This "so called" Nigerian stuff

[newfant]

[ 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 ]

Here's what my bar review outline says:

"The general rule is that payment of a negotiable instrument to an HDC or one who in good faith changed her position in reliance on payment is final -- i.e. the payor cannot recover payment back from the party paid. There are 2 exceptions to the general rule: The payor can recover from the party paid if (i) that party neither took for value nor in good faith, nor detrimentally relied on the payment or (ii) the party paid breached a transfer warranty or a presentment warranty. [UCC 3-418]"

Transfer warranties are
(1) good title
(2) no alterations
(3) all signatures genuine/authorized
(4) no defenses
(5) no knowledge of insovency of proceedings

I can't find it, but I think the presentment warranty is just a warranty of no forged indorsements.

So, if the check wasn't altered or forged (was written on a legitimate bank account in Nigeria with no funds in it), then it looks like the OP would qualify as an HDC who has been finally paid and hasn't breached any warranties.

In any event, the banks should be warning customers about checks or money orders from foreign countries because they are in the best position to stop this stuff.

[rollingdirty]

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
So what was that in English LOL?

[/ QUOTE ]

In English, it looks like if the OP received a check from the Nigerian scammer written on the Nigerian scammer's bank account (that had no money in it), then the OP's bank wouldn't be able to get the money back after they paid the OP if the OP sent the $4500 and the go-kart to the scammer. However, if the OP received an "altered instrument" (a money order that was originally made out for $60 but that had been changed to $6000), then the OP would have breached a "transfer warranty" and would have to pay the bank back the money. At least that's my interpretation.

In any event, just be very careful when dealing with checks or money orders (especially those written on foreign banks). The bank you cash the check or money order at may be able to come after you long after you are given access to the money from the cashed check or money order.

[New001]

I think he's a gimmick. I can't think of any other explanation.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to get in the middle of a highly entertaining argument, but the OP did state:

[ QUOTE ]
after a few days I get an e-mail from some guy in Nigeria

[/ QUOTE ]

unless I am misreading something [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...that's hilarious. I thought he'd stated that there was a guy from Nigeria involved, but then he was adamently arguing otherwise so I assumed I was mistakenly. Sigh, I think "ManyBeers" comes by his handle honestly. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
Lots of people fall for this scam. The fact that you didn't know that the bank can still recover the funds after the cheque has cleared does not make you stupid. I would suspect that most people don't know this.

You're calling outright fraud A"SCAM". This is nothing but theft. What are you talking about? Your own bank can guarantee to you a checks validity , you act on that assurance, and then they can later declare check invalid AND YOUR RESPONSIBLE. Is that what your saying?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm not defending the banks , I'm just telling you how things work. The banks' asses are covered if the cheque turns out to be fraudulent.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
"1) You get a cheque for $6000. You deposit it in the bank.
2) The cheque "clears" in seven days. All that means is that they've released the funds to you. It doesn't mean that the cheque is not counterfeit. Legally, the bank is required to release funds to you within X days (It's either 7 or 14, I can't remember which). However, if the cheque turns out to be counterfeit, the bank is not on the hook for the money. You are.
3) You send a cheque for $4500 to your Nigerian friend.
4) A little while later the cheque is discovered to be counterfeit. The bank recovers the funds from your account...but oops, you've already sent the $4500 to Nigeria"

This is Not a scam but is outright FRAUD commited by your own bank on it's customers. How the fvck do you call this a scam. JESUS give me a break.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it just me or are "Fraud" and "Scam" basically synonyms?

[Los Feliz Slim]

Question: Why are you bringing this up now, well over a year later? You're obviously still angry about it, did something happen recently to bring it all back?

[New001]

No! This is clearly fraud and theft! The Nigerians are working for the banks to take your money.

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
No! This is clearly fraud and theft! The Nigerians are working for the banks to take your money.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the only explanation I can come up with. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]