Is this a scam? Need help fast-ish [issue resolved]

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@iamthewalrus_3

I’m not sure we are (although we seem to be just repeating ourselves at this point, so I’ll drop it after this post). I’m saying the advice to deposit the check and see if it clears is bad regardless of the value of the check. You (I think) are saying that the advice is reasonable if the check is for a small amount.

No, I’m saying that the advice that was given specific to this situation re a $100 check was reasonable. There was no way that a $100 check for a mutt was going to be a scam. Once we found out that it was $1700, it was obviously a scam.

Sterling Archer’s post was specific to this situation, not general advice. That’s why I agreed with him. He was right.

[SmellMyWort]

@Labrador_Deceiver

No, I’m saying that the advice that was given specific to this situation re a $100 check was reasonable. There was no way that a $100 check for a mutt was going to be a scam. Once we found out that it was $1700, it was obviously a scam.

Sterling Archer’s post was specific to this situation, not general advice. That’s why I agreed with him. He was right.

No, he’s not. Given only the details in the OP, I wouldn’t cash the check. The other circumstances surrounding the transaction are too suspicious. Why can’t the person in WA just send the person who wants the dog the check directly? Why is the FedEx from some address in OH? What you’re suggesting is that the OP a) dink around worrying and waiting for a check to clear for days, and b) open himself up to being drawn into some kind of fraud investigation if the check is bad. Your argument is “but it’s only a $100 and no one would bother with that.” Well what if the fraudsters got a hold of a check book with 50 checks in it and they’re all written out for only $100?

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@SmellMyWort

No, he’s not. Given only the details in the OP, I wouldn’t cash the check. The other circumstances surrounding the transaction are too suspicious. Why can’t the person in WA just send the person who wants the dog the check directly? Why is the FedEx from some address in OH? What you’re suggesting is that the OP a) dink around worrying and waiting for a check to clear for days, and b) open himself up to being drawn into some kind of fraud investigation if the check is bad. Your argument is “but it’s only a $100 and no one would bother with that.” Well what if the fraudsters got a hold of a check book with 50 checks in it and they’re all written out for only $100?

Your scenario makes no sense. You think fraudsters are running around with a stolen checkbook so that they can collect 50 mutts that have no cash value? They aren’t dalmations.

When I first heard the story, I thought they were buying the dog as a gift for a relative in Alaska.

[usedtobe]

@Gary_T

On the sixth day you would be no safer than on the first day. That five-day hold gives a safety margin for most common transactions, but does not comprise an absolute guarantee. A well devised forgery may take weeks or months to finally be revealed as bogus, at which point the depositer of the check (i.e., you) is responsible for any monies paid out on it.

That is not only NOT what I said, it is also wrong.

My liability ends at 5 days. If the bank has not either reversed it or notified me of some exceptional hold, on the 6th day, the problem becomes the bank’s.
That is what the contract we signed specifies.

How would the forgery take weeks to unravel? Maybe if the check is drawn on a non-US bank (the bank hold may be longer than 5 days; never had the issue arise), and the country of issue is criminal backwater, it might take months. If I were a bank I wouldn’t accept such a document.
But we are talking about a check drawn on a OH bank to be deposited in AK.

Little-known factoid: if a bank does not “settle” with the Fed for 48 hours, the Comptroller of the Currency can pull that bank’s Charter.
As a matter of function, every check drawn on a US bank and deposited in a US bank will now settle within 24 hours. That includes transactions between two of the tiniest banks in the furthermost reaches.
For big city to big city, it is commonly done within 4 hours.
No more float games, folks.

This is why you don’t get your checks back with your statement anymore - a Court ruled that an image was good enough, so we now pay based on the image (and the electronic blip from the check sorter).

[usedtobe]

In the 1980’s I worked on the CACHA* system which was supposed to (per Uncle Ronnie) be Private Industry being more Efficient than the Federal Government.
Specifically, it was supposed to replace the Fed’s Settlement processing.
We got to know all about this stuff.

• • California Account Clearing House Association.

[Doctor_Jackson]

@LurkerInNJ

This is not true. As I stated upthread, I get calls every single month from my bank because they are responding to an inquiry from another bank, a check cashing service, etc. asking if a check that has been issued from the company I work for is legitimate. I don’t know if it’s because of our older accounting software, we have cheap looking checks or what, but we get calls. We also cut a ton of checks every month.

It goes like this:

My phone rings. It’s our bank. They say they want to verify a check. They give me a payee, check number and amount. I tell them yes, I wrote that check and it’s ok. Sometimes they tell me they have another bank calling them. Other times it’s a check cashing service.

If they wanted to see if we had enough money in the account to cover the check, they wouldn’t need to call me. They could look it up on their own. What they are doing is making sure I issued that check and it’s legit.

The bank can’t tell anyone else for sure that I issued the check. Only I can do that.

You must have a very small bank that deals with other very small banks. In the modern world, banks just don’t work that way anymore. In fact, unless the check is cashed at a teller window, no human ever sees the check for more than the split second it takes to run through the encoding machine in the Proof department. In more and more cases checks are being digitized via scanning (look up “Check 21 requirements”) and are never touched by a human.

It also brings up the issue that the person calling from the bank would have to know you well enough to verify they are talking to the authorized signer on the account. Personally knowing the customer used to be a tenet of banking, not so much anymore.

I’m not disputing your word, just saying that although banks used to work that way, it is vanishingly rare today.

[Musicat]

@Doctor_Jackson

It also brings up the issue that the person calling from the bank would have to know you well enough to verify they are talking to the authorized signer on the account. Personally knowing the customer used to be a tenet of banking, not so much anymore.

That’s not unusual in a small town. I venture to say that if any teller or bank manager from either of the two banks I deal with called me up – and on rare occasions, that has happened – I would recognize them and they would recognize me by voice. We know each other by sight if our paths cross in public all the time.

[Arcite]

How do the perpetrators of these types of scams get away with it? Doesn’t having money wired to you require some form of ID? So couldn’t they easily be caught?

[iamthewalrus_3]

@Arcite

How do the perpetrators of these types of scams get away with it? Doesn’t having money wired to you require some form of ID? So couldn’t they easily be caught?

One of the ways they do it is to get a patsy to accept the wire for a percentage and hand over cash. The patsy gets caught and punished, but the thieves are long gone.