|
 |
Home >> Scams/Fraud
Is Bank Responsbile for Giving Misleading Info?
I got a fraudulent check, unknowingly, and waited for it to be cleared. The bank told me that the check had cleared, though it hadn't. Is the bank responsible for misleading information? I would never cash the check without it being cleared.
|
|
 In a perfect world, everyone would use perfectly selected terms on which everyone else can agree, including banks, bank tellers and their customers. It's likely that the bank's representative was trying to say that the bank's hold on your access to the deposited funds had ended, and the funds were available. In some cases, bank representatives have been known to state that message in terms that suggest they know that the check or checks in question had been paid by the banks on which they were drawn. In fact, that is almost never the case, because they would need to contact the paying bank for that information, something that your bank would very rarely do.
In the ideal world, the bank's statement would be something like this. "The hold on your deposit of $50,000 on June 2 has expired, Ms. Customer, and you are free to withdraw the funds. I am not aware of any notice from the paying banks that any of the checks have been returned, but I cannot say for certain that we won't receive such a notice later. If we do receive such a notice, you will be liable to us for the amount of any check you deposited that is dishonored, even if you have already withdrawn all or part of the funds. If a paying bank makes a timely return or sends us a timely notice of its return of a check and the check is delayed on its return route to us, your liability for the check will not be affected by such a delay." Of course, no one has time for such a recitation, but the next time your bank says "You can withdraw those funds you deposited by check," you should keep the long version in mind.
Published on BankingQuestions.com 6/29/09
|
| |
|
Accounts
Article
Q&A
Podcast
Video
Blog
Discussions
PDF
Powerpoint
