Bank Unwilling to Cash Check from Gold Sale

Probably all true, and a great reason why keeping savings in the form of gold in a safe deposit box makes so much more sense. Just the anonymity of it makes it worth doing. The again, can I file suit after I get robbed, claiming the bank teller should have stopped me from removing my gold or silver from the safe deposit box? "They knew, they could tell the box weighed a lot. I even needed help getting it out of the vault, so they had to know I was removing a substantial amount of what could only be precious metals". And because I then got mugged at the bus stop its there fault and I can sue them?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Criminal cases are not handled on a percentage basis as there is no settlement due to the defendent. On your other point, the IRS, Treasury, etc., will often offer to settle the case which keeps the case from being judged on constitutional grounds. This did not happen however in the Liberty coin case and it continues to move forward in court. IMO, this one will end up getting settled as well.

 

As I pointed out above, despite what the author of that article says, it is not "her" (their) money that is sitting in the bank. The bank has no obligation to take a 3rd party check from the vendor she sold the gold to, and cash it for the woman. The responsibility for getting payment to that woman is between the woman and the vendor. They have no legal right to place conditions on a bank for this exchange. Banks certainly will handle 3rd party checks for their customers as a convenience, but it is on their terms.

The woman is free to deposit the check, subject to conditions, or the vendor is free to wire the money to the bank into the woman's account. When this happens, then it becomes "their money" from the standpoint of the bank. Only at that point can she take it out as cash. If she wants to walk away with 6,730 $100 bills, that is certainly her right and I believe that given the time for the bank to order the bills, the bank will grant the request.

I agree with you. It's her business if she wants to take out this cash. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for wanting to do so. I'd even cut granny some slack if she wanted to spend it all on pot and male prostitutes. At that age, people should leave her alone.

 

You are perfectly free to sue for any of these reasons. However your ability to prevail on any of these suits is doubtful. The question isn't whether you can sue for whatever reason, because you can. The question is if can you prevail in court with your legal argument.

 

My point about it being the woman's money was not directed so much at her bank, but at those people who criticized the woman for wanting cash.

 

You can sue for anything....just like in the TV commericals


Did you lose money in the stock market? Call 1-800-.....

McDonalds coffee.....yup that was a real lawsuit because who in God's name would think hot coffee was ....wait for it...Hot

Easy to see what the prosecutions opening line would have been to the defendant..."You let a 90 year old lady walk out of your bank with $600,000 in cash? what were you thinking.

On top of all of this the bank would have required to file an SAR report to FICEN...this alone can take time.

Bank was smart and though yes in the end it is her money there were way's to get it out without creating such a mess, all that being said I have to assume 50% or so of the article is utter BS and sensationalism in order to illicit a response in the form of new paying members to the sight.

The simplest way to do this was to request the person that purchased her gold pay in cash...does not seem to unreasonable to me.

 

The problem from the bank's perspective is that of collateral.

"She wasn't pulling her $673,000 out of her bank. She was trying to trade with her bank: a draft drawn on another bank for cash. It's like saying the store wouldn't sell you a tv because they're afraid it would hurt their business for people to see you carrying their inventory out the door. If the check was worth the $673,000, why would her bank care? It would be in the same position it was in before. Nothing would have been pulled out of the lady's account."

"1. "Near Dallas" is a pretty big area. What bank refused to cash the check? Where?

2. What company wrote the check, and on what bank?

3. When was this supposed to have happened anyway?

4. Why wasn't the money sent via EFT? Why didn't the woman return the check to its maker and demand an EFT, with as much spit 'n' vinegar as she used when trying to cash it?

5. I can understand why the woman's name would be withheld, but where is her lawyer and why isn't s/he weighing in on this? Who is her lawyer?

6. What were the names and real titles of the bank bureaucrats and the banking commission bureaucrats? Does the bank have a lawyer involved, and who is s/he?

7. Why is there absolutely no mention of this tale anywhere except on Gary North's website? If it was real, wouldn't there at least be some news coverage? Some third-party authentication of any kind, anywhere?

"Absent even a trace of verifiable details, we have to conclude the whole story is bogus."

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7566&p=127162#p127162

 

You're right...you can sue for anything. The hard part is winning the lawsuit. The bank only has 2 reasons for not giving her the money...and neither of them are her age. You can't discriminate against someone because of their age, that's a lawsuit waiting to happen that the plaintiff would win. The two reasons the bank wouldn't give her the cash are: 1) The funds need to be cleared and in that banks possession before they would do it, and 2) They need to have that much extra cash in the vault. Neither would be able to be done the day she walked in.

Also, the bank would be required to fill out a CTR...not a SAR for this transaction. If the teller/banker thought the transaction was suspicious, the CTR includes a question asking if the transaction is suspicious...this takes the place of a SAR. I have filled out several CTRs in the past, they only take a few minutes.

 

McDonalds coffee.....yup that was a real lawsuit because who in God's name would think hot coffee was ....wait for it...Hot
​

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants

 

While this is a very popular story to make fun of...what actually happened was a very unfortunate set of circumstances leading to an elderly women getting very severely burned. Was it McDonald's fault...no. But, IMHO they should have just given her the $20K settlement she was originally asking for (to cover her medical expenses) and moved on. I'm still shocked that a giant company like that would spend so much on legal fees to try and avoid paying $20K.​

 

It's one thing to sue someone who should be mediated with, cannot afford the damages, or otherwise is just plain unlucky that something happened, it is quite another to sue a corporation that is pig-headed or has a pattern of ignoring health issues connected to its operations. We all cheer Erin Brockovitch for standing up for a community that was royally messed up by a dangerous corporation and many other such examples for which lawyers like Gerry Spense has made a career out of fighting; but maybe not the size of the judgments. One person does not deserve over $10 million in any verdict, a group of people do though. And those who sue fraudulently need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, this is why people and corporations hire private detectives to fight such fraud.

 

The comparison isn't valid. No bank is going to lose in court for refusing to cash a $675,000 3rd party check.

 

I was not focussing on the bank, whichever one it is, but on "pig-headed" corporations.

Had they "cashed" the check, making a judgment that The Moneychanger's account had more than enough funds and that there would be no impediment to the check clearing, it might have made the 92 year old lady feel better but it would then possibly have attracted opportunists that heard that you can just walk into this bank with a check drawn on an out of state bank, possibly even one with no instate branches, and walk out with 100s of thousands in green cash. That bank could have become the laughing stock of the industry by violating standard rules.

 

Having a bank account is not a right, the institution itself has guidelines and rules to follow yes; however can refuse service just like any business can. When you open an account each party understands its responsibilities; If the bank was robbed and she lost $675,000 the bank/insurance would be required by law and contract to make her whole. If the lady "had" $675,000 in the bank and she wanted to walk out the door with it then so be it..that is her right.

This is a 3rd party check that the woman wanted not to deposit but to cash on the spot. Her bank does not hold these funds and while they may be on deposit at another bank that makes no difference to them as just as quickly the issuer of the check could call his bank and stop/cancel. The funds need to clear in order to cash. I checked my banks rules and I found that because of the balance I keep in my accounts I have:

So yup if I walked into the bank with a 25k 3rd party check they would cash it for me....of course that is because I have 100k in the bank and if the check is a loser I will be the loser not the bank.

 

And do you think I would win? Or would I have to be a 94 year-old woman in order to convince the judge I was taken advantage of? I suspect that's at the heart of the discussion, this woman was denied access to her money because of her age. I don't disagree with you that the bank perhaps acted with fear of legal repercussions if they acquiesed to her wishes. And so the real question becomes: at what age is someone considerd legally incapable of making descisions for themselves? That a bank can unilateraly decide for you that your too old to be trusted with your own money is pretty scary if you ask me.

 

The bank has no legal fears. They didn't cash the check because they either didn't want to take on the liability of carrying $673,000 with the chance of losing it and/or dealing with the expenses related to it. As I have stated several times above, there is absolutely no requirement for a bank to accept a 3rd party check. Banks will do it as a courtesy to their account holders subject to conditions and relative to the specific relationship the customer has with the bank.

On your question about the losses relative to the contents of the safe deposit box you would lose. Go read the agreement that you signed where it says the bank has no liability for losses incurred by using the box. The bank will advise you to go and get some insurance.

 

I don't think they would have cashed a $600K check for you if you had walked into the bank either...and I assume you are much younger than she. It has nothing to do with age. Bank's won't take the risk of losing that much money by cashing a third party check of that size. Lets say for the moment, you had enough in your account to cover it in case the check was bad (so the bank wouldn't lose it's money). They still wouldn't cash it the same day because they wouldn't have that much extra cash lying around in their vault. Bank branches don't sit on a ton of extra cash they normally don't need for just such an "emergency" as this.

 

The lady was asking for something that was impossible at the time.

 

It was both practically and legally impossible for them to fulfill her wishes. If she banks at a big responsive bank in Texas, they are probably used to having their customers who they have known for many years want cash for various deals. Texas is one of those states that is conservative, generally, with many wealthy people who like to do deals with cash because they mistrust how government has debased the dollar.

I am from a state where most of the wealthy people shy away from cash because they are afraid of the tinge that it carries in terms of the "underground" economy. Cash deals are still done by property owners who are offered a discount with contractors for cash deals, by those buying and selling, and of course by shady operators.

If there is anything we have learned from the crisis of 2008, the most nefarious criminals are based on Wall Street and financial centers around the world; they do not deal in cash, they do not need to because they have bought out entire accounting firms and politicians through lobbyists and corrupt and manipulative tactics.

Unfortunately, those who deal in cash or are avoiding small amounts of taxes with cash dealings will continue to be a scapegoat for the far more corrupt system and the Keynesians who have gamed the system.

I am looking forward to the rest of the story from Mr. Sanders. I am sure he deals with a fair number of people who are evading taxes, to them he will gladly deal in cash to avoid the ebil governmint. This old lady had no reason for the cash deal except to prove a point, that the banks and their regulations are bad and that they make their own rules. But if her lawyer looked at the fine print when she opened her account, she agreed to all those rules.

Banks refuse to cash checks all the time, and they then file suspicous activity reports with Fincen or the IRS. Sometimes you have to go to court to get them to honor the check, I have known people who did this. And again, the issue is significant in the case of people who do not have a bank account and who go to the payee's bank to cash the check; not in the case like this where all you have to do is deposit the friggin' check, and pull cash out subsequently.

How the law is enforced, and what rights any given individual has are geographically significant based on cultural differences in the U.S.. It shouldn't be that way but it is. And you would find an entirely different set of practices in cashing checks in Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, London or India. They all have their rules and I doubt anywhere on planet earth that you could just waltz into the local bank and expect them ready and waiting to give you reams of paper money immediately, even if the check were drawn on the same bank as the bank where you have an account.

 

Sanders story is bunk. The dealer could have just wired the money to her account. Anyone who claimed to care for this woman's well being as much as he did, should have insisted on it. It's a disingenious story at best that IMO, does favors to no one except Mr. Sanders. There are plenty of real issues to be concerned about instead of this non-issue.