Money mule (type of scam)

I cant remember without my glasses or my teeth in.

Preferably.

"john boyle" wrote

I was thinking of the customer asking a cashier at the *collecting* bank, and that cashier answering "is paid" - possibly without even contacting the

I could prepare a standard form myself - then there would be one! I'd just have to add the details of the cheque.

If a bank won't confirm in writing when a cheque is paid if requested then this seems a glaring fault in the banking system.

Not only that, but it appears the staff wont know what you are talking about.

AFAICS, if they wont confirm in writing, its your word vs theirs, and they dont know about it anyway, it isnt really a viable option.

Note that the APACS document didnt mention asking if your cheque was 'paid' as an option to avoid fraud, it simply said 'be careful' and 'or use some other method'!

In message , Peter Saxton writes

Oh. It seems to have worked so far.

In message , Tim writes

I wouldn't call it working very well if after receiving a cheque, banking it, withdrawing the funds and getting on with life I find that several months or years later my bank can reverse the banking entry.

In message , Peter Saxton writes

You are getting this completely out of hand. All this is based on a flimsy BBC story and a badly worded response from APACS. The circumstances of the type of fraud referred to is, as I understand it, where drawer and payee and endorsees act together in order to perform the fraud.

"john boyle" wrote

But it's also based on your responses here in this newsgroup!

"john boyle" wrote

If there's nothing for the 'public at large' to worry about, then why don't the banks *guarantee* payment after a certain period, or at least (when requested) in writing once they are satisfied that the cheque "is paid" ?

In message , Tim writes

Being?

That part of things is governed more by the Bills of Excchange & Cheques Acts as much as banking practice, but as I have said already, once a cheque is stated as being 'paid' that is it and the evidence is the 'paid' cheque itself, albeit this is only available to a payee on enquiry to the drawer.

"john boyle" wrote

Aha! Now we might be getting somewhere...

So, are you saying that the payee can obtain the original paper cheque & this will show evidence of being "paid"?... [That'll then be our "evidence in writing" from the bank - won't it?]

"john boyle" wrote

Hmmm. Isn't the "drawer" the writer of the cheque? That person might have an incentive to withold the 'paid' cheque from the payee...

Or did you mean the 'drawee'? [Is that the bank of the drawer?]

In message , Tim writes

No. The drawer can though.

Yes but the only the drawer can get it from the drawee, not the payee.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Yes. Glad to see youve been learning from my posts over the years!

I'm not quite sure what I am getting out of hand. I've not based any of what I've said on any BC story or response from APACS. I've been going on my experience with banks over the years.

In message , Peter Saxton writes

Tell us more.

"john boyle" wrote

"john boyle" wrote

"john boyle" wrote

"john boyle" wrote

So, there is no way that the payee can obtain 'evidence of fate' of a cheque

I agree with Peter that this seems a glaring fault in the cheque system!

---------------

"john boyle" wrote

I have asked when I can be sure a cheque will not be reversed and I have been told that the bank could not guarantee it wouldn't be reversed at any time. The best I got was it would be more "unlikely" the more time passed! Similarly to how Viking Direct tell me that practically every order is delivered next day but it seems to be less than 50% with me.

One doesnt need to experience an event to know it can happen. His experience, same as mine, is that banks wont tell you when the amount is 'safe', dont volunteer anything about cheques being 'paid' as an option to show this, and their staff in the most part, arent even aware of such a system in any case..and it appears this option isnt available to the recipient of the cheque, only the person who wrote it, if I understand your recent exchanges with peter saxton.

This would seem to agree with the APACS document as well.

"john boyle" wrote

When I buy something expensive, I expect to get a warranty with it. Just because I haven't any experience of that type of purchase breaking down, doesn't mean that I don't want the warranty there!

But anyway - you seem to be suggesting that a cheque being reversed after more than a few days is very unlikely to happen. If that is the case, why won't banks guarantee cheques after, say, 7 days?

If it would cost them too much to do this, then it shows that the risk is higher than you suggest... If the cost would be slight, then there is no reason why they shouldn't do it!

In message , Tumbleweed writes

That a cheque can bounce months later?

I dont know how often I have to say this.

The default situation is that cheques can be presumed paid but a collecting bank can always enquire of the drawee if it is paid. Once a cheque is 'paid' that is it, no come back.

Nobody has provided any evidence of a cheque bouncing weeks or months later.

With regard to bank styaff, then you are right. They dont get trained these days.