a "bank defender" has on more than one occasion "called out" the banks when they are wrong.  So I will say if you can show me one piece of information that a bank actually makes more of a net profit from cashing these fraudulent checks than by not depositing them in the first place I will have to take that into consideration, and post accordingly.

"I posted the results when tellers were trained about this and it cut down on the scam by 85%. So was it 100% effective? No, but an 85% reduction is a good start."

  I'm a bit skeptical about that claim.  I have seen some of these checks and money orders in person.  They are good enough to pass both visual and machine inspection at a clearinghouse.  In other words, they are exact duplicates of what a real check or money order would look like (pretty easy to do with the right software and printer).   I'd be interested to know what sort of magic these tellers were using to detect the phony instruments when they were presented.

Which is what the bank defenders often resort to.

Look, I am not saying there should be a class action lawsuit against the banks for this (although it is a possibility it could happen), and I am not saying the banks are responsible for this.

I also am aware that just putting up a sign would not help most of these suckers. I am not asking the banks to babysit anyone either. My suggestion is good for all involved EXCEPT the scammers.

What I am saying is the scam would not be possible without the banks participation. You claim the banks are losing money as well.

So in all logic, who would it hurt if the banks warned customers to verify the cashiers check or money order before spending against it? How long would that really take? Would it take much longer then when they just say "it will clear in two days"?

I posted the results when tellers were trained about this and it cut down on the scam by 85%. So was it 100% effective? No, but an 85% reduction is a good start.

Yes, these victims were also a victim to their own greed and lack of common sense but they were victims nonetheless. I have to feel a little sorry for them. For the banks to do nothing at all, and for some to defend that just shows more and more how and why this country will continue to go downhill at breakneck pace.

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and born in sin. If you want to continue to be slaves of the bankers, and pay the cost of your slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit." - Josiah Stamp, former director of the Bank of England.

The banks are angels and the victims should not expect the bank to do anything. You are right and I am wrong. The bank should NEVER have ANY responsibilty to anything other then greed.

Are you for real? Return the merchandise you bought (and kept) with the fake money orders and give the money back to the bank. Then you won't go to jail for fraud. Google "Shadow Shopping Fraud". Your health insurance check bounced, but you obviously still have internet, so that didn't bounce. I want to start a class action suit against stupid people like you!

My main point in that statement is that if the banks want to post a sign I don't have a problem with them doing that.  Even though you are right in that it would not do any good.

As I mentioned before as well these notices don't work on Ebay or Craigslist.  So why would anyone expect them to work in this case?  But again it is all about how people "feel" right?  So if posting a sign makes someone "feel" better that is really all that matters.

As for the rest of your post..yep in total agreement.

"If you came here and only said that the banks should post a notice about these scams and they would be "covered", I have no problem with that."

  This would likely be as effective as those big signs they have at Western Union and Moneygram locations, warning customers never to send money to people that they don't know personally.

  These scams (like almost all scams) rely on the greed of the victim.  No mere sign is going to get between a victim and their easy money.  You can't regulate or legislate common sense.

   Ronny's solution is for a bank to treat its customers like children and involve themselves more deeply in routine transactions.  For someone who does not trust banks, this is rather surprising.  I personally (Ronny's labels notwithstanding) trust my bank about as far as I can throw it.  

It's going to be a bumpy ride...

Yes as we have Ronny who throws logic and common sense out the window to do everything in his power to show how the bank needs to be "mommy and daddy" to people by making sure that they don't get into trouble.

Yes, they should ask EVERY single person where they got the check when they see checks like this knowing d**n well they are 99% frauds.

- Really?  So you are advocating that banks dig into people's personal lives to ask where they got the check from?  Maby in your world that will go over well, but in the real world you know that that won't work.  Also, what stats do you have that 99% of the Cashiers Checks and Money Orders deposited are fradulent? 

I don't expect most banks would toss any check in the garbage unless they knew it was a fraud.

- Again how do they KNOW it is a fraud. 

Who would complain they held money on a check that is discovered to be a fraud?

- Of course THEY would be happy.  But what everyone else that had the bank "hold" their money for those extra days?  What about everyone who had to wait those extra few minutes while the bank grilled them about the source of the check or were in the back room verifying the check?  Creating a UNIFIED regulation on when funds must be released is a primary reason why Regulation CC was created.

And where does it say in regCC that the bank MUST accept and clear suspect checks and money orders?

- Does it say that the bank must accept them..No.  But then again you are assuming that the bank knows that the check is fradulent.  Which if you have seen some of these checks they are very good counterfeits.  Not to mention that at the time they are deposited the originating bank may not be aware of them being fraudulent.  Then of course you have checks deposited through ATM's and in increasing numbers through SmartPhone Apps where a human won't even see the check.

Not to take up extra space, anyone is more than free to read the entire Regulation from the FDIC site.

http://www.fdic.gov/regulations/laws/rules/6500-3210.html

I am willing to bet most of the saps do pay the bank back...at least whatever the bank does not take by force such as direct deposits and right to offset. Unless you have some documentation to prove otherwise, we can only assume you are just a bank defender for no other reason then to argue with me.

- So other than your willingness to "bet" what documentation do you have that most customers pay the bank back? 

I tried to find any stats on how much the banks lose due to check fraud but I can not find anything concrete other then customers lose a lot more then the banks this day and age,

- Wait a minute..I thought your whole premise was that the banks make money off of these bad checks.  According to what you just wrote both customers and banks are loosing money. 

Copied from an MSNBC website- excerpt.. "Grant said some banks have begun training tellers to offer more detailed instructions about check-cashing liabilities and that such education efforts have worked. At one bank, fake check fraud plummeted 85 percent after tellers were trained to warn consumers about cashing any check for more than $1,000. Her agency is pushing for new banking laws that would require such notification."

- Great..so now all the scammers have to do is send them a check for $975, or tell the people that they want to "test" the ATM security to avoid going to a teller.  You see no matter what the banks do, the scammers will be one step ahead.  Just like other items, if someone does not use COMMON SENSE and take responsibility over their actions they are ripe for being scammed.

From the UCC website...(although I do not know if the same rules apply to non commercial)

- That statment along with what you posted on the UCC, shows you don't really know what is going on.   The section you posted has to do with a check presented against YOUR account, not a check you are depositing.  So this applies to the account holder(in the case of a Cashiers check the originiating bank).  This is why the originating bank rejects the check and the party that deposited the check gets "hit" with having the transaction reversed. One example, if someone just made counterfeit checks and forged your signature then you would be covered and the bank would reverse it.  But if you left blank signed checks on your front door you did not use "ordinary care" and would not be covered.  As for the "comparative negligence", an example could be where someone signed the check who was not authorized but had access to the checks.  The account holder could be seem partially responsible for not protecting them as much as they could, and the bank could be held partially responsible because they did not verify the signature.  Nice try though... 

Again Ronny you want to live in a world where the bank should take all of the responsibility..yes I know you say that the account holder has some but a majority of what you post says otherwise. 

If you came here and only said that the banks should post a notice about these scams and they would be "covered", I have no problem with that.  But that is not what you are saying.  You are saying that the banks are accepting these checks just to gain more fees.  You are saying that the bank needs to get into peoples personal life and ask them where they got the check from.  Then by posting(incorrectly) the UCC Code you are also saying that the bank needs to be held responsible for the checks.  That is where the issues arise, all that states is that according to you the account holder has no responsibility so the bank should be the one required to "pay".

I tried to find any stats on how much the banks lose due to check fraud but I can not find anything concrete other then customers lose a lot more then the banks this day and age, plus taking into consideration loses at check cashing stores etc.. I will post some pertinent information I found that may help either way.

    * Know who youre dealing with or find out. Verify as much information as possible.
    * Never accept a check for more than the purchase price. Why would this buyer be so willing to trust you anyway?
    * Never call the banks phone number thats listed on the check look it up online instead. That number probably goes to one of the scam artists associates.
    * If possible, call the bank listed on the check and verify its legitimacy.
    * Consider using a reputable escrow agent or an online payment system for Internet sales.
    * Be very suspicious if someone wants you to wire money.
    * Reject any prizes you have to pay for.
    * Demand cash as payment.

From the FBI website...

Here are some tips you can use to avoid becoming a victim of employment schemes associated with mystery/secret shopping:

• Do not respond to unsolicited
  
  (spam) e-mail.
  
• Do not click on links contained
  
  within an unsolicited e-mail.
  
• Be cautious of e-mail claiming
  
  to contain pictures in attached files, as the files may contain viruses.
  
  Only open attachments from known senders. Virus scan all attachments, if
  
  possible.
  
• Avoid filling out forms
  
  contained in e-mail messages that ask for personal information.
  
• Always compare the link in the
  
  e-mail to the link you are actually directed to and determine if they
  
  match and will lead you to a legitimate site.
  
• There are legitimate
  
  mystery/secret shopper programs available. Research the legitimacy on
  
  companies hiring mystery shoppers. Legitimate companies will not charge an
  
  application fee and will accept applications online.
  
• No legitimate mystery/secret
  
  shopper program will send payment in advance and ask the employee to send
  
  a portion of it back.

Individuals who believe they have information pertaining to

mystery/secret shopper schemes are encouraged to file a complaint at http://www.ic3.gov/.

Copied from an MSNBC website- excerpt..

From the UCC website...(although I do not know if the same rules apply to non commercial)

Robert...

I will answer. These scams could NOT continue without the banks participation. If anyone believes that the banks are unaware that these types of checks are fraudulent, they are lying to themselves. If anyone believes the banks clear these checks because the "have to by law" they are LYING to themselves.

- I will start off by saying yes you are correct these "scams" require the banks and the banks are well aware of them.  But it also requires a person who is (sorry to say) naieve enough to believe this.

I never stated otherwise.

The banks do not have to "clear" the funds, but they have to make the funds available, there is a difference.  Specifically the law is Reg CC, and requires a bank to release funds after a certain amount of time.  There are exceptions for additional holds if they suspect the check may not be honored.   However they have to have justification.  Are you really going to ask every single person where they got the check from?  Just how do you think that will go over with someone who does not think that the bank has any right to know where they got their money from?

They are allowed to deny taking suspect checks. Yes, they should ask EVERY single person where they got the check when they see checks like this knowing d**n well they are 99% frauds. Do you really think the bank is not doing this because they are concerned what a customer is going to think about them asking where they got the money from?? Or would it be more likely that the customer would thank the bank for doing their job better and actually showing some genuine concern for their customers by protecting them from fraud rather then contributing to and further enabling it?

This scam has been greatly cut down in the UK because once a check like this is presented to the bank, the tellers are instructed to toss them in the garbage.

- Great..But this is not the UK.  If someone presented a check that turned out to be legitimate and they tossed it in the garbage what would happen?  You would have that person screaming up and down about the fraud and it is a scam and they would be calling for a "Class Action Lawsuit".  All it takes is one person who doesn't like that they are "doing it for their own good".

I don't expect most banks would toss any check in the garbage unless they knew it was a fraud. But why not the teller simply explain to the customer that even though the check may clear, they should not spend against it until it is verified. And if the bank is too lazy to verify it for the customer, why not explain to the customer how to do this? Is there any law preventing the bank from educating their customers or helping to protect them?

Now in all honesty would it be too much of the bank to warn the customers that it is a scam..or to request they call the issuing bank

-  Even if they did ask them you still have people who would think the check is good.  Unfortunatly some people feel they are so desparate they would ignore every single sign of fraud, and this is what the scammers rely on.  People don't even read the funds availability policy that is posted at the teller or ATM.  Do you think that they would read a warning about this scam.  How has that worked for Craigslist and Ebay?

I agree. And in those cases how could the customer lodge a complaint against the bank if the bank made an honest attempt/effort to warn the customer? Speaking of craigslist..what do we tell every person who complains here when they post the scam?...We practically rub in their face the fact that criagslist clearly posts a warning..what more should they do? But it is not a fair comparison when it is reasonably assumed a bank would be a safe place, the best place, and perhaps the ONLY place to determine if a check or money order is fraudulent.

I guess the fees they make are more important then their customers financial well being..no real surprise there

- Yep there it is folks.  This is all because the "evil" bank wants to collect fees.

Okay let's see how evil the bank is.  A person wires out $2000(may be more, may be less) that later gets reversed.  So now they are in the hole for the $2000, and because of that they get hit with another $130 in fees.   So yes you are right the bank "made" $130 off of the customer, of course the $2000 that was withdrawn is now also gone.  So the customer now owes about $2130, which as most people caught in this situation have economic conditions that make it impossible for them to pay any of it back.  Yep the bank sure wanted to stick it to the customer.  So much so that they are willing to write off $2000 just to collect $130, which of course they now have to write off as well.  Oh, and who is going to end up paying for that?

So...you are saying the banks are stupid? That is your defense to me in this rebuttal? Comon Robert you know better. If the banks did not figure out the averages that they are going to make money on this scam don't you think they would be quite a bit more hesitant and cautious before accepting these well know scam checks and MO's?

If you really think about it they could make more by holding the checks longer.  After all people would spend the money because they "think" they have it.  The bank gets its overdraft fees, and because the check is good they get the funds from that so they don't loose any money.

Well reg CC has that covered..but if as I suspect the banks are doing this to profit, then it would make sense that they clear it as quickly as possible..hence proving my theory better, and just another example of the banks exploiting regulations to profit off their loyal customers..would not be a first..would it now? If they waited too long then it may be discovered a fraud before the customer could spend against it hence limiting or eliminating the banks chance to profit from the scam.

Look would it be great if the bank asked every single person and if the check is good.  Would it be great if the bank could stop 100% of these checks. Would it be great if the bank could verify the funds before they released it.  The answer to all of these is Yes..of course.  But compared to the number of legitimate checks that are deposited every day, trying to find the small fraction of fradulent checks is not really something based in reality.  And telling the customer to go verify the funds won't fly.

They don't have to ask every single customer anything. They only have to notify the customers that THESE types of checks are almost always a scam, and that they should not spend against it until they are sure they have contacted the bank it is from first..and after waiting a few days. Otherwise the customer should be informed of the risks. Obviously the customers that are victim to this scam do not know the risks, or we would not be here now discussing this. The BANK is certainly aware of the risk I would think in all logic.

Also, in all of this you are figuring that everyone who does this, does this in the presense of a teller.  What about people that deposit it in an ATM that does not require envelopes, or now with some banks and SmartPhone Apps where all you have to do is take a picture of the check.  The chances of a human even seeing the check is slim to none in those cases.  How do you want the bank to stop those people?

The bank can not and should not stop all deposits. Only warn the customer. If the customer deposits a bad check at an ATM or by iphone whatever, then they can no longer blame a teller for taking a bad check..right? The complaint here is the customer walked into the bank with the money order and was only told it would take a couple of days to clear. So what does that imply to anyone unaware of this scam?

There is a point and time when people have to take responsiblity for their actions and show a little common sense.  Did the OP really think that they got hired by their local Police Department?  If not then why did they feel they should be helping someone they don't know "find" a crook?

I never disagreed. I only stated I am suspect why the banks don't do more to prevent this when it is well known. Some banks do actually. Even BofA from what I have read. But it seems Chase (the bank I happen to use and personally have had no problems with) does not care about this issue enough to act. It will eventually turn around and bite them in the rump..as usually is the case.

Flynrider...

"If anyone believes the banks clear these checks because the "have to by law" they are LYING to themselves. "

I have explained regulation CC before.   What part of this do you not get?   This entire scam is based upon the fact that banks are required to make funds available before checks/money orders actually clear.    Of course, if banks decided to hold all non-local instruments until they physically cleared, then I'm sure you would be claiming that they were doing it to unnecessarily hold on to your money.  That's why Reg CC was created in the first place.

Who would complain they held money on a check that is discovered to be a fraud? And where does it say in regCC that the bank MUST accept and clear suspect checks and money orders? Perhaps that is why some banks do not accept these or better warn the customer, and some seem to just tell the customer wait until it clears?

  Have you ever seen one of these bogus money orders?   Your assertion that tellers can instantly recognize a fake and toss it out are ridiculous.  They are correctly designed and formatted to pass initial visual and machine inspections.

They are ALL suspect and if the customers were better warned they could not blame the bank. If the bank tells them nothing but wait until it clears, most customers will simply think the check is good. That is the problem..customers assume "clear" means good..and that the bank is the best place to know if a check or MO is suspect or "not good"..

 If this is some evil conspiracy by banks, what exactly do they gain by knowingly processing a bad money order?   In fact, they end up losing money overall because most of the saps that fall for this scam cannot pay the bank back.

I am willing to bet most of the saps do pay the bank back...at least whatever the bank does not take by force such as direct deposits and right to offset. Unless you have some documentation to prove otherwise, we can only assume you are just a bank defender for no other reason then to argue with me.

I am simply commenting on what seems obvious..if you wish to defend the banks so be it. But I stand my ground..without the banks participation, this scam would not be possible, period. Since we know people are suckers and fools and buy into this heartless scam..perhaps not just some banks..but all banks can at least try to help instead of contribute...is that really unreasonable to expect?

"If anyone believes the banks clear these checks because the "have to by law" they are LYING to themselves. "

   I have explained regulation CC before.   What part of this do you not get?   This entire scam is based upon the fact that banks are required to make funds available before checks/money orders actually clear.    Of course, if banks decided to hold all non-local instruments until they physically cleared, then I'm sure you would be claiming that they were doing it to unnecessarily hold on to your money.  That's why Reg CC was created in the first place.

  Have you ever seen one of these bogus money orders?   Your assertion that tellers can instantly recognize a fake and toss it out are ridiculous.  They are correctly designed and formatted to pass initial visual and machine inspections. 

  If this is some evil conspiracy by banks, what exactly do they gain by knowingly processing a bad money order?   In fact, they end up losing money overall because most of the saps that fall for this scam cannot pay the bank back.

Many banks will not verify if a check is real or if funds are available unless the account owner is on the line and authorizes it. So calling the bank the check is drawn on is not really a viable alternative. It really sucks that in this day someone falls for this scam but the account owner is responsible for each item depsoited into the account. If your mom gives you a check that doesn't clear because it hit her account a day early, your bank will reverse the credit, charge you a chargeback fee (in most cases) and then return the check to you. They don't try to collect from the maker of the check.

I will answer. These scams could NOT continue without the banks participation. If anyone believes that the banks are unaware that these types of checks are fraudulent, they are lying to themselves. If anyone believes the banks clear these checks because the "have to by law" they are LYING to themselves.

- I will start off by saying yes you are correct these "scams" require the banks and the banks are well aware of them.  But it also requires a person who is (sorry to say) naieve enough to believe this. 

The banks do not have to "clear" the funds, but they have to make the funds available, there is a difference.  Specifically the law is Reg CC, and requires a bank to release funds after a certain amount of time.  There are exceptions for additional holds if they suspect the check may not be honored.   However they have to have justification.  Are you really going to ask every single person where they got the check from?  Just how do you think that will go over with someone who does not think that the bank has any right to know where they got their money from?

This scam has been greatly cut down in the UK because once a check like this is presented to the bank, the tellers are instructed to toss them in the garbage.

- Great..But this is not the UK.  If someone presented a check that turned out to be legitimate and they tossed it in the garbage what would happen?  You would have that person screaming up and down about the fraud and it is a scam and they would be calling for a "Class Action Lawsuit".  All it takes is one person who doesn't like that they are "doing it for their own good".

Now in all honesty would it be too much of the bank to warn the customers that it is a scam..or to request they call the issuing bank

-  Even if they did ask them you still have people who would think the check is good.  Unfortunatly some people feel they are so desparate they would ignore every single sign of fraud, and this is what the scammers rely on.  People don't even read the funds availability policy that is posted at the teller or ATM.  Do you think that they would read a warning about this scam.  How has that worked for Craigslist and Ebay?

I guess the fees they make are more important then their customers financial well being..no real surprise there

- Yep there it is folks.  This is all because the "evil" bank wants to collect fees.

Okay let's see how evil the bank is.  A person wires out $2000(may be more, may be less) that later gets reversed.  So now they are in the hole for the $2000, and because of that they get hit with another $130 in fees.   So yes you are right the bank "made" $130 off of the customer, of course the $2000 that was withdrawn is now also gone.  So the customer now owes about $2130, which as most people caught in this situation have economic conditions that make it impossible for them to pay any of it back.  Yep the bank sure wanted to stick it to the customer.  So much so that they are willing to write off $2000 just to collect $130, which of course they now have to write off as well.  Oh, and who is going to end up paying for that?

If you really think about it they could make more by holding the checks longer.  After all people would spend the money because they "think" they have it.  The bank gets its overdraft fees, and because the check is good they get the funds from that so they don't loose any money. 

Look would it be great if the bank asked every single person and if the check is good.  Would it be great if the bank could stop 100% of these checks. Would it be great if the bank could verify the funds before they released it.  The answer to all of these is Yes..of course.  But compared to the number of legitimate checks that are deposited every day, trying to find the small fraction of fradulent checks is not really something based in reality.  And telling the customer to go verify the funds won't fly.

Also, in all of this you are figuring that everyone who does this, does this in the presense of a teller.  What about people that deposit it in an ATM that does not require envelopes, or now with some banks and SmartPhone Apps where all you have to do is take a picture of the check.  The chances of a human even seeing the check is slim to none in those cases.  How do you want the bank to stop those people?

There is a point and time when people have to take responsiblity for their actions and show a little common sense.  Did the OP really think that they got hired by their local Police Department?  If not then why did they feel they should be helping someone they don't know "find" a crook?

If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is!

Plain old common sense is your best defense against these scams.

NEVER wire money to ANYONE that you do not know personally!!

STOP being so gullible! Get educated! KNOWLEDGE is power!

Agreed the lawyers make money on class action lawsuits, as they also have the risk of working on a case for years and getting nothing. But lawsuits do often lead to law and policy changes that better us as humans and protect consumers.

While I also agree "technically" that this is not the banks responsibility regarding these counterfeit checks from the Nigerian scams and these secret shopper scams we hear so much about, I have some reservations.

Unless someone can explain to me how without the banks participation, these scams could continue.

I will answer. These scams could NOT continue without the banks participation. If anyone believes that the banks are unaware that these types of checks are fraudulent, they are lying to themselves. If anyone believes the banks clear these checks because the "have to by law" they are LYING to themselves.

This scam has been greatly cut down in the UK because once a check like this is presented to the bank, the tellers are instructed to toss them in the garbage.

Some banks in the USA will warn the customers of this...some seem not to. Now in all honesty would it be too much of the bank to warn the customers that it is a scam..or to request they call the issuing bank etc at the very least? I guess the fees they make are more important then their customers financial well being..no real surprise there. I do not think it unreasonable that of all places a victim of this type of scam would go to see if the check is good, is the bank..I mean who is assumed to be the expert on checks but a Bank for Christs sake?????.

Reasonable?

These "shadow" "secret" shoppers are frauds period! As for a class action suit the only person who makes money is the Attorney!

You are responsible for these bogus money orders.