Since computers or something, maybe since some law in 2004, or even
earlier, one no longer has to wait 3 days for local checks and 10? days
for out-of-Federal-Reserve-district checks to clear before one can
withdraw the money that was deposited.

Now the money is almost universally available after one day. If you
look at your account online, the deposit goes from Pending to Available,
as indicated by a small font word underneath the line.

I've been told by an officer at a bank that this is true of Paypal too.
This convenience afaict has brought with it more efficient way to cheat
people. A check is sent to the target and he's told to deposit it, and
after one day it will clear, and the target should send some of the
money to some worthy person who is actually the scammer. Or with Paypal
the scammer makes a deposit and tells the target that he can keep some
of the money and should sent 20,000 dollars to a needy person who is
actually the scammer.

I asked that bank officer today, why this problem continues. He says
the customer accepted when they opened the account that the money can be
called available when it is not confirmed. That this was a convenience
the bank was providing. That customers agreed to it after reading the
terms & conditions. I asked him how many people can read and remember
these conditions. But he just works and it was the end of his workday
so I didn't give him a hard time.

All they would have to do is A) change the two labels, Pending and
Available, to three labels, Pending, "Available for use but will be
reclaimed by the bank if recent deposits turn out to be phony", and
Available. B) and it would be best if when trying to spend the middle
category money, there was another warning, like "$120 of your requested withdrawal is your money, and $29,880 is being lent to you by this bank
and you will be required to pay it back to us if your recent deposit(s)
turns out to be invalid. Has someone asked you to do this? This is
a common way to cheat innocent people."

A is easy to implement. B just a little harder. Why has the government
not done anything at least to require A if not also B. Thousands of
people in the US get cheated this way every year.

If I were to send this as a letter to the banking committees or my
congressman, what edits should I make to improve it?

Who would you send it to?

Is this true of Paypal as well as banks?

I have a good friend about 30 years old, who is bipolar and can't hold a
job, who they are targeting right now, today and tomorrow, and he
believes there is a sick woman who needs this money or she'll die. And
he won't believe all the people who tell him it is a scam. That's
problem enough, but why do banks contribute to the problem? And why
don't government regulators mitigate it.

This flaw in the banking system has bothered me for years now, ever
since I first saw it used in scams and the government has done nothing
to stop it, afaik.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"micky" wrote in message news:c2hm7jdugniuuult765vu7suf5b10e1pef@4ax.com...

Since computers or something, maybe since some law in 2004, or even
earlier, one no longer has to wait 3 days for local checks and 10? days
for out-of-Federal-Reserve-district checks to clear before one can
withdraw the money that was deposited.

Now the money is almost universally available after one day. If you
look at your account online, the deposit goes from Pending to Available,
as indicated by a small font word underneath the line.

I've been told by an officer at a bank that this is true of Paypal too.
This convenience afaict has brought with it more efficient way to cheat >people. A check is sent to the target and he's told to deposit it, and >after one day it will clear, and the target should send some of the
money to some worthy person who is actually the scammer. Or with Paypal
the scammer makes a deposit and tells the target that he can keep some
of the money and should sent 20,000 dollars to a needy person who is
actually the scammer.

I asked that bank officer today, why this problem continues. He says
the customer accepted when they opened the account that the money can be >called available when it is not confirmed. That this was a convenience
the bank was providing. That customers agreed to it after reading the
terms & conditions. I asked him how many people can read and remember
these conditions. But he just works and it was the end of his workday
so I didn't give him a hard time.

All they would have to do is A) change the two labels, Pending and
Available, to three labels, Pending, "Available for use but will be
reclaimed by the bank if recent deposits turn out to be phony", and >Available. B) and it would be best if when trying to spend the middle >category money, there was another warning, like "$120 of your requested >withdrawal is your money, and $29,880 is being lent to you by this bank
and you will be required to pay it back to us if your recent deposit(s)
turns out to be invalid. Has someone asked you to do this? This is
a common way to cheat innocent people."

A is easy to implement. B just a little harder. Why has the government
not done anything at least to require A if not also B. Thousands of
people in the US get cheated this way every year.

If I were to send this as a letter to the banking committees or my >congressman, what edits should I make to improve it?

Who would you send it to?

Is this true of Paypal as well as banks?

I have a good friend about 30 years old, who is bipolar and can't hold a
job, who they are targeting right now, today and tomorrow, and he
believes there is a sick woman who needs this money or she'll die. And
he won't believe all the people who tell him it is a scam. That's
problem enough, but why do banks contribute to the problem? And why
don't government regulators mitigate it.

This flaw in the banking system has bothered me for years now, ever
since I first saw it used in scams and the government has done nothing
to stop it, afaik.

It's not a flaw. It's a feature that was designed to make funds more accessible to the vast majority of people who use the system for honest reasons. Yes, a fairly small minority will take advantage of this to try
to con people into sending money, but it's really not the bank's job to
worry about this. People have to take some responsibility for their own actions, and that includes being very careful when it comes to depositing checks from strange sources and using judgment when evaluating requests for money from strangers.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:59:26 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

"micky" wrote in message news:c2hm7jdugniuuult765vu7suf5b10e1pef@4ax.com... >>

Since computers or something, maybe since some law in 2004, or even >>earlier, one no longer has to wait 3 days for local checks and 10? days
for out-of-Federal-Reserve-district checks to clear before one can
withdraw the money that was deposited.

Now the money is almost universally available after one day. If you
look at your account online, the deposit goes from Pending to Available,
as indicated by a small font word underneath the line.

I've been told by an officer at a bank that this is true of Paypal too. >>This convenience afaict has brought with it more efficient way to cheat >>people. A check is sent to the target and he's told to deposit it, and >>after one day it will clear, and the target should send some of the
money to some worthy person who is actually the scammer. Or with Paypal
the scammer makes a deposit and tells the target that he can keep some
of the money and should sent 20,000 dollars to a needy person who is >>actually the scammer.

I asked that bank officer today, why this problem continues. He says
the customer accepted when they opened the account that the money can be >>called available when it is not confirmed. That this was a convenience
the bank was providing. That customers agreed to it after reading the >>terms & conditions. I asked him how many people can read and remember >>these conditions. But he just works and it was the end of his workday
so I didn't give him a hard time.

All they would have to do is A) change the two labels, Pending and >>Available, to three labels, Pending, "Available for use but will be >>reclaimed by the bank if recent deposits turn out to be phony", and >>Available. B) and it would be best if when trying to spend the middle >>category money, there was another warning, like "$120 of your requested >>withdrawal is your money, and $29,880 is being lent to you by this bank
and you will be required to pay it back to us if your recent deposit(s) >>turns out to be invalid. Has someone asked you to do this? This is
a common way to cheat innocent people."

A is easy to implement. B just a little harder. Why has the government >>not done anything at least to require A if not also B. Thousands of >>people in the US get cheated this way every year.

If I were to send this as a letter to the banking committees or my >>congressman, what edits should I make to improve it?

Who would you send it to?

Is this true of Paypal as well as banks?

I have a good friend about 30 years old, who is bipolar and can't hold a >>job, who they are targeting right now, today and tomorrow, and he
believes there is a sick woman who needs this money or she'll die. And
he won't believe all the people who tell him it is a scam. That's
problem enough, but why do banks contribute to the problem? And why
don't government regulators mitigate it.

This flaw in the banking system has bothered me for years now, ever
since I first saw it used in scams and the government has done nothing
to stop it, afaik.

It's not a flaw. It's a feature that was designed to make funds more >accessible to the vast majority of people who use the system for honest >reasons.

The flaw is not that they make money available. It's making people
believe their own money is available and can't be snatched back after
they spend it. If the check was deposited by your father or
grandfather, or even your long-time employer you can be pretty sure none
of them will have made a phony deposit. But with the current system,
customers who didn't read every line of the customer agreement, or
didn't understand how a 3rd party could use those terms against them, or
don't remember the relevant clause, they're just stuck, right? Too bad,
so sad, but not the problem of Paypal, the bank, Congress, or voters,
right?

Yes, a fairly small minority will take advantage of this to try
to con people into sending money, but it's really not the bank's job to
worry about this.

Why not? Do we allow people to sell stolen items? Do we require food
makers to issue public recalls when they learn there is something wrong
with food they've sold? Etc. etc. etc. In many many cases, things
that were not the legal responbility of peeople or businesses are made
their responsibility by statute or regulation.

People have to take some responsibility for their own
actions,

Even though I showed how easy it was to mitigate the problem, you still
want to do nothing. The first step A of mitigation is blindingly
simple. The second stage B would take a programmer as much as 2 dats to
write and test.

Perhaps we should also get rid of the laws against fraud in general,
since people have to take some responsibility for their own actions. If
we can't change the laws because of bleeding-heart legislators, we could
at least get the police and prosecutors to stop concerning themsevles
with fraud.

and that includes being very careful when it comes to depositing
checks from strange sources and using judgment when evaluating requests for >money from strangers.

"Fairly small minority". Well then it doesn't matter, because it's not
you or anyone you care about. How many would it take to matter to you?
We'll see how you feel when your parents are cheated out of tens of
thousands, or your son or daughter or grandkid. Will you tell them,
"It's your own fault. You should have been smarter."?

I suspect you're a Republican. Certainly not a Democrat, right?

Your callousness is outstanding. You'll go far in business. I will
read your posts in a new light.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"micky" wrote in message news:qqqu7j93st837m5nq63ipkt5mgbm2td2n9@4ax.com...

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:59:26 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

"micky" wrote in message >>news:c2hm7jdugniuuult765vu7suf5b10e1pef@4ax.com...

Since computers or something, maybe since some law in 2004, or even >>>earlier, one no longer has to wait 3 days for local checks and 10? days >>>for out-of-Federal-Reserve-district checks to clear before one can >>>withdraw the money that was deposited.

Now the money is almost universally available after one day. If you >>>look at your account online, the deposit goes from Pending to Available, >>>as indicated by a small font word underneath the line.

I've been told by an officer at a bank that this is true of Paypal too. >>>This convenience afaict has brought with it more efficient way to cheat >>>people. A check is sent to the target and he's told to deposit it, and >>>after one day it will clear, and the target should send some of the
money to some worthy person who is actually the scammer. Or with Paypal >>>the scammer makes a deposit and tells the target that he can keep some
of the money and should sent 20,000 dollars to a needy person who is >>>actually the scammer.

I asked that bank officer today, why this problem continues. He says
the customer accepted when they opened the account that the money can be >>>called available when it is not confirmed. That this was a convenience >>>the bank was providing. That customers agreed to it after reading the >>>terms & conditions. I asked him how many people can read and remember >>>these conditions. But he just works and it was the end of his workday
so I didn't give him a hard time.

All they would have to do is A) change the two labels, Pending and >>>Available, to three labels, Pending, "Available for use but will be >>>reclaimed by the bank if recent deposits turn out to be phony", and >>>Available. B) and it would be best if when trying to spend the middle >>>category money, there was another warning, like "$120 of your requested >>>withdrawal is your money, and $29,880 is being lent to you by this bank >>>and you will be required to pay it back to us if your recent deposit(s) >>>turns out to be invalid. Has someone asked you to do this? This is
a common way to cheat innocent people."

A is easy to implement. B just a little harder. Why has the government >>>not done anything at least to require A if not also B. Thousands of >>>people in the US get cheated this way every year.

If I were to send this as a letter to the banking committees or my >>>congressman, what edits should I make to improve it?

Who would you send it to?

Is this true of Paypal as well as banks?

I have a good friend about 30 years old, who is bipolar and can't hold a >>>job, who they are targeting right now, today and tomorrow, and he >>>believes there is a sick woman who needs this money or she'll die. And >>>he won't believe all the people who tell him it is a scam. That's >>>problem enough, but why do banks contribute to the problem? And why >>>don't government regulators mitigate it.

This flaw in the banking system has bothered me for years now, ever
since I first saw it used in scams and the government has done nothing
to stop it, afaik.

It's not a flaw. It's a feature that was designed to make funds more >>accessible to the vast majority of people who use the system for honest >>reasons.

The flaw is not that they make money available. It's making people
believe their own money is available and can't be snatched back after
they spend it. If the check was deposited by your father or
grandfather, or even your long-time employer you can be pretty sure none
of them will have made a phony deposit. But with the current system, >customers who didn't read every line of the customer agreement, or
didn't understand how a 3rd party could use those terms against them, or >don't remember the relevant clause, they're just stuck, right? Too bad,
so sad, but not the problem of Paypal, the bank, Congress, or voters,
right?

Yes, a fairly small minority will take advantage of this to try
to con people into sending money, but it's really not the bank's job to >>worry about this.

Why not? Do we allow people to sell stolen items? Do we require food >makers to issue public recalls when they learn there is something wrong
with food they've sold? Etc. etc. etc. In many many cases, things
that were not the legal responbility of peeople or businesses are made
their responsibility by statute or regulation.

People have to take some responsibility for their own
actions,

Even though I showed how easy it was to mitigate the problem, you still
want to do nothing. The first step A of mitigation is blindingly
simple. The second stage B would take a programmer as much as 2 dats to >write and test.

Perhaps we should also get rid of the laws against fraud in general,
since people have to take some responsibility for their own actions. If
we can't change the laws because of bleeding-heart legislators, we could
at least get the police and prosecutors to stop concerning themsevles
with fraud.

and that includes being very careful when it comes to depositing
checks from strange sources and using judgment when evaluating requests
for
money from strangers.

"Fairly small minority". Well then it doesn't matter, because it's not
you or anyone you care about. How many would it take to matter to you? >We'll see how you feel when your parents are cheated out of tens of >thousands, or your son or daughter or grandkid. Will you tell them,
"It's your own fault. You should have been smarter."?

That's exactly what I would tell them. I would hope my kids and grandkids would be smart enough not to take money from strangers without fully vetting them.

That said, it's still fraud by the person who gave you the check, so that's
who you have to go after. It's certainly not the bank's fault. Their rules are spelled out in the documents you sign when you open the account, and you also have the ability if not the responsibility to at least question the
bank before making assumptions about funds availability.

I suspect you're a Republican. Certainly not a Democrat, right?

I'm neither. My views actually align most with Libertarians, though I agree with Republicans on some issues and Democrats on some issues.

Your callousness is outstanding. You'll go far in business. I will
read your posts in a new light.

My business career actually ended many years ago when I retired.

As for reading my posts in a "new light", I would hope you would read
anyone's post in the light of what they have to say and not who they are or what their background is. A person's post should stand or fall on its own merits, and that applies to you as well.



--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:03:58 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:59:26 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

[quoted text muted]

It's not a flaw. It's a feature that was designed to make funds more >accessible to the vast majority of people who use the system for honest >reasons.

The flaw is not that they make money available. It's making people
believe their own money is available and can't be snatched back after
they spend it. If the check was deposited by your father or
grandfather, or even your long-time employer you can be pretty sure none
of them will have made a phony deposit. But with the current system, customers who didn't read every line of the customer agreement, or
didn't understand how a 3rd party could use those terms against them, or don't remember the relevant clause, they're just stuck, right? Too bad,
so sad, but not the problem of Paypal, the bank, Congress, or voters,
right?

You seem to be implying that the bank should absorb the loss when the
customer deposits a bad check. Obviously someone should absorb the
loss, but it is not clear to me why you think it should be the bank
rather than the customer, who may also be an innocent victim but
actually deposited the bad check.

In any case, no one needs to waste time reading the terms and
conditions of their account, because these four words summarize every
set of T&C: THE BANK ALWAYS WINS.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>:

The flaw is not that they make money available. It's making people
believe their own money is available and can't be snatched back after
they spend it. ...

Federal Reserve regulation CC controls how long banks can hold
deposits. There's a lot of details but in general it's two days
for local checks, five days for non-local checks. Read all about it:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-12/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-229/subpart-B

It can still take a month for a check to bounce since that's how often
most banks send out statements for people to review and challenge. Do
you really want banks to hold onto every deposit for a month before
letting you have the money? They used to hold even local checks for a
week and that was rather annoying.

Or try depositing a check that was rejected for lack of endorsement
and redeposited, or a foreign check or a bond coupon or anything
slightly unusual and see what happens. The discussion will include the
phrases "send for collection" and "several months."

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote in news:MPG.40e9f561c867bd549902fb@news.individual.net:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:03:58 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:59:26 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

[quoted text muted]

It's not a flaw. It's a feature that was designed to make funds
more accessible to the vast majority of people who use the system
for honest reasons.

The flaw is not that they make money available. It's making people
believe their own money is available and can't be snatched back after
they spend it. If the check was deposited by your father or
grandfather, or even your long-time employer you can be pretty sure
none of them will have made a phony deposit. But with the current
system, customers who didn't read every line of the customer
agreement, or didn't understand how a 3rd party could use those terms
against them, or don't remember the relevant clause, they're just
stuck, right? Too bad, so sad, but not the problem of Paypal, the
bank, Congress, or voters, right?

You seem to be implying that the bank should absorb the loss when the customer deposits a bad check. Obviously someone should absorb the
loss, but it is not clear to me why you think it should be the bank
rather than the customer, who may also be an innocent victim but
actually deposited the bad check.

The general rule is that the one who was actually conned (even if
innocent) is the one who bears the loss. If someone deposits a bad check
and then spends it before it clears, that's the person who bears the
loss. That's the person who could have prevented the loss.

In any case, no one needs to waste time reading the terms and
conditions of their account, because these four words summarize every
set of T&C: THE BANK ALWAYS WINS.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 29 Jun 2024 13:43:33 -0700 (PDT), Stan
Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:03:58 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:59:26 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

[quoted text muted]

It's not a flaw. It's a feature that was designed to make funds more
accessible to the vast majority of people who use the system for honest
reasons.

The flaw is not that they make money available. It's making people
believe their own money is available and can't be snatched back after
they spend it. If the check was deposited by your father or
grandfather, or even your long-time employer you can be pretty sure none
of them will have made a phony deposit. But with the current system,
customers who didn't read every line of the customer agreement, or
didn't understand how a 3rd party could use those terms against them, or
don't remember the relevant clause, they're just stuck, right? Too bad,
so sad, but not the problem of Paypal, the bank, Congress, or voters,
right?

You seem to be implying that the bank should absorb the loss when the >customer deposits a bad check.

No, I wasn't saying that at all. I said in my first post that the banks
should differentiate between deposits that have cleared long enough ago
that they can't be reversed, and those that have not. That's
blindingly easy to do on the web page that displays your deposits and withdrawals and balance, (The one that looks like a bank statement would
look at the end of your banking month.) And it's a one-time cost for
the bank to do it for all the depositors at once. Two work days by one programmer ought to be more than enough time to fix the A-level remedy
for everyone. If it needs to be done in more than one place, like the
paper statements that are mailed to depositors, it's even easier to do
the same sort of thing a second or third time. The B-level remedy is
somewhat more complicated but not that much. Again, if they do it once,
it will work for all the depositors.

Chase Bank, for example, has 18.5 million checking accounts and 25
million debit card users as of 2023. So if the A-level remedy for
checking accounts cost $8000, and it will be less than that, it's split
over 18 million accounts, 1/20th of a penny per account.

Maybe you misunderstood my sarcasm towards Rick, but that was after he
thought the banks should do nothing.

Obviously someone should absorb the
loss, but it is not clear to me why you think it should be the bank
rather than the customer,

I don't.

who may also be an innocent victim but
actually deposited the bad check.

Why does the highway department put up a barricade with a sign that says "Bridge Out" when it's not they but a flood that destroyed the bridge?
Why does a private party do the same if there is a road on his property
that other people use? So they won't drive into the stream and hurt themselves.

In any case, no one needs to waste time reading the terms and
conditions of their account, because these four words summarize every
set of T&C: THE BANK ALWAYS WINS.

Really? Even if A) one of their employees embezzles a depositor's
money, or B) opens up new accounts in the names of thousands of
depositors and charges multiple fees on the accounts, as Wells Fargo
did, or C) they reorder checks*** from the order they actually arrived
at the bank to instead place the big ones first and the small ones last
for a customer who will be overdrawn, so that he's overdrawn based on as
few "early" big withdrawals as possible, so they can charge the large
Overdrawn Check Charge on as many small checks as possible?

I think the bank lost on all of these. But of course only because
someone caught them. Who knows how many they didn't get caught for.

***As Bank of America and Wells Fargo did. Did they also reorder debit withdrawals? I didn't hear one way or the other.

For completeness:
People with decent credit can perhaps apply for and get overdraft
protection, but even then a) many people don't have enough credit, b)
some think they watch their balance enough so they won't need it, are
willing if need be pay for one bounced check but not 5, c) there was
probably a high interest charge and fees on the overdraft amount when it
is used, which also went to the bank.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

micky <misc07@fmguy.com> wrote in news:ci918jp9d4vtic168ifnqg19ja4756rd4b@4ax.com:

You seem to be implying that the bank should absorb the loss when the >>customer deposits a bad check.

No, I wasn't saying that at all. I said in my first post that the

banks

should differentiate between deposits that have cleared long enough ago
that they can't be reversed, and those that have not. That's
blindingly easy to do on the web page that displays your deposits and withdrawals and balance, (The one that looks like a bank statement

would

look at the end of your banking month.) And it's a one-time cost for
the bank to do it for all the depositors at once. Two work days by one programmer ought to be more than enough time to fix the A-level remedy
for everyone. If it needs to be done in more than one place, like the
paper statements that are mailed to depositors, it's even easier to do
the same sort of thing a second or third time. The B-level remedy is somewhat more complicated but not that much. Again, if they do it

once,

it will work for all the depositors.

Banks are aware of when a check bounces, but not when it clears.
Apparently that's not something they can easily keep track of since they
don't know when a check is written.

Chase Bank, for example, has 18.5 million checking accounts and 25
million debit card users as of 2023. So if the A-level remedy for
checking accounts cost $8000, and it will be less than that, it's split
over 18 million accounts, 1/20th of a penny per account.

Maybe you misunderstood my sarcasm towards Rick, but that was after he thought the banks should do nothing.

Obviously someone should absorb the
loss, but it is not clear to me why you think it should be the bank
rather than the customer,

I don't.

who may also be an innocent victim but
actually deposited the bad check.

Why does the highway department put up a barricade with a sign that

says

"Bridge Out" when it's not they but a flood that destroyed the bridge?
Why does a private party do the same if there is a road on his property
that other people use? So they won't drive into the stream and hurt themselves.

In any case, no one needs to waste time reading the terms and
conditions of their account, because these four words summarize every
set of T&C: THE BANK ALWAYS WINS.

Really? Even if A) one of their employees embezzles a depositor's
money, or B) opens up new accounts in the names of thousands of
depositors and charges multiple fees on the accounts, as Wells Fargo
did, or C) they reorder checks*** from the order they actually arrived
at the bank to instead place the big ones first and the small ones last
for a customer who will be overdrawn, so that he's overdrawn based on

as

few "early" big withdrawals as possible, so they can charge the large Overdrawn Check Charge on as many small checks as possible?

I think the bank lost on all of these. But of course only because
someone caught them. Who knows how many they didn't get caught for.

***As Bank of America and Wells Fargo did. Did they also reorder debit withdrawals? I didn't hear one way or the other.

For completeness:
People with decent credit can perhaps apply for and get overdraft
protection, but even then a) many people don't have enough credit, b)
some think they watch their balance enough so they won't need it, are
willing if need be pay for one bounced check but not 5, c) there was
probably a high interest charge and fees on the overdraft amount when

it

is used, which also went to the bank.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"micky" wrote in message news:ci918jp9d4vtic168ifnqg19ja4756rd4b@4ax.com...

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 29 Jun 2024 13:43:33 -0700 (PDT), Stan
Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:03:58 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:59:26 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

[quoted text muted]

It's not a flaw. It's a feature that was designed to make funds more
accessible to the vast majority of people who use the system for honest >>> >reasons.

The flaw is not that they make money available. It's making people
believe their own money is available and can't be snatched back after
they spend it. If the check was deposited by your father or
grandfather, or even your long-time employer you can be pretty sure none >>> of them will have made a phony deposit. But with the current system,
customers who didn't read every line of the customer agreement, or
didn't understand how a 3rd party could use those terms against them, or >>> don't remember the relevant clause, they're just stuck, right? Too bad, >>> so sad, but not the problem of Paypal, the bank, Congress, or voters,
right?

You seem to be implying that the bank should absorb the loss when the >>customer deposits a bad check.

No, I wasn't saying that at all. I said in my first post that the banks >should differentiate between deposits that have cleared long enough ago
that they can't be reversed, and those that have not. That's
blindingly easy to do on the web page that displays your deposits and >withdrawals and balance, (The one that looks like a bank statement would
look at the end of your banking month.) And it's a one-time cost for
the bank to do it for all the depositors at once. Two work days by one >programmer ought to be more than enough time to fix the A-level remedy
for everyone. If it needs to be done in more than one place, like the
paper statements that are mailed to depositors, it's even easier to do
the same sort of thing a second or third time. The B-level remedy is >somewhat more complicated but not that much. Again, if they do it once,
it will work for all the depositors.

Chase Bank, for example, has 18.5 million checking accounts and 25
million debit card users as of 2023. So if the A-level remedy for
checking accounts cost $8000, and it will be less than that, it's split
over 18 million accounts, 1/20th of a penny per account.

I agree it is not about the programming cost to make the change, which is minimal. The real point is that the bank has no compelling reason to make a change. For various marketing and legal reasons, the bank chose to employ
a certain user interface in presenting a list of transactions to the user.
They chose to provide information legally required and they chose to do it
in an efficient way that most users would find intuitive and easy to use.
The kind of wording you want to see would probably be considered too
cumbersome and distracting to force users to look at every time they want to view their transaction list. So they choose instead to put the info in the fine print that is presented to the user when the account is open. That's a marketing decision based on what they think most users will be most
comfortable in using. As part of this, they probably concluded correctly
that having more cumbersome language for every provisional deposit would
turn off some users and drive them to a competitor with a cleaner user interface. Remember that the number of users who make unknowing
fraudulent deposits like the one you describe is probably very small.

Maybe you misunderstood my sarcasm towards Rick, but that was after he >thought the banks should do nothing.

Obviously someone should absorb the
loss, but it is not clear to me why you think it should be the bank
rather than the customer,

I don't.

who may also be an innocent victim but
actually deposited the bad check.

Why does the highway department put up a barricade with a sign that says >"Bridge Out" when it's not they but a flood that destroyed the bridge?
Why does a private party do the same if there is a road on his property
that other people use? So they won't drive into the stream and hurt >themselves.

I think that's a false equivalency. The bridge out sign means there is a virtual 100% chance that if you ignore the sign you plunge into the creek.
The warning you propose would affect some really small percentage of users (probably a fraction of a percent)who unknowingly made a fraudulent deposit. The better example would be to put up a sign that says "Bridge is fine but
be careful that if an earthquake occurs while you're on top of the bridge,
it could collapse." I doubt if too many communities will put up such a
sign.

In any case, no one needs to waste time reading the terms and
conditions of their account, because these four words summarize every
set of T&C: THE BANK ALWAYS WINS.

Really? Even if A) one of their employees embezzles a depositor's
money, or B) opens up new accounts in the names of thousands of
depositors and charges multiple fees on the accounts, as Wells Fargo
did, or C) they reorder checks*** from the order they actually arrived
at the bank to instead place the big ones first and the small ones last
for a customer who will be overdrawn, so that he's overdrawn based on as
few "early" big withdrawals as possible, so they can charge the large >Overdrawn Check Charge on as many small checks as possible?

I think the bank lost on all of these. But of course only because
someone caught them. Who knows how many they didn't get caught for.

***As Bank of America and Wells Fargo did. Did they also reorder debit >withdrawals? I didn't hear one way or the other.

For completeness:
People with decent credit can perhaps apply for and get overdraft
protection, but even then a) many people don't have enough credit, b)
some think they watch their balance enough so they won't need it, are
willing if need be pay for one bounced check but not 5, c) there was
probably a high interest charge and fees on the overdraft amount when it
is used, which also went to the bank.

--

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 29 Jun 2024 17:49:11 -0700 (PDT), "John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:

According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>:

The flaw is not that they make money available. It's making people
believe their own money is available and can't be snatched back after
they spend it. ...

Federal Reserve regulation CC controls how long banks can hold
deposits. There's a lot of details but in general it's two days
for local checks, five days for non-local checks. Read all about it:

https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-12/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-229/subpart-B

It can still take a month for a check to bounce since that's how often
most banks send out statements for people to review and challenge.

Who are you saying has until so many (30?) days after they receive their statement to challenge the deposit? In the usual scam, the scammer
knows his deposit is bad even before he deposits it, and it's not going
to show up on *his* bank account statement, and he's not going to review
or challenge anything.

If you mean the payee, at the end of the month, when he gets his
statement and can see that the money that was once there is gone, is
that not unrelated to how long it takes for the check to bounce? Did it
not bounce one day after the time it should have cleared? The third day
for local, the sixth for non-local. Thirty days for challenging is
unrelated to how long it takes the money to clear, is it not?

Do
you really want banks to hold onto every deposit for a month before
letting you have the money?

Didn't anyone read what I wrote? Didn't you? You quoted 3 of my
lines at the top, but your text seems to have nothing to do with them.

What I wrote was that they should make clear what status the money has,
whether it is totally avaiable and its deposit can not be reversed, OR
if it was just "available" but might disappear after the account holder
spent it.

How does that mean the bank would hold onto the deposits if the account
holder wanted to take the money?

They used to hold even local checks for a
week and that was rather annoying.

Or try depositing a check that was rejected for lack of endorsement
and redeposited, or a foreign check or a bond coupon or anything
slightly unusual and see what happens. The discussion will include the >phrases "send for collection" and "several months."

I don't think you are, but are you saying in some of those
circumstances, the account holder won't learn for MORE than 30 days that
the money he was told was available had been clawed back or at least
made unavailable. Is that what happens when people get scammed, they
don't know for up to "several months"?.

If you're not saying that, then I think this has nothing to do with what
I said. Not unless it lengthens the time that a deposit which currently
the depositor is told is available can actually be reversed.

--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>: >>https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-12/chapter-II/subchapter-A/part-229/subpart-B

It can still take a month for a check to bounce since that's how often
most banks send out statements for people to review and challenge.

Who are you saying has until so many (30?) days after they receive their >statement to challenge the deposit? In the usual scam, the scammer
knows his deposit is bad even before he deposits it, and it's not going
to show up on *his* bank account statement, and he's not going to review
or challenge anything.

That's only one kind of scam. Look up "check washing" in which the
crook alters a real check to change the payee or amount. It's a check
on a real account and the victim often won't notice the problem until
he sees the statement, or the original payee calls him two weeks later
to ask why he hasn't been paid. Only then does the deposit bounce.

Do you really want banks to hold onto every deposit for a month before >>letting you have the money?

Didn't anyone read what I wrote? Didn't you?

I did, but you seem to have some fairly basic misunderstandings of the
way that banks in general and checks in particular work.

In any event, the Federal Reserve sets the rules for providing access
to deposits, so if you don't like it, better write to your congressman,

PS:

I don't think you are, but are you saying in some of those
circumstances, the account holder won't learn for MORE than 30 days that
the money he was told was available had been clawed back or at least
made unavailable. Is that what happens when people get scammed, they
don't know for up to "several months"?.

Sometimes that is exactly what happens. But it would be stupid to
design the entire banking system around those rare failure modes so
they do what they actually do instead.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 6/29/2024 5:47 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:

The general rule is that the one who was actually conned (even if
innocent) is the one who bears the loss. If someone deposits a bad check
and then spends it before it clears, that's the person who bears the
loss. That's the person who could have prevented the loss.

The way I learned it (from a textbook on law aimed at someone running a business rather than at lawyers-to-be) is
If one of two innocent parties must bear a loss, the one whose
negligence allowed the loss bears it.

Here it is on a web page: https://definitions.uslegal.com/t/two-innocent-persons-principle/

The bank was not negligent. They did the sensible thing: they accepted a
check for deposit (because that's an everyday occurrence), but they
placed a hold on the money because sometimes checks are forged.

The depositor failed to apply good sense. He/she was negligent. Hence,
he/she bears the loss.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

micky <misc07@fmguy.com> wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Sat, 29 Jun 2024 13:43:33 -0700 (PDT), Stan
Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

On Sat, 29 Jun 2024 07:03:58 -0700 (PDT), micky wrote:

In misc.legal.moderated, on Wed, 26 Jun 2024 14:59:26 -0700 (PDT),
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote:

[quoted text muted]

It's not a flaw. It's a feature that was designed to make funds more
accessible to the vast majority of people who use the system for honest >>> >reasons.

The flaw is not that they make money available. It's making people
believe their own money is available and can't be snatched back after
they spend it. If the check was deposited by your father or
grandfather, or even your long-time employer you can be pretty sure none >>> of them will have made a phony deposit. But with the current system,
customers who didn't read every line of the customer agreement, or
didn't understand how a 3rd party could use those terms against them, or >>> don't remember the relevant clause, they're just stuck, right? Too bad, >>> so sad, but not the problem of Paypal, the bank, Congress, or voters,
right?

You seem to be implying that the bank should absorb the loss when the >>customer deposits a bad check.

No, I wasn't saying that at all. I said in my first post that the banks should differentiate between deposits that have cleared long enough ago
that they can't be reversed, and those that have not. That's
blindingly easy to do on the web page that displays your deposits and withdrawals and balance, (The one that looks like a bank statement would
look at the end of your banking month.) And it's a one-time cost for
the bank to do it for all the depositors at once. Two work days by one programmer ought to be more than enough time to fix the A-level remedy
for everyone. If it needs to be done in more than one place, like the
paper statements that are mailed to depositors, it's even easier to do
the same sort of thing a second or third time. The B-level remedy is somewhat more complicated but not that much. Again, if they do it once,
it will work for all the depositors.

Chase Bank, for example, has 18.5 million checking accounts and 25
million debit card users as of 2023. So if the A-level remedy for
checking accounts cost $8000, and it will be less than that, it's split
over 18 million accounts, 1/20th of a penny per account.

Maybe you misunderstood my sarcasm towards Rick, but that was after he thought the banks should do nothing.

Obviously someone should absorb the
loss, but it is not clear to me why you think it should be the bank
rather than the customer,

I don't.

who may also be an innocent victim but
actually deposited the bad check.

Why does the highway department put up a barricade with a sign that says "Bridge Out" when it's not they but a flood that destroyed the bridge?
Why does a private party do the same if there is a road on his property
that other people use? So they won't drive into the stream and hurt themselves.

In any case, no one needs to waste time reading the terms and
conditions of their account, because these four words summarize every
set of T&C: THE BANK ALWAYS WINS.

Really? Even if A) one of their employees embezzles a depositor's
money, or B) opens up new accounts in the names of thousands of
depositors and charges multiple fees on the accounts, as Wells Fargo
did, or C) they reorder checks*** from the order they actually arrived
at the bank to instead place the big ones first and the small ones last
for a customer who will be overdrawn, so that he's overdrawn based on as
few "early" big withdrawals as possible, so they can charge the large Overdrawn Check Charge on as many small checks as possible?

I think the bank lost on all of these. But of course only because
someone caught them. Who knows how many they didn't get caught for.

***As Bank of America and Wells Fargo did. Did they also reorder debit withdrawals? I didn't hear one way or the other.

For completeness:
People with decent credit can perhaps apply for and get overdraft
protection, but even then a) many people don't have enough credit, b)
some think they watch their balance enough so they won't need it, are
willing if need be pay for one bounced check but not 5, c) there was
probably a high interest charge and fees on the overdraft amount when it
is used, which also went to the bank.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

root <root@255.255.255.255> wrote in news:vcmhri$1k0jf$3@nono.dont-
email.me:

No, I wasn't saying that at all. I said in my first post that the

banks

should differentiate between deposits that have cleared long enough

ago

that they can't be reversed, and those that have not. That's
blindingly easy to do on the web page that displays your deposits and
withdrawals and balance, (The one that looks like a bank statement

would

look at the end of your banking month.) And it's a one-time cost for
the bank to do it for all the depositors at once. Two work days by

one

programmer ought to be more than enough time to fix the A-level remedy
for everyone. If it needs to be done in more than one place, like the
paper statements that are mailed to depositors, it's even easier to do
the same sort of thing a second or third time. The B-level remedy is
somewhat more complicated but not that much. Again, if they do it

once,

it will work for all the depositors.

Banks actually do that, to the extent they can. Banks aren't notified
when a check clears. They are only notified when it bounces. For banks
in the same federal district that's usually one day. For banks in
different districts it's generally longer. So they set up a schedule to
make money available after the time a check normally bounces. And that's
when they make the money available for withdrawal.


--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>:

root <root@255.255.255.255> wrote in news:vcmhri$1k0jf$3@nono.dont-

No, I wasn't saying that at all. I said in my first post that the banks >>> should differentiate between deposits that have cleared long enough ago
that they can't be reversed, and those that have not.

Banks actually do that, to the extent they can. Banks aren't notified
when a check clears. They are only notified when it bounces. For banks
in the same federal district that's usually one day. For banks in
different districts it's generally longer. So they set up a schedule to
make money available after the time a check normally bounces. And that's
when they make the money available for withdrawal.

Except that as a courtesy they often make some of the money available immediately when an established customer deposits a check. That makes
sense, normal people who don't watch idiotic Tiktok videos rarely
deposit bad checks.

Also, as you said and I said a while ago, the time is just an
estimate. Sometimes a fraudulent check bounces weeks later if the
owner of the account on which it was putatively written doesn't notice
until she gets her statement. I don't think anyone would be happy if
checks sat on all deposits for a month, just in case.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

"John Levine" <johnl@taugh.com> wrote in news:vco1v8$2b56$1@gal.iecc.com:

Also, as you said and I said a while ago, the time is just an
estimate. Sometimes a fraudulent check bounces weeks later if the
owner of the account on which it was putatively written doesn't notice
until she gets her statement. I don't think anyone would be happy if
checks sat on all deposits for a month, just in case.

A friend - a banking lawyer - once told me about a scam where a guy set up
a business bank account and had money go in and out for several months to
build up some credibility. Then he deposits a very large bad check, with
the name and address of a bank in one federal district, but with the
routing number of a different bank in a different federal district. The
check went back and forth between them several times before they realized
it was a scam. By then enough time had passed so that the scamster's bank allowed him to take all the money and run.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

According to Stuart O. Bronstein <spamtrap@lexregia.com>:

A friend - a banking lawyer - once told me about a scam where a guy set up
a business bank account and had money go in and out for several months to >build up some credibility. Then he deposits a very large bad check, with
the name and address of a bank in one federal district, but with the
routing number of a different bank in a different federal district. The >check went back and forth between them several times before they realized
it was a scam. By then enough time had passed so that the scamster's bank >allowed him to take all the money and run.

If that's the case I'm thinking of, it was a long time ago when checks were still phyiscaly sorted and returned to the banks. Each time it got to the bank with the routing number they looked at the other bank's name on the check, said,
oops, mis-sort and sent it back to the Fed. The music finally stopped when the check got so worn it wouldn't go through the check sorting machines.

--
Regards,
John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)