This "so called" Nigerian stuff

[ManyBeers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your #$5damned right . If it means they can come and take your money after you have spent it. Doesn't seem to work that way for any other transactions just these socalled'Nigerian Scams". I have never had a check retroactively invalidated especially after spending the money. Have you? Come on why you attempt to justify this. It's wrong and you know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am absolutely baffled. You seem to be under the impression that your bank is... what? Stealing from you? They're not. This is simply the case of the scammer who contacted you about the go-kart taking advantage of the time it takes your bank to verify the check you deposited.

Your bank is required to give you the money in a certain amount of time. To do this, they give you the benefit of the doubt that you're not trying to deposit counterfeit checks. If they discover your check is counterfeit, they obviously then remove the funds from your account. I don't see what is wrong with this.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gee thanks for the lesson. So after they waited 7 days and then cleared the check wouldn't they no it wasn't counterfeit. In other words in the Internet age they couldn't figure that out in 7 days. He y believe whay you want. Come on who the fvck are you kidding.

[ManyBeers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fraud Pronunciation (frôd)
n.
1. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain.
2. A piece of trickery; a trick.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's fraud, the bank has nothing to gain.

Well how about 4,500.00 . Or you believe my money order would have went to Nigeria. You are welcome to your beliefs

[Los Feliz Slim]

Wait, you think the bank is keeping the money?

[Senor Cardgage]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait, you think the bank is keeping the money?

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless I'm mistaken, it seems like he thinks the bank set the whole thing up.

[rollingdirty]

[The Armchair]

[ 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.

[ManyBeers]

"Learn from your mistake". What mistake. The mistake of trusting when my bank tells me a check has CLEARED. In other words even though they are saying its good DON"T BELIEVE EM. Gee thanks.

You have got to be kidding.

[newfant]

[ QUOTE ]
So all sarcasm aside what if i fell for this scam and i spent the money it comes back countereit i owe the bank as you say. What if i dont have 4500 to pay back what then

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have other assets, the bank may be able to get at those. If you don't have any other assets, then you are what is known as "judgment proof," and the bank's only other option would be able to go after the original scamster, who probably is nowhere to be found.

[rollingdirty]

[CubicZirconia]

This is a riot. The OP must be joking. There is simply no other explanation. The posts he's making can't be serious.