var json_comments = new Array("
\"user-pic\"
eightfifteen
January 16, 2009 9:45 PM
Moderate | Flag for review

It wasn't a fake check. It was a TRIBUTE check.

Reply
6 replies
\"user-pic\"
mythago
January 16, 2009 9:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@eightfifteen: You win the Internet! I'll let you decide whether \"win\" is really the appropriate term to use there.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
January 17, 2009 11:57 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago:

Can i give him a cashier's check as his prize?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
eightfifteen
January 19, 2009 12:30 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bs Baldwin: As long as you don't ask me to Western Union it back to you. :-)

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
scoobydoo
January 16, 2009 9:53 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wow, that is just horrible.

Then again, nothing good EVER comes out of anything that involves Western Union. I wish they'd just follow Circuit City and die.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Roclawzi
January 17, 2009 6:17 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@scoobydoo: This is not Western Union's fault. I think it's customary (even the law?) that certified checks get cleared within 24 hours, even if it takes longer for the check to bounce around in the system. It's the window between the initial clearing and the final confirmation that the scammers play in.

Western Union picked up on it and tried to add extra stops into the transaction, but the OP dealt with their questions and Western Union had no choice but to let the transaction through.

I think the moral of the story is that if you're ever advanced money in the form of a cashier's check, go ahead and deposit it, and if the person who send it to you needs to get a portion of it back, tell them to sue you for it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
January 18, 2009 12:52 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Roclawzi:

There isn't any laws that deal with cashier's checks getting special treatment, people just think that is there. A cashier's check is just that, a check. There is nothing that makes them extra special, especially now that there is so much check fraud happening.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
bohemian
January 16, 2009 9:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Wire transfer only. Most banks are more than happy to tell you the process and at what point it is 100% clear. You also can't reverse a wire transfer, impossible to fake it as far as I know too.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
January 18, 2009 12:57 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian:

Wire transfers can be reversed, but the likely hood they will is so small. The only way it could happen is that the money hasn't been withdrawn yet from the other bank. If it has, the other bank won't take the hit.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
January 17, 2009 12:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian: I agree. We see rich people and evil people doing it all the time in movies so it always made me wonder why us normal folk dont use it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
dialing_wand
January 17, 2009 12:15 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: It can be expensive, but pretty much only for the sender. I've used it a few times to send money to one-off audio manufacturers.

Quite simple really. And fun to say you're doing/did it to boot!

Reply
\"user-pic\"
trashbaby
January 17, 2009 2:06 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dialing_wand:


A wire transfer can be recalled wtihin the first 72 hours. :) There's always a loophole.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
zarex42
January 16, 2009 10:55 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@bohemian:

Absolutely correct. This is the safest method of accepting payment. Better than ACH transfers, even.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
oldgraygeek
January 16, 2009 10:02 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

They found a new group of people who don't know about the \"fake cashier's check\" scam.
Thanks to Joe, that loophole will close...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Borax-Johnson
January 16, 2009 10:07 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I concur. A wire transfer is the electronic equivalent of delivering a briefcase full of unmarked $100's. Once delivered it's yours.


I used to work in the brokerage biz and would on occasion have clients as to have large sums wired out. I was always extremely careful to make sure the instructions were perfect. In the brokerage world, all errors are the brokers and that means your paycheck gets a ding.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Ash78 ain't got time to bleed
January 16, 2009 10:09 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

This is not the greatest scam in the world, no. This is just a tribute.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
VeeKaChu
January 16, 2009 10:34 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Ash78:Couldn't get over, with the greatest scam in the world, oh no, This is a Tribute.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
SacraBos
January 16, 2009 10:15 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Yeah, anytime \"Nigeria\" is mentioned while in the midst of a financial transaction, FRAUD should immediately come to mind. Too bad that you got taken in like that, especially since cashiers check are part of your normal business transactions.

It won't get your money back, but one thing you might do is contact the 419eaters guys with your original E-mail. They take great pleasure in giving these guys the a good run-around.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
floraposte
January 16, 2009 10:25 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@SacraBos: I wondered about that, because it didn't seem like the scammer needed to bring Nigeria into it, and I would imagine it would be a red flag to some targets. But I do feel sorry for actual honest people in Nigeria--can you imagine trying to start a legit international business from there?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
January 18, 2009 1:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte:

Yeah, they come here instead. Anyone that has the means to, will leave Nigeria as soon as they can. Corrupt, war-town countries are not very desirable.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
bbb111
January 18, 2009 5:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Bs Baldwin: \"Yeah, they come here instead. Anyone that has the means to, will leave Nigeria as soon as they can.\"
Agreed - I work as a subcontractor on a government project and the pre-contract-award auditor is a company owned and staffed by Nigerians. We've dealt with them twice now and they are straightforward and competent. [The only difficulty is that the accents are a little thick and only my wife (a linguist) can pronounce their names correctly.]

As floraposte mentioned, my first thought was how hard it must be for them to get people to trust them.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
HIV 2 Elway
January 16, 2009 10:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I have a hard time feeling sorry for a U2 cover band, I think we've all had just about enough of the real Bono...

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
MrEvil
January 16, 2009 10:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It'd be nice in this age of technological whiz-bangery that a bank could process a check faster than 10 business days. Y'know, faster than it would take for some dirtbag overseas to con you into sending him a boatload of cash from the fraudulent check he just passed to you.


However, in some cases, even though this scam is OLD. People's greed sometimes over-rides good sense.

Reply
3 replies
\"user-pic\"
bwcbwc
January 17, 2009 6:54 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MrEvil: People's greed overriding common sense? Up until the request for a refund, this looked like a normal business transaction for the OP. How was he greedy? This isn't a \"pigeon drop\" story.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
January 17, 2009 12:55 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@MrEvil: it doesn't take 10 days to process a check. most process in less than 2 days now.

here's the problem. let's say someone gets your bank account number & routing number & starts writing fraudulent checks on your account. & you don't notice for a week. you have the power to march down to your bank (within 60 days) & say, \"this is not mine. it's fraudulent.\"

so, who picks up the tab? rightfully so, the person who deposited your fraudulent check, whenever possible.

see, no one knows it's a fake check until someone notices the money is missing. THAT'S why it sometimes takes 10 days. sometimes 2 weeks. no lie, i dealt with a case where it was 6 weeks later.

that's what makes these scams so horrible. often times there's not one, but TWO victims & unfortunately for this fellow, the person who had their account info compromised is covered under the law & he gets to come up with $4000.

knowledge is power. arm yourself.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
oldgraygeek
January 17, 2009 4:29 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: Yes and no.

Your bank is required to make money available within a certain time frame -- usually a day or two after you deposit a check. This time is not tied to the check actually clearing: it is a regulatory requirement.

On the few occasions when a legitimate local customer of my small business has written me a bad check, it took up to a week for the funds to be pulled... and 3 to 5 more days for the notification to show up in the snail mail. It can take several more days for a check drawn on a far-off bank to bounce, and for that notification to reach your bank, and for them to pull the money back out of your account.

This is the basis of the \"forged check\" scam: the time lag is the necessary factor that makes it work. The only way to fight it, other than insisting on wire transfers only, it to automatically wait two to four weeks before drawing on the funds from any suspect check.

This is the correct response to a questionable check:
[0. Turn it over to the FBI without trying to collect on it. Stop being greedy & gullible. If you can't do that...]
1. Deposit it.
2. Steadfastly refuse to withdraw the money for several weeks.
3. When it bounces, you're out the \"bad deposit item fee\" only ($8 at my bank).

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
January 18, 2009 1:39 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@oldgraygeek:

If the bank has any reason that the check will be not be honored, they will hold the money anywhere between 7 - 11 business days. Laws on availability are not designed for the customer to get their hands on the money, they are for a bank to keep their customers from losing a lot of money. The reason to hold funds are very broad and these scams aren't forcing the banks to release funds right away.

I know that this statement is totally anti-the consumerist, but banks operate in a different way than a store or a cell phone company. Consumer friendly laws aren't being drafted with banks in mind. The last laws that were are HMDA and Reg Z. Everything else is to stop money laundering and stop terrorists from opening accounts. I know that there are banks that skate above the law on fees, but does anyone see congress passing laws concerning overdraft/NSF/uncollected funds fees?

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
JustThatGuy3
January 16, 2009 10:37 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

It sounds like Western Union tried to convince this guy it was a fraud, but he wouldn't listen to them.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
darrylw
January 17, 2009 5:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JustThatGuy3:

Yes you should have listened to Western Union. I have a friend that fell for the Russian wife scam and when he went to WU to drop off that 3G the dude at the counter warned him that alot of these are fake. Needless to say my friend didn't listen and was out the money and waited at the airport for like 2 hours then comes home to an email asking for more $$$.

sigh :(

Reply
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
January 17, 2009 12:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@JustThatGuy3: Yea im with you there. Just because they are nagging you about fraud doesnt mean they think you are the one committing said fraud.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
Chris Miller
January 16, 2009 10:38 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

While I can understand his frustration these banking rules that essentially extend you credit under the guise of letting you withdraw money you think you have, my sympathy for this guy is decreased by the fact that he fought his way through a well intentioned and persistent effort by Western Union to protect him.

I'd like to know more about what Western Union told him. Sounds like they were doing more to look out for him than his own bank.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
tokenfemale
January 16, 2009 10:49 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

please pull the guy's phone number/email down off this post, I think he's been through enough?

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
laker
January 16, 2009 10:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@tokenfemale: LOL, that # is CLEARLY not the band owner's number. It's the number of the scammer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Chris Walters
January 16, 2009 11:39 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@laker: To avoid more confusion, I've added a note clarifying that that's the scammer's contact info.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
January 18, 2009 1:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters:

For a vonage or pre-paid cell #. Scammer isn't that dumb.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
David Markland
January 16, 2009 10:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

At the least, the warnings from Western Union should have been a big red flag.

But I'm assuming he'd never read Consumerist until AFTER this happened, when someone must have suggested he drop the tip... I can't imagine even a casual reader would fall for this sort of scam.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
West Coast Secessionist
January 16, 2009 11:14 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I was all, \"Western union has a FRAUD DEPARTMENT??!\" I always assumed that since they profit so much off of fraud, the only fraud department they might have would be a \"Fraud-encouragement\" department.

@David Markland: @JustThatGuy3: @Chris Miller: I, too, was struck with annoyance at how bravely he fought off Western Union's surprising efforts to not deliver his money to the scammer.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
January 17, 2009 1:29 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@West Coast Secessionist: the gov't's starting to get a little pissed off at WU. plan on hearing a lot more about their fraud department in the future. they've implemented a number of voluntary measures to reduce the transfer of funds to criminals abroad (scammers, drug dealers, money launderers, terrorists, etc.) in leiu of legislation that will really impact their ability to do business & affect their profitability.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
chatterboxwriting
January 17, 2009 5:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mac-phisto: I'm surprised they allowed him to make the transaction. My bf tried to WU me around $425 once when I broke down in another state. He used his debit/credit card online to send the money for the repairs, got a money transfer #, and then got a call asking him verification questions. He answered them all, and then they told him they were canceling the transaction for security reasons. They told him if he took cash to a local WU, it'd go out with no problem. The kicker is, they had already put a hold on the several hundred dollars from the original transaction, which was almost all the money he had. The hold wasn't removed for four days.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
dorastandpipe
January 16, 2009 10:54 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Just because the bank gives you ACCESS to the money in your available balance does in no way make the check cleared.

I have worked in banking, this is standard procedure to give you access to your money prior to it actually being cleared. You are given a booklet when you open your account explaining all of these things...read them people!

As a former teller, there is no way for me to tell if your check is legit as long as it has all the things a check needs: pay to the order of, a drawee bank, drawee signature, current date and the micr encoding along the bottom that looks like an actual account number. I am going to take it for deposit.

As for how long it takes things to process, actual check processing is slow. First, the check goes through the bank it was deposited at. Depending on the time of day you make your deposit, your check may not be sent out until the next day for initial processing or even 3 days later (deposit Friday after 3 is going to wait until Monday). Once the depositing bank does an initial posting to your account, it is then sent to the fed for sorting, then mailing to the local bank it was drawn on and finally that bank has to determine if it is in fact a real check...if it is indeed a fake...the process now follows the same procedure going backwards. So yes, 14 days is not uncommon. A pain in the butt...but not uncommon.

Reply
4 replies
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
January 17, 2009 1:07 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dorastandpipe: it must've been a little while since you worked in banking. you're right to a point, but check 21 has made everything much faster. items no longer need to be sent for processing - even local institutions are using \"branch item capture\" now, where they basically send batches thru the scanner at the branch level 1 or more times daily.

most checks are \"cleared\" within 48 hours now, but as you state, that \"clear\" simply means that the item is presented against a good account with funds available, has not had payment stopped & is not known to be fraudulent. even if an item clears, there are certain exceptions built into the system that allow a fraudulent item to be sent back thru the system for as long as 2 months (although once you get past a a couple weeks, the collection procedure starts to resemble a game of hot potato).

i'm sure there are still a few banks that use the old paper route, in which case your timeline is spot on, but increases in processing charges & courier fees, as well as a consolidation of clearing houses throughout the country has pushed a lot more institutions into item capture.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
parad0x360
January 17, 2009 12:12 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dorastandpipe: True but shouldnt a cashiers check be able to be verified faster since its drawing off the bank itself and not a customer account?

You would think checks would be sent digitally in this day and age, or at the very least the moment you try to desposit the check it would run the account and attempt to remove the money.

Either way checks are slow, stupid, unsecure and..stupid. I never use them because I dont trust them.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
January 17, 2009 1:20 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@parad0x360: you can usually verify a cashier's check by phone, but banks are not required to verify anything over the phone (most do it as a courtesy). also, cashier's checks can be forged also.

a word to the wise: don't ever verify a check with the phone number on the check or correspondence that came with it. google the bank the account is drawn on & verify the check from that number. some fraudsters have gotten wise & replaced contact info on the checks as an added layer of security. \"go ahead & verify it...the number's right there\" - in reality, you're calling some pre-paid in ontario.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
kemikos
January 17, 2009 12:09 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@dorastandpipe: Indeed. And in fact, the bank is REQUIRED (by federal regulations) to make the funds available to you the following business day if you deposit a cashier's check for $5000.00 or less. Obviously there's no way your bank can verify the check that quickly, so the lesson here is, NEVER assume a check has \"cleared\" just because the funds show available in your account.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
mariospants
January 17, 2009 12:24 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Once again, follow my advice: FOR ANY cheque from a person or company you are not familiar with, ALWAYS write \"confirm cheque before depositing\" (or \"check\") and really if you're in doubt, rip the cheque slightly where the account # is and bend it over so that it can't be machine read. It will be flagged for confirmation.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
January 17, 2009 11:35 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Oh my god do not do this!!! Don't rip or alter the MICR line on any check. Check processing is done mostly by machines today; when the machine tries to read the MICR line, it could tear part of that check off. Without a complete MICR line, the check can't be presented. And all the check processing unit will do is just manually type in the MICR line. This won't do anything to verify the check.

Instead, have a CSR try to verify that the check is good. Most banks today will have a check image database they can view, and compare checks on. Fraudulent checks will not be 100% perfect copies of good check, but will look similar. They will be computer checks from an office supply store; the text type will be slightly different and or logos will look pixelated or blurry.

If the check looks like past checks that have cleared, have the CSR call the bank it is written off of. Have the CSR verify with them that this check was sold on the day printed on the check and the payee is correct. Also have the CSR verify that there are no stops on the check. The other bank will have all of this information, remember, a certified check will have the payee info on file.

Mariopants, if you don't work at a bank, don't give out advice about banking. Do you know what kind of harm you can create by giving out bad advice?

Reply
\"user-pic\"
Anonymous
January 17, 2009 12:34 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@mariospants: \"Once again, follow my advice: FOR ANY cheque from a person or company you are not familiar with, ALWAYS write \"confirm cheque before depositing\" (or \"check\") and really if you're in doubt, rip the cheque slightly where the account # is and bend it over so that it can't be machine read. It will be flagged for confirmation. \"

Is this SERIOUSLY going to prevent check fraud? I'm sure I may be missing something in the banking world, but it means even less than putting \"check ID!\" on my credit card.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
morganlh85
January 17, 2009 12:33 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Does this tribute band happen to play UNDER ROCKS???

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
themicah
January 17, 2009 12:37 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

The advance fee folks are getting more creative all the time. I know a student at an ivy league college who responded to an ad on the school's online job-posting board for a tutoring job. She was told she'd be tutoring a Filipino girl who was moving to join family in the US. The student I know ended up getting duped into cashing a big check and wiring most of the money back to the girl's supposed parents (without ever having met anybody). She was out something like $8,000. It really, really sucks.

Reply
2 replies
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
January 18, 2009 1:19 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@themicah:

Ivy League? So a high GPA and SAT score really doesn't mean anything, does it.

Reply
\"user-pic\"
mac-phisto
January 17, 2009 1:42 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@themicah: i've heard of a student loan scam going around lately also. there are a couple variations that i've seen so far, but they follow the same structure. they are somewhat more advanced though b/c they require the mark to apply for the scam.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
rdm
January 17, 2009 12:58 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I believe it is up to 30 days that the bank can return a check that has previously \"cleared\" for whatever reason they want. My ex and I made the mistake of not both signing a check that we received as a gift - it was addressed to \"Mr and Mrs\" and only one of us signed it. The bank cleared it and then a month later we got it sent back with a refused item fee.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
January 18, 2009 1:16 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@rdm:

Payee issues are fun, really really fun. Basically the bank can hold a check almost forever if a payee did not legally sign a check over. Legally will be a notarized statement from the payee stating that they want to sign the funds over. A signature on the back of a check does not work.

And what you mention is actually so much worse. Checks that are a RDI do to lack of endorsement are headaches. Insurance checks hardly ever have just the policy owners name on it. I had a hotel that had the business name, his insurance company's name (check was from another insurance company due to fire damage) and the bank's name (lien holder on the property) as payees on the check. Check was returned 2 times because of lack of proper endorsement, and it was the bank (La Salle) not the maker that kept returning it.

Reply
","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Oranges w/ Cheese hates what Christmas has become
January 17, 2009 1:41 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

Paypal dude, they at least have buyer protection and stuff.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
easy2panic
January 18, 2009 3:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Oranges w/ Cheese: If PayPal doesn't want to get stuck out of $4500, they will find some hidden rule somewhere saying you are at fault and you pay the $4500.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
vastrightwing
January 17, 2009 2:32 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I've gone through this with my daughter who accepted fake postal money orders. I learned there are no safe ways to accept payment:
1) Cash can be counterfeit
2) Checks and money orders can be fake
3) Wire transfers can be backed out by the paying bank.


Banks have up to 60 days to back out a payment! You are left with the responsibility even though you don't have the resources to determine a fake or bad payment.


In short, the bank wins, you always lose. Thank the financial lobby and your representitives who cater to the bankers and not to you. Sorry.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
XTC46
January 17, 2009 3:00 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

As much as I hate what happened to this guy, I find it particularly funnny that he mentions how agrivated he was at the hassels Western Union Fraud department were putting him through.


Perhaps that should have rung a bell?


As a general rule, most companies arent going to hassel a person when they are trying to give them money (which is what you are doing) They hassel you when you are trying to take money.

Reply
","","","
\"user-pic\"
AlxFherMana
January 17, 2009 6:13 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I think I would've gotten suspicious when the Rodrigues dude asked for his money back in the first place...sorry, but why send money when you can't afford it?

Anywho, I also agree with everyone else saying the OP should've been even more wary about the whole situation when WU was being \"extremely difficult\"

Reply
","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
January 17, 2009 11:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

Seriously this is happening in 2009? The check \"cleared\" because it was written off of a good account number and some time passed. Banks don't send confirmation that checks cleared, only that they won't be able to pay on the check.

What happened is that the bank that the cashiers check is drawn from reconciled their account, found this check that wasn't on file, concluded it to be fraudulent, and had it returned.

The protection that you have as a business owner is between you ears. Think! Why would he send you more than your deposit? Why would he send you money to book accommodations and then ask for the money back to do that same thing? And he keeps calling you and e-mailing you, why would he be trying to rush you? Also if Western Union didn't want to release the funds and transferred you to their fraud division, something should have went off in your head that this is fraud.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
Mr. Gunn
January 18, 2009 12:25 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

It annoys the hell out of me that Bank of America sits on all deposits I make for at least a week before allowing me to transfer them. I personally believe that BoA does this just to be dicks, but advance fee fraudsters provide them a great excuse. It's a pain in the ass having to ask the teller to get a manager's approval to release a hold on the payroll check I deposit every two weeks. This probably doesn't provide any protection from this scam, either, because it involves cashier's checks and they'd probably tell me those were aavailable immediately.

Insist on ACH or wait until the check has really cleared to prevent this stuff from happening, or just develop a better scam detection ability.

As someone above said, anything involving Western Union and sending money overseas is a scam. We found a great apartment for a great price recently, and were sorely disappointed to find that the alleged landlord wanted us to sent the rent to her by Western Union. Turns out the place wasn't actually for rent at all. Some scammer was posting for sale listings as rentals on craigslist, hoping they could fool people into sending them money.

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
Bs Baldwin
January 18, 2009 1:44 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

@Mr. Gunn:

Is your check drawn from a local bank? Can you show a record of depositing it? Has this check ever been returned before? BOA shouldn't be holding your check that long to verify it. I would switch to another bank, there should be more than them in Louisiana.

Reply
","","","","","","","","","","
\"user-pic\"
caj11
January 18, 2009 10:02 AM
Moderate |Flag for review

I'm really confused here. I thought cashier checks cleared overnight.


In any case, for those in the banking business, if we receive a cashier check, how long should we wait until it is absolutely safe to spend the money that posts to our account?


Will going into the bank and depositing it in person, with a teller, make any difference?

Reply
1 replies
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
January 19, 2009 4:21 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

@caj11: Wait 30 days on the cashiers checks.


Going into a bank makes absolutely no difference- tellers haven't a clue. Maybe going to the bank it was drawn on would be better but I would call the entity issuing the check not the person who sent it to you...

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
thrid001
January 18, 2009 12:12 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I am wondering why he would return the guys money under any circumstances. Put in his contract that all money is non-refundable. If he has issues with not being able to live up to the flights or hotel rooms, he probably doesnt have enough money to run his business.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
jcargill
January 18, 2009 2:28 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

My vote for \"most ironic Consumerist story of 2009\".

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
mmcnary
January 18, 2009 5:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

i used to work with a woman in St. Louis whose husband had a band, which she managed. She was contacted by a person in England who wanted to book her husband's band for a gig. When she told me about this, I immediately suggested that she verify that the guy was for real and that there was actually a gig to play.

Sure enough, no such person, no such place. I'm sure, that had she continued, she would have been facing the exact same situation as the OP.

Reply
","
\"user-pic\"
RandomHookup
January 18, 2009 11:20 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

I like that you created a \"TRIBUTE BAND\" tag for all the daily consumer transactions we blog readers have with tribute bands.

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
econobiker
January 19, 2009 4:19 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

The two phrases that most discourage check scammers:


\"INTERNATIONAL MONEY ORDER\" or \"ANY CHECKS HELD 30 DAYS OR UNTIL CLEAR.\"


I always post this, even to my craigslist ads, which cuts down on the scammer emails...

Reply
","","
\"user-pic\"
tinyhands
January 19, 2009 4:56 PM
Moderate |Flag for review

What is wrong with taking the check to the bank that issued it and present it to be cashed?


(If the answer to that is that there is no local branch of the issuing bank, don't accept the check.)

Reply
");