[ManyBeers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I actually had a class on bank transactions in law school called "Commercial Paper," but I can't remember all the rules. It seems like if you had actually followed through with the transaction (sent the guy the go-kart and $4500), that you would have qualified as what is known as a "holder in due course" (HDC). As a HDC, you would only be subject to certain defenses after the bank paid you. A good lawyer might have been able to keep the bank from recovering the money back from you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think forgeries count as a "real" defense and therefore usable even against a holder in due course. I know material alternations and fraud in the factum are both real defenses, and forgeries should fall into at least one of those categories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok does anyone really know the answer? I mean i do not see how the bank could recover from you. They could say you are liable but i see no criminal aspect here because you were a victim as well?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how the bank could recover from me either. Come on. Like I said this bank employee said this with a straight face. I couldn't of if I were him.