[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

I am actually surprised that they cashed it the first time. Very few if any banks anymore will cash any kind of a check unless you either 1) have an account with them with sufficient funds to cover the check,

This logic only works (barely) if the check has to clear between banks. It doesn't work if it's being cashed at the bank that issued the check, which is the case here.

Strictly speaking, the logic doesn't work either even when the check has to clear between banks, b/c even then it's the BANK'S RESPONSIBILITY to take liability for the transfer of those funds. The check says that I am going to get paid $XXX dollars and if it's written on BofA, then BofA is the one who has to undertake liability for seeing that it gets paid.

If BofA is issuing bad checks, or permitting their customers to issue bad checks, that's BofA's problem, not mine.

The only thing I care about is seeing that I get paid my $XXX dollars. Based on the check I have in hand, BofA has "promised" to see to that it that will happen; but apparently in real life, they've not willing to live up to their commitments.

Go figure.

2) have lots of good id and they can verify the check, and even then most won’t over a certain dollar amount,

Of course they validate the ID.

I have no problem w/ that, and they've checked that the check itself is good.

Dollar amount, though, is again their problem not mine.

If I walk into a bank w/ a check for $200,000, I expect to walk out of that bank w/ $200,000 in lawful money. If the bank can't deliver on that promise, that's the banks insolvency problem, not mine.

And a bank that is insolvent has no right to be in business, taking deposits from the general public.

or 3) a business relationship with them.

I don't do business w/ criminals, murderers and drug dealers.

Sorry.

The policy has nothing to do with liquidity

It has everything to do w/ liquidity.

Banks cannot and will not accept the losses resulting from bad checks being cashed for cash.

That's like saying I cannot and will not accept losses from raising inflation and high gas prices.

I go to the store, and buy some food.

It costs $20.

I don't feel like paying $20. I feel more like paying $8 since I cannot and will not accept any losses from raising inflation and high gas prices.

I tell the clerk I'm going to pay him $8.

The clerk has No!

I pull out my gun, kill the clerk, and leave $8 on the counter since I'm a "honest" guy and like to do business by the book.

This is the same logic that you and banks are using.

You're simply twisting the rules of the game to suit your own ends. In the grand scheme of things, it's terrible, terrible crime.

To be in the business of banking means that you're in the business of possibly losing money from bad checks. CERTAINLY I AM NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND THERE IS NO REASON, LOGICAL OR OTHERWISE, WHY I SHOULD BE ASKED TO UNDERWRITE THE RISK ASSOCIATED W/ BAD CHECKS.

I explained this before in my posts.

If the bank desires for me to take on the risk that is rightfully their's (the risk of bad checks), I'd be happy to do just that: but I'll have to charge the bank 15,000% interest on the face value of the check for the time that we're waiting for the check to clear their system (and yes I charge for time spent waiting to clear on weekends too.. I spend $$ on weekends, and so that's $$ out of hand for me over the weekend), and in addition there will be an upfront $2000 processing fee.

Is the bank willing to accept those costs, just to clear a $2700 check?

If not, then maybe the bank should think twice and change its policies.

Or maybe the bank should stop writing so many bad checks? Did you ever think about that??

In this day and age when people are passing counterfeit cashier’s checks banks are reluctant to take the liability.

Again, that's the bank's problem, not mine.

If it's easy for people to counterfeit the bank's paper, maybe the bank should stop issuing paper.

Funny how many problems that would solve, if banks would simply stop issuing bad paper.

But instead, the banks prefer to continue issuing bad paper, b/c it's a criminal activity and highly profitable, and in turn asking their depositors to underwrite the risk associated w/ this criminal enterprise.

Pffffftttt...

Please.. how dumb do you think we are?

A must have sufficient cash on hand to meet what is considered every day needs

Thats the problem, isn't it?

Banks simply don't have sufficient funds.

That's what I'm saying: they're insolvent and it's a crime for them to continue accepting deposits from the public when they're financially insolvent.

This is especially true in the case of BofA, which is carrying $51 of bad debt (in derivatives) for every $1 of asset that it has. No company, no institution, no person, is ever going to emerge from a condition where it has $51 of debt to every $1 of asset.

That's technical bankruptcy.

It's financial insolvency.

And that's just from their derivatives balance sheet.

BofA has bad toxic debt in zillions of other places too.

BofA is finished. It's done. It's over. It's bankrupt, it's financially insolvent.

BofA is unable to honor its own checks, the hallmark of a bank run and liquidity crisis.

It's only a matter of time before BofA collapses.

And yet BofA tells that they'll "cash" my check if I open an account w/ them and place deposits w/ them? THIS IS CRIMINAL FRAUD AND THIS IS WHAT I DESIRE TO PROSECUTE BOFA FOR.

That BofA has no $$ on hand to meet its obligations is one thing. I really don't care about that. If I walk in w/ a check and they tell me they can't pay it b/c their broke and have no $$, well, OK. I can understand that. BofA is run by criminals and sooner or later the bank will go broke.

That makes sense.

But for the bank to be financially insolvent, to be financially bankrupt, and then to lie about it and then -- even worse -- to solicit my business and to try to get me to open an account there. THIS IS CRIMINAL FRAUD. This is mens rea. It is willful premediation to work a tort against my person and I'm not going to stand for being insulted in this manner.

They are not, however in the business of handing out free samples.

The sample isn't free.

The check was issued to me in consideration for the labor and services I rendered to those w/ whom I contracted to render such services and labor.

The bank now has a fiduciary obligation to see to that I am compensated in lawful money for that consideration.

If the bank is unable to deliver on its promise, the bank will be prosecuted and driven out of business.