Shouldn't We Fix The Check Clearing Loophole That So Many Scammers Abuse?
from the simple-questions dept
In March 2009, Brian Peters received an email from someone purporting to be a citizen of Malaysia. The e-mail informed Peters that certain third parties in the United States and Canada owed the purported Malaysian money, but that "they can not transfer the funds to any bank account outside America continent due to their new company policy [sic]." He asked Peters to "assist me in receiving the funds and forward to me." He offered to pay Peters 12 percent of the money. Peters agreed after apparently negotiating an increase of his fee to 15 percent.This certainly isn't the first such lawsuit. We wrote about a similar case two years ago, which involved some scammers tricking a law firm (who really should have known better). The reason this scam works over and over and over again is pretty simple: most people have no idea that when a check "clears," it's not actually been validated. This is apparently due to various laws that require banks to make money from checks available within a very short period of time. So the way banks deal with this is to just make the money available, and if they later find out that the check was fraudulent, they pull back the money. But, of course, most people don't know this and assume (somewhat reasonably) that if a check "clears" and the money is listed as "available," the bank has made sure the check is legitimate. This is a somewhat unintended consequence of laws to make paying by check work better, but it leads to a huge opening for these types of scams.
Peters deposited the $808,988.90 in checks received from the purported Malaysian at Chino Commercial Bank. After the bank notified Peters that the checks had cleared, Peters wire transferred $468,000 to Hong Kong. Shortly thereafter, the checks were dishonored after the bank detected that they had been altered. Since Peters was personally liable for any overdrafts on the account, which had only a few thousand dollars, the bank sought to attach property owned by Peters to collect on the overdraft. The trial court granted the bankís motion to attach against Peters in the amount of $458,782.60.
So if they need to do that, shouldn't it make sense for banks to at least put forth pretty clear warnings on money that has not really been validated yet? Or to at least proactively warn anyone seeking to withdraw money that hasn't really been validated that if the check fails to validate, they may be liable? It seems like there must be better ways to deal with this kind of scam than to just let the scammers keep taking advantage of this knowledge gap.