check fraud (lost checks)

[samit700]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

I had a signed blank check in my bag (meant to be given to someone) and I lost my bag. I had forgotten about the checks when I lost the bag otherwise I would have cancelled them. Now I checked my statement and someone used that check to withdraw $5000 from my account. I don't know what to do at this point. My bank (citibank) tells me they cannot cancel it now since it has already been withdrawn. Could someone please shed some light on this - what can I do to get my money back as that money was meant for my son?

Best Regards,
Sam

 

[Antigone*]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? New York

I had a signed blank check in my bag (meant to be given to someone) and I lost my bag. I had forgotten about the checks when I lost the bag otherwise I would have cancelled them. Now I checked my statement and someone used that check to withdraw $5000 from my account. I don't know what to do at this point. My bank (citibank) tells me they cannot cancel it now since it has already been withdrawn. Could someone please shed some light on this - what can I do to get my money back as that money was meant for my son?

Best Regards,
Sam

You won't get help from the bank because you are not a victim of check fraud. You did a very stupid thing by carrying around a signed check.

Sue the person who cashed your check in civil court.

 

[JustAPal00]

Call the police, it's theft!

 

[cosine]

You won't get help from the bank because you are not a victim of check fraud. You did a very stupid thing by carrying around a signed check.

That's not true. What is true is that the bank is not obligated to replace your funds. However, the bank can perform certain efforts to TRY to recover your funds. They may charge you fees for such things, since this is your (OP's) fault. Unfortunately, the particular bank you have tends to not care about their customers, and will generally do little to help.

Sue the person who cashed your check in civil court.

File a police report. Despite your (OP's) stupidity, it is still a crime because the thief knows it is not his/her money in that account. The existence of a police report (showing your firm belief this is a crime) can get more action by others (like the bank).

The banks can trace where the money went, to a point (which is at least another bank when within the USA ... which it likely is if this theft was domestic). Maybe the other bank has other identifying info (fingerprints, surveillance camera video) to help determine who the perp is (and can pull those once they know it was a fraudulent transaction). You should have gotten a photocopy of the check or your bank would have it stored for a certain period of time and can produce it. Numbers on that may help identify the bank. Since you signed it, the signature will obviously be of no help. Who it is made out to may be. In that case check for an endorsement.

Your action was almost as stupid as putting 5000 in cash in the bag. But unlike cash, there may be some steps you can perform to possibly recover this. If by chance you can track down the perp, be assured to know that they cannot discharge this as a debt in bankruptcy.

 

[Antigone*]

That's not true. What is true is that the bank is not obligated to replace your funds. However, the bank can perform certain efforts to TRY to recover your funds. They may charge you fees for such things, since this is your (OP's) fault. Unfortunately, the particular bank you have tends to not care about their customers, and will generally do little to help.


File a police report. Despite your (OP's) stupidity, it is still a crime because the thief knows it is not his/her money in that account. The existence of a police report (showing your firm belief this is a crime) can get more action by others (like the bank).

The banks can trace where the money went, to a point (which is at least another bank when within the USA ... which it likely is if this theft was domestic). Maybe the other bank has other identifying info (fingerprints, surveillance camera video) to help determine who the perp is (and can pull those once they know it was a fraudulent transaction). You should have gotten a photocopy of the check or your bank would have it stored for a certain period of time and can produce it. Numbers on that may help identify the bank. Since you signed it, the signature will obviously be of no help. Who it is made out to may be. In that case check for an endorsement.

Your action was almost as stupid as putting 5000 in cash in the bag. But unlike cash, there may be some steps you can perform to possibly recover this. If by chance you can track down the perp, be assured to know that they cannot discharge this as a debt in bankruptcy.

Cosine, I CAN also say that you and I are bffs ~ but we are not. The bank CAN do lots of things, but will they NOT. There is no incentive and they are under no obligation to take other measures when they have acted in accordance with all the laws and in accordance with their agreement with the customer.

If the OP wishes he can ask for a copy of the check, in fact if he uses the bank's online banking service he can pull the copy himself. The copy of that check will have all information he needs.

Sure, the OP can file a police report and she should, but ultimately the police won't be much help getting the money back.

 

[antrc170]

Cosine, I CAN also say that you and I are bffs ~ but we are not. The bank CAN do lots of things, but will they NOT. There is no incentive and they are under no obligation to take other measures when they have acted in accordance with all the laws and in accordance with their agreement with the customer.

If the OP wishes he can ask for a copy of the check, in fact if he uses the bank's online banking service he can pull the copy himself. The copy of that check will have all information he needs.

Sure, the OP can file a police report and she should, but ultimately the police won't be much help getting the money back.

I'm not sure you are qualified to speak on behalf of the bank or any law enforcement agency. Many agencies have detectives, or divisions, that focus on this kind of thing.

 

[Antigone*]

I'm not sure you are qualified to speak on behalf of the bank or any law enforcement agency. Many agencies have detectives, or divisions, that focus on this kind of thing.

You're right antrc. You are not sure.

You have no clue as to my qualifications, and knowledge of the banking industry. So please take this piece of advice: If you are not sure, keep your comments to yourself.

 

[cosine]

So apparently AoG works (or did work) for one of those evil banks that doesn't care about their customers? I've very sure we are not BFFS.

There are a few things they have to provide. For example, a copy of the check and certain information about it, such as what bank it was cashed at. At a certain point, the fact that it is a police-filed criminal case can get more info from the other bank. It certainly is a stupidly pre-signed check, but it is still a stolen check, and the other bank, while almost certainly not on the hook for the money, can be compelled to cough up certain criminal evidence (that may eventually lead to a civil case, too).

Just because the bank(s) AoG may have worked for were run by people that no one would want to be BFFS with (like the ones that took bailouts from taxpayers), does not mean all banks are like that, or that they would ultimately stand in the way of a criminal investigation.

 

[cyjeff]

Couldn't the recipient of the money merely say that the check was proper?

In other words, I see this quickly becoming a "he said/she said".

How do you intend on proving that the check wasn't made out to the person in question?

 

[TigerD]

Couldn't the recipient of the money merely say that the check was proper?

In other words, I see this quickly becoming a "he said/she said".

How do you intend on proving that the check wasn't made out to the person in question?

Through the piles of stinking dog poop, cyjeff reaches in pulls out the pearl of wisdom.

Exactly.

DC

 

[Antigone*]

So apparently AoG works (or did work) for one of those evil banks that doesn't care about their customers? I've very sure we are not BFFS.

There are a few things they have to provide. For example, a copy of the check and certain information about it, such as what bank it was cashed at. At a certain point, the fact that it is a police-filed criminal case can get more info from the other bank. It certainly is a stupidly pre-signed check, but it is still a stolen check, and the other bank, while almost certainly not on the hook for the money, can be compelled to cough up certain criminal evidence (that may eventually lead to a civil case, too).

Just because the bank(s) AoG may have worked for were run by people that no one would want to be BFFS with (like the ones that took bailouts from taxpayers), does not mean all banks are like that, or that they would ultimately stand in the way of a criminal investigation.

The bottom line here is this: The bank has no further obligation than to provide this person with the copy of the check that was cashed ~ end of story.

This person should not have access to a checking account if they cannot protect and manage their assets appropriately.

Tigi is proud of her profession and proud of the institution she works for. She is entrusted to advise and enhance relationships with customers, work well with colleagues and grow shareholder value. Your blanket statement about "evil banks" shows how truly ignorant you are

 

[cosine]

Couldn't the recipient of the money merely say that the check was proper?

You mean the one who stole it? Sure.

In other words, I see this quickly becoming a "he said/she said".

Yup.

How do you intend on proving that the check wasn't made out to the person in question?

Well, if the OP's store is true, the perp made it out to someone. That's not the issue, though. The issue is whether the person acquired that check through theft of the bag it was in. A proper investigation, which could be done when the perp is found, might lead to other info that could make the case solid. It can depend on whether the perp was stupid enough to use their real name on the check. If so, they were probably stupid about something else, too. OTOH, if they were smart, they used fake ID or someone else's ID and cashed it in that person's name. Then it might be up to the security cameras to figure out who it really is (and in that case, there's another crime or two to get them on).

 

[cosine]

The bottom line here is this: The bank has no further obligation than to provide this person with the copy of the check that was cashed ~ end of story.

Wow, wrong twice!

That's not the end of it. The bank probably has more. Like the security camera footage that likely exists and may show the perp's face. They can be compelled to cough that up for a criminal investigation.

This person should not have access to a checking account if they cannot protect and manage their assets appropriately.

I would agree with this. OTOH, that means the OP will have to now carry cash around. Is that any better?

Tigi is proud of her profession and proud of the institution she works for. She is entrusted to advise and enhance relationships with customers, work well with colleagues and grow shareholder value. Your blanket statement about "evil banks" shows how truly ignorant you are

Not all banks are evil. Just the evil ones are evil. But substantial evidence shows quite many are. The big ones get the press though a lot of small ones might be, too.

"evil" here means they are doing wrong things or just plain don't care about people. EVERY bank has made mistakes. Mistakes and errors happen. And they certainly happen to big banks more because they are processing more stuff. It's how they deal with them that is telling. If they flat out refuse to deal with their own errors, which has happened countless times for the big banks, with even a few of those cases showing up on this forum, that's what makes them evil.

 

[cyjeff]

You mean the one who stole it? Sure.

Yup.

Well, if the OP's store is true, the perp made it out to someone. That's not the issue, though. The issue is whether the person acquired that check through theft of the bag it was in. A proper investigation, which could be done when the perp is found, might lead to other info that could make the case solid. It can depend on whether the perp was stupid enough to use their real name on the check. If so, they were probably stupid about something else, too. OTOH, if they were smart, they used fake ID or someone else's ID and cashed it in that person's name. Then it might be up to the security cameras to figure out who it really is (and in that case, there's another crime or two to get them on).

My point is that unless the OP has some proof that the person that cashed the check stole it... the proof of theft is the OP's responsibility.

The burden of proof is on the accuser... not the accused.

The accused merely says, "OP wrote me out the check for services rendered and now wants to back out."

The OP says, "No, I didn't."

Without proof of theft of the check and it's subsequent use from that theft, the OP's case is no where near solid.

The DA will need more than what we have seen here to proceed.

 

[Antigone*]

My point is that unless the OP has some proof that the person that cashed the check stole it... the proof of theft is the OP's responsibility.

The burden of proof is on the accuser... not the accused.

The accused merely says, "OP wrote me out the check for services rendered and now wants to back out."

The OP says, "No, I didn't."

Without proof of theft of the check and it's subsequent use from that theft, the OP's case is no where near solid.

The DA will need more than what we have seen here to proceed.

You left out one small fact, Jeff. None of this involves the bank. The bank cashed a legitimately signed check - end of story.