Bank Unwilling to Cash Check from Gold Sale

If she had the max amount in the bank she could have taken that out right there if they had that much cash on hand, which I doubt they did.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Not without filling out a form you can't.

 

Also the FDIC does it in categories within each bank...so yes the limit is 250k/bank/account however if say you had 1 million in bank "A" and it was broken up all 4 accounts would be covered.

250k Savings
250k Checking
250k Money Market
250k CD

http://www.fdic.gov/deposit/deposits/insured/basics.html

 

I have no issue with filling out forms..who said anything about forms. My point was that it is far easier to get your money into a bank than out of a bank. Smaller amounts of course have less problems, if any at all. Larger amounts, well, different story.

 

I agree.
But it's hardly a banking specific problem. I'd say that it's typical for most business' as they make sure it's easy to recieve the money. Look at a Apple Store, sure service is good for a computer store but they all walk around with a hand held scanner that will take money asap but try to return an item and I bet it's a little slower. Or have you been to a WalMart? They will open lanes like crazy to take people money and yes sometimes that line is too long but have you seen the lines to return something...
Just typical business practices IMO

 

Yeah, thanks to the "Patriot" Act, one American bank I had dealt with for years refused to let me open up an account for my daughter because of my foreign address, even though my daughter is a US citizen and the address was the same one as my existing account! When I asked them to use my US address instead, they asked for a bunch of irrelevant information that I couldn't provide because I was not living in the US. Really weird.

 

Doesn't pass the smell test

Why didn't that dealer wire the money to the woman's account?

If you walk into any Federal Reserve bank or credit union with a 3rd party check for $675,000 you can absolutely count on the following:

1. They will not hand you $675,000 in cash unless you already have an existing extraordinary relationship with the bank. By extraordinary I mean you are on their "best customers send the limo" list.
2. They will absolutely accept the $675,000 check for deposit. Once the funds are transferred from the other bank and the federal hold requirement is released, you can withdraw the money. All of it if you like.
3. Legally, the woman's remedy is with the party who wrote the 3rd party check, not the bank. Banks are not required to cash 3rd party checks of high or questionable value. It's the dealer's responsibility to solve which, BTW he takes no responsibility for.
4. If the 3rd party had simply wired the money to the old woman's account, all of these issues could have been avoided. It cost $25 do do a wire. I'm willing to bet that someone who can buy $675,000 worth of gold gets free wires. If he is a legitimate high end coin dealer he would know this. How many coin dealers require wire transfers? If he is so concerned about this woman, why didn't he do this?

This fable does not give any relevant information where one can make any determination about all items above. I do think however that anyone receiving $675,000 from a gold sale should have asked for a bank wire to their account or at least some other certified funds. If you sell gold to APMEX for example, they will be glad to wire the funds to your bank once they have the gold. Any bank would be happy to receive these funds as a deposit because they will make interest off of it.

The fable this guy puts forth doesn't pass the smell test at all. Modern banks don't operate the way he describes and/or he is leaving out a lot of relevant information. IMO, stay away from doing business from this sort of outfit.

 

I read the article as meaning that she deposited the check into her account and the bank was still unwilling to give her the cash. I believe that may be a point of dispute reading your comments Fatima. Of course if someon simply wished to cash a check for that amount no bank in the world will do it without the funds clearing, no matter how small or large the amount. However, if you read the article as I did, and believe she deposited the check into her account, do you still have the same opinions?

I agree it sounds like certain elements were probably left out of the reporting of the incident to create a more sensational account.

 

Directly from the article:

"Last week she took the check to her bank in Texas, not far from Dallas, and told them she wanted to cash it."

Shd did not offer to deposit it into her account. The only time the woman mentioned deposit was that she would put it in her safe deposit box. It's irrelevant because the bank has no exposure to the contents of a safe deposit box. From that long diatribe, the only thing that I can see that the bank did was to refuse to cash the check. That is covered by my point #1. It's then between the woman and the dealer to arrange a different payment method. Points #3 & #4.

If the worman had deposited the check, or the dealer had wired the money to her there would be no issue.

 

I agree, but then it talks about her getting $50,000 per week. Of course htis could not be done partially on a check, so it would have to be done by her depositing it and then taking money out weekly. I think the difference between your and my opinion may be the inference of the actions versus the wording of the article.

A side point, my biggest problem with banks nowadays is how some charge you to cash a check. I got a check once drawn on Wells Fargo. Seeing as one was nearby, I just went there to get cash for it. I went in, and they wanted my thumb print, and also would charge me $2 to cash the check since I do not have an account there. I said, "Wait a minute, this check promises payment if presented to this bank. This check does not promise me payment minus $2 from this bank." I do believe many bank rules are going against the entire premise of banking and checking, and they simply do what they wish to do. I went back to who gave me the check demanding cash, since their bank will not honor the promise of the payment. He gave me cash instead, but I doubt Wells policy is any different to this day.

So yeah, I understand the general public's frustration with banks, and their bureaucracy and policies. I am not sure this story is complete, but I do think they do things that technically are illegal for their own purposes.

 

This is becoming extremely common at banks today. I worked at US Bank a few years ago and they had the same policy...except it was $5 for any check more than $100. We were required to get a thumb print and charge a $5 fee. I personally thought it was corporate theft and a cheap way to make a buck. Nobody knew this, but I waved the fee more often than not because it was wrong. We were told to use it as a way to try and get new accounts (which sounded like extortion to me) and if they didn't want to open the account they weren't our customers and we should charge them.

Banks have so many fees it's insane. Te account I opened there when I was an employee was a "free checking account" meaning as long as I didn't overdraw the account there were no fees (except if I bought checks). Well, I got a letter the other day saying that now there is a minimal balance fee...if the balance is below $2000 (it might be $1500...I can't remember). But for a student, that's a lot of money. The minute I graduate and no longer receive my living stipend through direct deposit...I'm closing every account I have with them and going to a credit union.

 

I agree with the fees, I had the same situation with Norwest which I worked for.

Regarding the fee to cash a check though, this flies in the face of the entire idea of a check. When did the banks begin to think its a good idea to dishonor checks? I mean, a check is a promissory note written by the signer for payment. When did banks start believing they can dishonor them when presented for payment? Paying me $98 for a check written for $100 is not honoring the check in my mind. I have no problem with whatever fees banks wish to charge, but I do not believe they should be allowed to dishonor checks written on their bank.

Maybe its just me.

Chris

 

I got a check from Heritage recently and tried to cash it at their bank (Wells Fargo). The kicker was that the banker said there were not sufficient funds in the account! Hmm, one of the wealthiest coin dealers in the country and not enough funds to cover a low 5 figures check??? Maybe it's a CMA and they don't want sellers cashing their checks.

The first rule with banks and the IRS is don't trigger alarm bells, they have over 300 million people to keep track of so don't stick out like a sore thumb. The old lady did. Plus she sold to the moneychanger who was the target of state and federal IRS action in a pre-dawn raid for tax fraud and evasion! Few dealers on the receiving end of such actions survive financially, emotionally, and without being divorced!

I don't know if he is currently in full compliance with state and federal tax laws, etc.. Stay tuned.

To get top dollar I would not sell to him, I am sure he is not top buyer but may be looser on SS reporting etc.. Every large buyer like Del Greco, Southern Coin, MTB pay considerably over spot price for bullion. But they would never take any stupid chances with the three letter men.

 

Why is it that crapola stories like this have so many details and take so long to tell? Because..........the writer goes overboard in trying to make it believable. It's like my son's lies, which I can always detect because he always goes into too much detail.

 

This was a great opportunity for the Treasury to get rid of 673,000 presidential dollar coins.

 

I don't agree with it...but here is how a bank looks at it. An account holder at a bank has an agreement with the bank. They pay fees and they get various services including accounts which they can write checks off of. When someone who does not have an account comes into the bank (a private business) with a check drawn off that bank...the bank has the right to charge it's non-member for the service of cashing the check. The non-member is using bank resources (paid employees) to complete this transaction and thus the bank believes it should be compensated. I don't think they are dishonoring the check at all when they give you $98...$100 came out of the account (the $2 just went to the bank company). I'm sure they would happily have given the full $100 if you had paid the $2 fee in cash or chosen to become a bank customer.

Again, I don't agree with it...but the logic is there. I think it puts a bad face on the bank and when the first impression to a potential new customer (maybe not today...but someday) is negative, you lose that potential customer. I think it's a bad way to try and make a buck. You think $2 is bad...like I said before, the bank I worked for charged $5.

 

Yes sir, I agree with your logic how the bank sees it.

My problem, is, that they are forgetting the entire premise of checking. It legally is a promissory note. The account holder has paid fees to the bank for this privilege. Now, a promissory note is legally binding under the UCC. Under the UCC, fees are not allowable to collect on the promissory note. The note is for its face value. If you allow fees to be imposed to execute the note, you violate the entire idea of the transaction. I personally will not accept a promissory note if I cannot be assured that I will actually collect the promised amount. I know for the bank its cheaper for them if I simply deposit this into my account and it clears, but I disagree that they have a right to charge me for in person execution.

This is my problem. Its in violation of the very IDEA of what a check is supposed to be. If banks have a problem with people collecting on a check, they have every right to charge extra to the account holder for the privilege, but I do not believe they have any right to charge the note holder for execution. Like i said, this is direct conflict with both the UCC and the very idea of the note.

Again, another example of banks doing what they want, and people evidently just rolling over to it. I contacted the state banking regulators, but since they are the biggest bank in that state, I didn't expect any action, and I did not receive any.

I hate to say it, but where is a bored attorney with his frivolous lawsuits when you need one?

Chris

 

But this doesn't apply to the bank. Fees cannot be collected on a promissory note between the parties. So, the person who wrote the note and the person who received it. The bank is a third party and can legally charge the fee. Technically, it is the responsibility of the person issuing the note to make sure that the recipient actually receives the full amount. Meaning...if you (the recipient) is entitled to $100, and the third party requires a $2 fee...then the issuer should write the note for $102.

What the bank is doing is perfectly legal and in accordance with the UCC. It's just not good business practice IMHO.

 

We mostly agree sir. I agree the bank can charge a fee, I simply do not agree that fee can be charged to the person collecting. I f a fee is due, it should be charged against the account holder.

Think of it this way. If everyone is writing checks, and every single bank has different fees it charges to collect, how in the world is anyone supposed to know what they physically be collecting with a check? If that is uncertain, what good are checks? I say this basically "breaks" the entire notion of checking or promissory notes if what you say would be true.

I thought I had read that in the UCC promissory notes, to be valid, have to be fully collectible. Making them subject to another firms fees, to me, violates that important covenenant of the UCC. Especially if such a fee is unknowable, which would be the case if any bank at any time can change these fees.

I still maintain this is worst than just a bad business practice, it legally breaks the UCC definition of a promissory note, therefor breaks the usefulness of checks. If banks can do this for in person collection, can they not start doing it for cleared checks? Then how is anyone receiving any money ever supposed to know if the check will satisfy their bill? Right now this is simply seen as a way to strip money from people without an account, or who do not know any better. To me, the slippery slope would be the entire demolition of our checking system, electronic or physical checks.

All for a few banks and their greediness over fees.

I know, I am probably overreacting, but it ticks me off, since I know better.

Edit: Btw, charging a fee to cash a check is completely different than this case. I agree banks can charge for that all day long, as long as the check is not written on that bank. Cashing another banks check is a financial service which they can charge for, cashing a check drafted by their customer is simply fulfilling their contract with their own customer. Again, the bank can charge their own customer as much as they wish, but me coming in with a check drawn on their bank am not a "customer", I am a recipient of money promised me BY their customer.

 

A dental student that knows the UCC. You won't have many patients stiff you. You'll probably put a lien on their teeth.:smile