> "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-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 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.".
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-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 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-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?
reply