But finally he realises his mistake: he goes to another bank to start an account there with the cheque from Chase, and by this time the cheque is big enough to bankrupt Chase. (They’d gotten so used to him not being able to cash the cheque that their thinking became sloppy.)
In the non-perfect world, a guy without a bank account wanders in off the street and attempts to cash his ‘ten trillion dollar’ cheque in your average main street bank, and runs into some … concerns.
Eventually he sends me an e-mail offering me 30% of the money if I cash the check for him. All I have to do is send him my details so he can deposit it in my account.
As a matter of fact, I think he already has. Twelve times. Although I didn’t realize he had been married to the oil minister.
I’m no expert either, but UCC § 3-302(a)(1) seems to say that the bank doesn’t become a holder in due course if the check is irregular enough to “call into question its authenticity.”
I welcome correction on the point, and the truth is that I never quite mastered the UCC at any point. But it sure seems to read as though the bank CAN hold off on paying under those circumstances.
There was nothing “irregular” about the cheque itself. The provision reads as follows:
In short, the inquiry concerns the “instrument” itself. There was absolutely nothing in the facts to suggest that there was any irregularity concerning the cheque itself (which was, in point of fact, issued by the bank) that called it into question - what was questionable was (arguably) the credit history of the person presenting the cheque, and his deportment.
Actually, all accounts (even those provided by Mr. Njoku and his counsel) agree that the teller was not satisfied with appearance of the cheque itself.
The impression that I’ve had from this is that the teller followed an existing fraud management policy which somehow returned a false positive in this case. (eg; there was something unexpected about the cheque stock, or there was some glitch when the cheque was printed.)
The software we use to drive our cheque printer sometimes gets buggered up on individual workstations, with the result that the routing numbers printed on the bottom appear are not presented with a proper MICR font, and instead get printed with the SYSTEM font.
BTW, some people seem to be assuming that his past experience with the bank (i.e. account closed due to multiple overdrafts, leaving a $600 balance owed). But if he just walked into the Chase Bank branch and presented the cashier’s check and his ID, would they have known that this was the same person whose account was closed due to overdrafts?
If I were him, I’d open an account at a different (not Chase) bank.
And that is how it should have been handled, racism or not, rather than waiting for the guy to retain a lawyer before deciding this needs “investigating”.
I find it evidence of racism that some people (almost invariably white) vehemently deny any such thing was involved in each and every instance in which someone proposes it may have been a factor. There’s a component to racism that flies under your radar, and that’s how you assume the treatment you get by others is the same sort of treatment everybody else gets.
My nephew lives in the Pacific Northwest. When he watches the evening news from Portland, OR, if anyone gets shot by police it is almost invariably a person of color, despite the fact that only 26% of the population isn’t Caucasian. The man was treated badly by his (former) bank for what turns out to be no rational reason. Given the circumstances, it’s probable that race was a factor, even if it turns out not to be the deciding one.
There is no evidence to suggest that the teller’s subjective impression was actually correct. Given that the cheque was not fake, and that there is no subsequent mention of any concern or issue with the cheque itself, it seems rather more probable that the teller was simply wrong in her off-the-cuff impression.
A subjective impression (which turns out to be wrong) isn’t enough to trigger the test in UCC § 3-302(a)(1); otherwise, that test would be meaningless, and any cheque could be rejected because “I don’t think it looks right”. What is required is evidence of forgery, alteration or irregularity.
Whatever was wrong with the cheque, it must have convinced the police mustn’t it? Presumably they’re going to need a little more than the cashier saying “it’s a bum cheque” to arrest and hold someone overnight?
I would be willing to bet that the bank didn’t even know HIS car had been towed, perhaps even to the extent that the management didn’t even know that a car had been towed at all. Did he ever tell them and ask them to make good in those two weeks?
I’m not white, and I don’t find any evidence of racism in this story.
Nor is this evidence of racism. What percentages of people, Caucasian and otherwise, are involved in violent crime? And what are the actual shooting statistic in the Pacific Northwest (as opposed to the selection bias laden scenario of “watching the evening news” you describe)?
No, it’s not ‘probable.’ It’s certainly possible, but to make it ‘probable’ someone has to adduce a specific set of facts. No one has yet.
So far as I can tell, the bank has not made any statement about what specifics the teller was relying upon. I don’t agree with the approach that because the bank has not said anything, we should conclude that nothing was there. That’s argumentum ad ignoratium – because we don’t know something, we assume it to be true.
In the absence of that information, we can’t draw any conclusions.
Not at all. It says in the article that “the Customer Banker said the check looked fake”. No further information concerning the alleged issue with the cheque is forthcomming; the only other data point we know is that the Bank has admitted it made an error, has pledged to change its practices, and has settled with the fellow to his full satisfaction.
Now read the “she said it looked fake” in context:
Note that the “she said it looked fake” comes after she was already suspicious about the guy for quite different reasons.
The natural conclusion from what we do know (namely, the teller was already suspicious of the guy because of the nature of the transaction, the overdrafts, the alleged house sale) and the fact that there was, as we know, nothing “fake” about the cheque at all, and the fact that there is nowhere any further mention of any problem on the face of the cheque, and that the bank has admitted its error and settled, is that the teller was simply incorrect.
It is you guys who are attempting to raise issues which are not in evidence - that the transaction may not have ended up with the bank as holder in due course because of some fault or irregularity on the face of the cheque. There is exactly nothing to indicate that this is true, other than an off-the-cuff remark by an already suspicious clerk (never substantiated in any way subsequently) that the cheque “looks fake”.
It is possible that there was a defect in the cheque itself, but a lot of things are possible. I’d say that by the relevant test (balance of probabilities) …
When I was a kid, we would’ve called you white. At any rate, I submit that your experience of American society is different from a Nigerian immigrant’s.
This story caught my attention enough that I periodically Google-stalk Ikenna Njoku to see if there are any new developments. None yet, exactly - but I was interested to learn that he was arrested for grand theft auto* a couple weeks ago.
*Yeah, I know – I just like to say “grand theft auto.”
