Bank Unwilling to Cash Check from Gold Sale

Wait, what?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Your response is rather harsh, Fatima. What favors to Mr. Sanders do you suppose this story does? I'm not sure I follow. If in fact there is truth to this 'bunk' as you call it, it is a 'real issue' to be concerned with for anyone with a care about the $ they have deposited into their own banks (maybe.)

Many are calling this a third party bank, which of course would not be inclined to cash this woman's check. As I read the story, the bank is HER bank, meaning not a third party bank. She offered to allow the time necessary for the check to clear, though it was approved on the phone. They still declined. I believe the point of the story is perhaps our 'cash' is not really there for us!

Just my opinion.

Lucy

 

I believe it is her bank, however I believe that the check itself came from the dealer was his bank thus making the check a 3rd party check to the lady's bank. Quite honestly as Fatima said all that needed to be done was for the dealer to do a wire transfer from his account over the lady's bank, it would have saved all the issues, been safer and in the end been much quicker than this story indicates.

Now if both of them banked at say Chase then it would not have been a 3rd party check, but say if the woman was at Chase and the dealer had his account at Wells Fargo then to Chase that would be a 3rd party check.

2+2= 7 in this story, lot of things do not add up.

 

Rubes listening to the story, hear something told at a rather childish level where no thinking is required and he gains followers. I would say a good analogy is the fable of the Pied Piper.

 

A cheque for $500.00 and a cheque for $673,000.00 are two different things.

If this story were true, this is a bank I would want my mother to bank at.
I at least know they are watching out for the ederly from getting ripped off.

And a son who trades futures and lets his mother cash $673,000 cheque?
Not deposit it, but cash it. Could happen, but get real.

Furthermore, a third party bank has no obligation to cash any cheque.

The only bank obligated to cash this cheque was the bank of the guy who wrote it to begin with. That is, if he had the money in his account.

 

No, their not. They cannot legally treat an elderly person any different than anyone else. That's discrimination and it's illegal...even if they believe it to be for the person's own good. The bank wouldn't have cashed that check for anyone at that time...no matter their age. Plus, they aren't doing it to prevent their customer from being ripped off either. They are doing it because they don't want to lose over $600K if the check is bad. Also, I doubt they have the extra money in the branch anyway.

 

All i can say it,s typical in this day and age!

 

In my country, it's a good business practise by the bank and not discrimination in doing what they did. As others have said, the bank was only protecting itself as well as protecting the lady, although protecting themselves was a priority.
Had something gone wrong, the bank would have been sued in a minute.

It's not illegal to show some common sense last I checked.

 

In the United States there are various laws to protect individuals from being discriminated against because of their age. Is their a specific law about this situation...I don't know. But, I'm sure a lawsuit could easily be filed and I'll bet the old lady would win. In this country, others don't have the right to tell us they are withholding our property for our own good. I can assure you, the reason this women was not given her money was not because of her age.

As I have said several times, there are 2 reasons the bank would not cash her check based on the information in the story. 1. The check was drawn on another bank and would need to clear before being cashed. 2. The vast majority of bank branches don't have an extra $600K sitting around in their vault. Thus, even if they had been willing to cash it right then and there they would not have had the means to do so.

 

Camaro, You may be right, but still, if the woman was willing to wait until the check cleared (as I believe was stated?), why, then, would they refuse to distribute the cash?

I have my own views, and while willing to listen to being identified as a "Rube", or whatever other term someone may choose to use, I believe if everyone began trying to take their money out of banks, many may encounter the same situation, or result. Bank runs would not be a good thing for us..

As for Franklin's story, it was not intended for public "consumption"; it was published ONLY to his paid subscribers. I doubt that the OP had permission to post it here; the normal daily publication available to anyone who signs up (for free) has a disclaimer about not re-publishing any of the comments. As I said THIS story was not for j.q.public. I have received my answers from Mr. Sanders, and am comfortable with the truth of the story. I doubt Mr. Sanders found any new "rubes" from this story, as that was not his intent, though that's all I wish to say on that.

Stories like this cause exactly the types of responses that are here on this thread. In the end, if one "goes to the source", one can find out what happened.

Your background helps, and I thank you for trying to shed light on Mr. Franklins 'story'.

Lucy (Yep, a rube for sure!)

 

They wouldn't. The money is hers and the bank would give it to her. But, it wouldn't happen that day. There would be a process. In a previous post, I mentioned how the bank would do this. Here is that posting:

So, the women would get her cash. But, it would probably be a few weeks after being deposited before she could physically have the cash in hand. I also forgot to mention one thing in my previous post. She would be required to fill out a CTR form when she withdrew the cash too. But, that is pretty easy.

 

Absolutely right! The bank was not under any obligation whatsoever, too bad so sad but the little old lady and her son were barking up the wrong tree. If a tree (check) actually existed in the first place. You can't just cash a check anytime you want at whatever bank you want. I'm just sayin'. :thumb:

 

Why does everyone keep overlooking the facts as written in the story? HER BANK..."Last week she took the check to her bank.." She offered to let the check clear; she offered to fill out the forms....sheesh! At least read the details!! Up the ladder, etc... THE POINT of the story, WHY WOULDN'T THE BANK GIVE HER CASH? She was willing to jump through all the hoops.

No matter, I'm not planning on pulling that kind of cash out anyway! But, I do believe in having cash, tucked away somewhere. In the end, if someone wants to hand me cash for something, or a check for something, or even a credit card, I always prefer the cash. Cash is king! Or is it, he who has the gold rules...

Oh well.

Lucy

 

That is because the story isn't true. If this lady had walked into her bank and was willing to deposit the check for a couple weeks, fill out the forms, and give plenty of notice of the withdrawal...the bank would have done it. I think everyone here is aware of the the "facts" given in the story and it has been mentioned several times that either not all the information is not given/accurate or the story isn't true.

 

Just because someone wrote her a cheque doesn't mean she had any money. All she had was a piece of paper or a promissary note with some numbers and names on it. Promises are written on cheques and broken on a daily basis at most banks that receive them. It's called a bounced cheque. To be honest, I have had a couple myself by not getting to the bank in time.
Now if she had deposited the cheque, it cleared and then the bank wouldn't give her, her own money, then she and her idot son would have a right to complain or sue the bank and the guy who wrote the story would have something worth reading.

 

The story indicates that lady was willing to wait for the check to clear and for the bank to obtain the unusually large volume of cash required to cash the check. This is reasonable. Assuming this is the bank the check as drafted on, failure to deliver upon demand is theft. They have no obligation nor responsibility to withhold the money with the sole exception of obvious incompetence or coercion. This should result in a call to the police.

By the way, banks do not make money by borrowing your money and simply lending out. They lend it out 4-10 times depending on the reserve requirement at the time. They pay you 2%, lend it out 10 times at 10% and make a nice return of 98% before expenses.

 

I believe somewhere in the article it indicated that the bank the check was drawn on and the bank she was at were different banks. But, that still doesn't matter. If she is willing to do all these things the bank would do it. The story clearly isn't true. Some of what was said may have happened...but the majority is either a fabrication or critical details were left out.

 

Has anyone talked to "The Moneychanger" on this?

Here is his contact information:

http://the-moneychanger.com/entry.phtml

I will try to call him if no one has spoken to him about the details of this or someone who can verify the facts.

He tries to follow the good book, but I guess one could equivocate since the command is about not bearing false witness against your neighbor not specifically about lying.

 

No it isn't. The woman offered to put the check in her safe deposit box. It's a 3rd party check. In the USA, no bank has to accept a 3rd party check.

 

I have, and am satisfied with his answers. No one here is actually interested in the answers, so it really is pointless to discuss. Most people have their minds made up before they start, probably myself included.

Franklin Sanders did tell this story truthfully.