3 ms·

"They couldn't verify that those checks were due to a settlement," said Wennerberg, adding the bank contacted Enterprise to verify that the checks were part of

"They couldn't verify that those checks were due to a settlement," said Wennerberg, adding the bank contacted Enterprise to verify that the checks were part of a lawsuit, but were unable to do so" He tried to cash three different large checks and the bank was unable to verify that these were actually legitimate. Calling the police was the correct thing tod do here. It was sorted out, but he is now launching another lawsuit (most likely for large sums of money). This tells me more about the person trying to cash the check than the bank here. "Wennerberg said the assistant manager who waited on Thomas was African American, and felt that something didn't "look right," so she called police." More proof that this wasn't racial and more to do with the suspicious nature of trying to cash 3 large checks and being unable to verify.

mmhsieh 7y ago
i am not accusing this fellow of wrongdoing: but a truly cynical person could identify banks that have the worst OCR, glitch it, and create a litigable event. if we can turn stop signs into pandas, i think we can cause a paper check to make OCR go kablooie.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Why are you so insistent that OCR has anything to do with this news event? What litigable event are you even considering? Checks use MICR, not OCR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_ink_character_recognition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_ink_character_recogni... . Elsewhere you tried to say it was the "organic OCR embedded in the skulls of [...] employees", so now you think people's brains will go kablooie?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
eesmith 7y ago
> "This tells me more about the person trying to cash the check than the bank here." That he's someone willing to fight racial discrimination in a court of law? That's someone better than I, because I don't think I could go through the emotional process of a lawsuit unless it was very extreme. > "and the bank was unable to verify that these were actually legitimate" You know that banks have existing processes in place for this, right? And that "call the police within a few minutes" isn't part of the standard process? As an example, https://firstquarterfinance.com/how-to-cash-a-large-check-without-a-hold-or-bank-account/ https://firstquarterfinance.com/how-to-cash-a-large-check-wi... says: "Bank deposits and check cashing activities are governed by Regulation CC, a Federal Reserve banking regulation that governs the availability of funds and collection of checks ... Regulation CC rules state ... "For large checks over $5,000, banks can delay the availability for a “reasonable period of time.” The time period considered “reasonable” is two business days for large checks drawn from one of the bank’s own accounts (“on-us” checks), and up to seven business days for all other checks." So the bank could have said, "this is a large check, it will take a couple of days to clear", and left it at that. I mean, they've got his contact details, so he really was engaged in check fraud then they know how to get him. > "More proof that this wasn't racial" Really? Why? Black-on-black discrimination exists too. Eg, Turner v. The Hershey Co, https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20141015b00 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20141015b00 where "Each of the other witnesses cited by plaintiff testified that Williams [an African-American] regularly stated that he had too many blacks on his sales team.". Or, https://theblackfactor.blogspot.com/2007/02/black-on-black-discrimination.html https://theblackfactor.blogspot.com/2007/02/black-on-black-d... for another example "The President/CEO is a Black woman, but, apparently, she refuses to put Black people into the highest level positions." > "and being unable to verify" That should be "unable to verify after a few minutes." Remember, the police were there "within 10 minutes". If a few minutes are all that's needed, why are banks allowed to place a hold for two to seven days?

mmhsieh 7y ago

i am not accusing this fellow of wrongdoing: but a truly cynical person could identify banks that have the worst OCR, glitch it, and create a litigable event. if we can turn stop signs into pandas, i think we can cause a paper check to make OCR go kablooie.

eesmith 7y ago
Why are you so insistent that OCR has anything to do with this news event? What litigable event are you even considering? Checks use MICR, not OCR - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_ink_character_recognition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_ink_character_recogni... . Elsewhere you tried to say it was the "organic OCR embedded in the skulls of [...] employees", so now you think people's brains will go kablooie?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

eesmith 7y ago

> "This tells me more about the person trying to cash the check than the bank here." That he's someone willing to fight racial discrimination in a court of law? That's someone better than I, because I don't think I could go through the emotional process of a lawsuit unless it was very extreme. > "and the bank was unable to verify that these were actually legitimate" You know that banks have existing processes in place for this, right? And that "call the police within a few minutes" isn't part of the standard process? As an example, https://firstquarterfinance.com/how-to-cash-a-large-check-without-a-hold-or-bank-account/ https://firstquarterfinance.com/how-to-cash-a-large-check-wi... says: "Bank deposits and check cashing activities are governed by Regulation CC, a Federal Reserve banking regulation that governs the availability of funds and collection of checks ... Regulation CC rules state ... "For large checks over $5,000, banks can delay the availability for a “reasonable period of time.” The time period considered “reasonable” is two business days for large checks drawn from one of the bank’s own accounts (“on-us” checks), and up to seven business days for all other checks." So the bank could have said, "this is a large check, it will take a couple of days to clear", and left it at that. I mean, they've got his contact details, so he really was engaged in check fraud then they know how to get him. > "More proof that this wasn't racial" Really? Why? Black-on-black discrimination exists too. Eg, Turner v. The Hershey Co, https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20141015b00 https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20141015b00 where "Each of the other witnesses cited by plaintiff testified that Williams [an African-American] regularly stated that he had too many blacks on his sales team.". Or, https://theblackfactor.blogspot.com/2007/02/black-on-black-discrimination.html https://theblackfactor.blogspot.com/2007/02/black-on-black-d... for another example "The President/CEO is a Black woman, but, apparently, she refuses to put Black people into the highest level positions." > "and being unable to verify" That should be "unable to verify after a few minutes." Remember, the police were there "within 10 minutes". If a few minutes are all that's needed, why are banks allowed to place a hold for two to seven days?