[HN Gopher] My experience with check fraud
___________________________________________________________________
My experience with check fraud
Author : Amorymeltzer
Score : 52 points
Date : 2023-01-02 13:32 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (obliviousinvestor.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (obliviousinvestor.com)
| a9ex wrote:
| I never used a check my entire life, it's just not a thing in
| Europe (:
|
| In the pre-internet-banking times, you would just fill out one of
| these forms [0] to send money from your account directly to
| someone else.
|
| [0]
| https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahlschein#/media/Datei%3AZa...
| nibbleshifter wrote:
| I've used cheques a few times in Europe. They aren't common
| (especially since SEPA), but they do still exist.
| sneak wrote:
| Checks are basically the same thing, they're just given to the
| payee to give to their bank (to give to your bank) instead.
|
| The high penalties (historically) for writing bad checks meant
| that if you had a signed check in hand, you had at least a
| small level of confidence that you had actually been paid the
| money, much like cash in hand (it could of course be
| counterfeit, but you can assume to some extent that it is not).
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| > I never used a check my entire life, it's just not a thing in
| Europe (:
|
| Which parts of Europe? I use them all the time in France. A
| bunch of taxes companies have to pay can't be paid by credit
| card. It's either check or bank transfer.
| silvestrov wrote:
| In Denmark checks are not supported payment anymore, not even
| at banks: https://danskebank.dk/privat/find-
| hjaelp/betalinger-og-overf...
|
| Everything is debit card, bank transfer or MobilePay.
| Creditcards are only really used for travel and payment of US
| companies.
| bigbacaloa wrote:
| In Spain I've never seen a check except ones sent to me from
| the US and bank checks to pay mortgages.
| harperlee wrote:
| In Spain it's quite rare although they're still used for
| things like mortgages and inheritances.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| I've seen checks being used in France in the past but that
| was almost a decade ago and I haven't been there since. Are
| they still prevalent, and if so, why? Is the bank transfer UX
| not good?
| hnbad wrote:
| In Germany I haven't seen one since the 1990s. I was
| horrified to learn that they're still in use but apparently
| there have been only 8.3 million transactions with checks in
| Germany in 2019 compared to some 11000 million direct debit,
| 6600 million bank transfers and 6300 debit card transactions.
|
| Apparently there was a Eurocheque system that enabled
| guarantees for international cheque payments in the EU but
| ended in 2001. This is generally cited as one of the main
| reasons cheques rapidly became irrelevant given that EC debit
| cards were still available and online banking became a thing.
| jccalhoun wrote:
| I'm in the USA and I write maybe three checks a year. When I
| was renting I would pay with check but I don't rent any more.
| Now I write a check to pay the person who is doing work on the
| house. I can't remember the last time I sent one through the
| mail or wrote one at a store.
| heisenbit wrote:
| Which reminds me, being in Germany of one night I dropped such
| an order into the bank mailbox to pay my taxes as this exceeded
| the online limits. Where it then likely was retrieved and the
| information on it was used to wire 5000EUR to the U.K. where
| probably a money mule was forwarding it. Bank eventually
| returned it.
| peter303 wrote:
| The only physical check I have written in the past four years was
| to the US Passport Office. They refuse any electronic payment
| method.
|
| The next most recent paper check was a wedding gift. But modern
| wedding registries accept digital payments now.
| beej71 wrote:
| Property taxes are the only place I still use them. I can pay
| with a credit card, but they charge a percentage "convenience
| fee". The county does have a drop box for paying, though.
| ghaff wrote:
| What happens a lot of the time is that towns farm out their
| epayments to a private company for "free" that, reasonably
| enough, needs to recoup their expenses and make a profit. I
| just use my bank's bill pay that will cut a check and mail it
| for free if they can't do an electronic transfer.
| wdb wrote:
| Can still remember when I received a check in the early 2000s
| from an American company. I just didn't know what to do with it.
| Luckily, the local bank branch knew what to do. Even 15-20 years
| ago checks were pretty uncommon in my part of Europe
| crazygringo wrote:
| This is exactly why the USPS started replacing the blue box
| opening slots with a narrower version in New York City and
| surrounding areas starting back in 2019 [1], to prevent "mail
| fishing" -- retrieving envelopes from people paying bills,
| specifically to wash found checks in order commit fraud.
|
| Which, if you used to use the blue boxes for mailing thin
| packages, is a huge annoyance because you can't anymore. :(
|
| Seriously, these days _nobody_ should be writing personal checks
| using a pen. If you do need a check for a transaction, use a
| cashier 's check (different from a personal check, it's drawn on
| the bank) for occasional large amounts (like apartment deposit or
| buying a used car), or most banks allow you to send a paper check
| via online banking for routine needs -- you fill out the details
| online and it mails a paper check to the recipient that, AFAIK,
| can't be washed for check fraud. (All of this is USA specific, to
| be clear.)
|
| [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/nyregion/mailbox-theft-
| fi...
| rippercushions wrote:
| > Seriously, these days nobody should be writing personal
| checks
|
| FTFY. The US is the only country in the world that I know of
| where writing personal checks is still commonplace. In Europe
| they're thoroughly obsolete, and in Asia, where they were
| mostly uncommon in the first place, even the few once check-
| happy countries like Singapore have pretty much migrated off.
| tnjm wrote:
| French resident here. Received a bill from this week from a
| medical lab for some tests; the only payment options are
| either visit the lab in person (an hour's drive away) or mail
| a personal check. This is not uncommon here, and even most
| large supermarket chains still accept checks.
| Thlom wrote:
| Wow. I'm a year away from 40 and have handled exactly one
| check my entire life. A gift from my uncle for my
| confirmation. I have never seen them used in shops and I
| have never heard of paying bills with checks. These days I
| get most bills straight into my online bank and just have
| to confirm the payment. It's been more or less like this my
| entire adult life.
|
| Norway BTW. Perhaps our small population makes it easier to
| just end old legacy shit?
| kerneis wrote:
| They're still used in France even if mostly by old people.
| cuteboy19 wrote:
| The last time I ever used a check was in 2007, when my
| grandfather handed me a birthday present. It's such an ancient
| concept in the non US world that it's now reserved only for
| ceremony
| maxerickson wrote:
| That's how they are used in the US too, if you look at things a
| bit askew.
|
| Other payment methods work fine and are widespread, so the vast
| majority of uses of checks are by people who have confused
| ideas about how they work (they prefer the ceremony of writing
| a check compared to the effort of understanding), or in
| particular circumstances where they were used traditionally and
| maybe satisfy some antiquated legal mechanism (almost a literal
| ceremonial money transfer).
| bbbbb5 wrote:
| My Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore banks have issued me cheque
| books. Clearly some people use them outside of the US, although
| I'm not quite sure for what.
| cuteboy19 wrote:
| Oh yes, chequebooks are still issued, but no one uses them.
| Chequebooks used to be these thick 50-100 page ones which
| used to cost a lot too. Nowadays you would be lucky to get a
| 15 page leaflet
| hrns wrote:
| Living in central Europe, when Air Canada gave me check
| (compensation for the rescheduled flight) I went through a lot
| of effort to cash it. Once in a lifetime experience!
| chollida1 wrote:
| Interesting. What constitutes "a lot of effort to cash it"?
|
| I'm Canadian and I rarely use them but our banking app just
| lets you take a picture of both sides and that's it.
|
| Also you can just put them into an ATM as a deposit and your
| done.
|
| Also you can go into the bank and hand it to the teller and
| your done.
|
| I'd be interested in why you had to go through alot of effort
| to cash your check.
| krisoft wrote:
| > I'd be interested in why you had to go through alot of
| effort to cash your check.
|
| I'm not the commenter you are asking from I also used to
| live in central europe. There as far as I can tell the
| concept of a "check" simply doesn't exist. So much so that
| I don't even know what is the equivalent word in the local
| language. If I would get one I would need to go to my bank
| in person and ask them if they can do anything with. I
| would already count that as a hassle, but I just looked it
| up online and it seems my bank doesn't handle checks. There
| are rummours online that some other banks do cash checks,
| but it seems some of those have changed their policy since
| and they are no longer accepting checks either.
|
| All in all it works as well as being paid with a rai stone
| or a cowry sea shell, while lacking the aesthetic benefits
| of those.
| hrns wrote:
| Only one bank in Poland handles them, I had to open a
| separate account just to cash it. As far as I remember the
| cashing in process took some time (about a week maybe?) and
| the fees were about 25% of the check value (operations +
| currency exchange).
|
| There's no option in doing it from the app/ATM afaik.
| chollida1 wrote:
| I don't want to dox you but I have to ask, what bank in
| Poland do you use that wouldn't take a check?
|
| I've got a friend there and he says he has no problem
| cashing checks at his bank and has never heard of a bank
| not taking a check and there were no fees for cashing
| checks.
|
| The exchange rate sucks but that has nothing todo with a
| check
|
| _EDIT_ he did say it can take a week for the money to
| clear, so that is a big downside.
| hrns wrote:
| Well, my bank did not handle them - the cashier told me
| that there is only one bank that handles them (Pekao SA)
| so I didn't waste time searching for others.
|
| Maybe your friend has a company/businesses account? The
| services may be different than for a personal one.
| chollida1 wrote:
| Good to know.
|
| I appreciate you teaching me something today!!
| wiredfool wrote:
| For me, in Ireland, cashing a US check through my bank
| teller costs 150ish eur (that's one hundred and fifty, not
| a buck fifty) and takes 6 weeks. They basically have to
| hand process it and send it to their US correspondent bank.
|
| At one point, I got tax refund and stimulus checks from the
| Treasury, and it turned out to just be easier to endorse
| them to my remaining US account and mail them to the branch
| that has my account.
|
| In theory I could use the bank's remote deposit capture
| service, but: 1) The checks were too big, there's a ~$2500
| limit on RDC, and 2) The bank has complained in the past
| that I'm not supposed to use it when I'm overseas. There's
| some regulation that they're worried about.
|
| I've seen a couple of checks in Ireland that haven't been
| from the US, mainly tax refunds IIRC, but they're super
| rare and no ATMs will take them. They'll take Euros for
| deposits, but not checks. So it's a trip into see the Cash
| desk at the bank.
| ghaff wrote:
| Foreign currency can be less straightforward.
|
| Admittedly a number of years back, a Canadian company paid
| me for a photo of mine they found online that they wanted
| for an article.
|
| Ended up having to go to a human bank teller to deposit it.
| bigbacaloa wrote:
| Unbelievable that anyone still uses handwritten checks.
| Unbelievable that anyone has done so in the current century.
| There exist diverse alternatives both more secure and easier to
| use and they have existed for many, many years.
| jjav wrote:
| > Unbelievable that anyone still uses handwritten checks.
| Unbelievable that anyone has done so in the current century.
| There exist diverse alternatives both more secure and easier to
| use and they have existed for many, many years.
|
| Can you tell us what these supposedly more secure alternatives
| are? At least in the US, I don't believe there is anything
| better at the end of the day.
|
| Credit cards can be more convenient, but not all places accept
| them and of the ones who do sometimes they charge an inordinate
| fee.
|
| All the private companies (paypal, venmo, etc) are out because
| it is well known they'll freeze your account without reason and
| without recourse. So if you need a secure mechanism, stay away
| from those.
|
| That leaves checks as the most universal, overhead-free and
| secure mechanism, other than plain cash but that's inconvenient
| for large amounts.
| [deleted]
| sethd wrote:
| For larger purchases there's often a fee to pay by credit card.
| If the fee is equal to or lower than my cash back rate, I'll
| pay by card, but sometimes checks are the only feasible option.
|
| Recent example: Tree trimming company. They accepted check (no
| fee) or card with 3% fee. The highest cash back card I have for
| generic purchase is 2%, so I paid by check instead.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Now I'm more shocked to learn that having work done by a
| professional doesn't result in an invoice but instead
| requires immediate payment?
|
| Card fees in Europe I think can't be shifted to the customer
| but that obviously means they are just part of the price. But
| - the price is the same regardless of payment method, so
| there is no money saved by avoiding cards. That's why I
| consider everything to be 0-fee (invoice, card, money
| transfer).
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| I've never had one of my checks washed, but in second or third
| grade, a classmate tried "washing" one of my worksheets.
|
| Thankfully the teacher called me to her desk to why didn't I turn
| in my worksheet (I had), and thankfully my worksheet was on top
| of the stack which allowed me to see it and point out that I
| turned it in, and someone else erased my name (still somewhat
| visible) and wrote theirs.
|
| It seems that many people aren't observant, don't care, and/or
| don't want the confrontation.
| adql wrote:
| The credit/debit card must be signed by owner.
|
| In my history of using debit cards for most, and now for near
| everything not a single time anyone bothered to check. Even
| back when the magnetic stripe was used.
|
| I also was using out of date identity document for good 6
| months and datacenter staff also haven't bothered to check
| that.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'll add that my signature at this point is a totally
| undecipherable inconsistent scrawl that is even more so in a
| thin box on the back of a card. I assume I'm not that
| unusual, especially given that I actually did learn Palmer
| script once upon a time. I sort of have to laugh whenever I
| still sometimes need to sign a credit card receipt.
| maratc wrote:
| For all those who tune in to the "checks are so 19th century"
| tune: please note this is a good story about check fraud, as the
| OP eventually got his money back.
|
| With Paypal/Venmo/app-du-jour, in the event of an account
| takeover, the result might be different.
|
| Check fraud is an old problem -- as old as the checks themselves
| -- and it's a problem well understood by the banks, the police,
| investigators, and judges. On the other hand, good luck
| explaining the police such obscure technical details as "they
| installed a proxy on my IP" or "they sim-swapped me to intercept
| the one-time password".
|
| On another note, checks charge 0% commission: to pay someone $5,
| you need $5.
| adriancr wrote:
| > "they installed a proxy on my IP"
|
| This doesn't make sense.
|
| > "they sim-swapped me to intercept the one-time password".
|
| You would notice by losing phone connectivity... so you would
| know you're compromised before you try to make a transaction.
|
| Being 2FA, the attacker still needs to know the account
| user/password...
|
| Then there's hardware 2fa for a lot of banks that don't do
| sms... good luck with that.
|
| Or they use bank app in phone as 2fa. Which should run securely
| in enclaves.
|
| Even if they have all of the above, you just file a police
| report for fraud and bank will claw back funds and reinstate
| you, same as for checks.
| maratc wrote:
| > you just file a police report for fraud and bank will claw
| back funds and reinstate you
|
| If the fraudster has your password and OTP, and if the
| money's gone, bank will do nothing -- as opposed to the check
| fraud. That's why TLA is a good check fraud story.
| adriancr wrote:
| How do you prove check fraud for washed check?, it has your
| signature, check is valid... funds get transferred same as
| for hacked account.
| maratc wrote:
| > How do you prove check fraud for washed check?
|
| By the law, the bank needs to do the proof, or return
| your money. Not so with account takeovers. Which is my
| whole point.
| yakak wrote:
| I think people who tell you it is 19th century live in
| countries that use IBAN/SWIFT to push money instead of checks
| to tell people an account is available to drain.
| rippercushions wrote:
| Account takeovers are a different beast that are closer to
| someone breaking and entering your house, then raiding your
| fridge and stealing your TV. The literal man in the middle
| attack described in the article here, where a legitimate
| transaction is hacked into an illegitimate one, is orders of
| magnitude more difficult to execute for type of any electronic
| payment.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| I would argue it's a lot harder to physically intercept a
| check and chemically wash it than, for example, a credit card
| number punched online. There are numerous trivial phishing
| methods to get someone to punch in or reveal their CC details
| online. And then again if companies don't store the data
| properly, they are subject to trivial insider attacks and
| hacks.
| adriancr wrote:
| They would then need to bypass 3d secure aproval process OR
| use a website without in which case you get your money back
| just by calling. (note: instant notification for
| transactions on phone means you catch it fast)
|
| You could use a bank with disposable one-time credit card
| numbers.
|
| You could disable online payments and only enable then when
| you do transactions.
|
| You could set up limits, say 100$ a month, after which
| transactions get denied unless you alter it. So you wont be
| incovenienced too much if you do need a card for netflix
| and other recurring payments.
|
| There are so many ways electronic payments are more secure
| in new banks that care about this.
| krisoft wrote:
| > With Paypal/Venmo/app-du-jour, in the event of an account
| takeover, the result might be different.
|
| You are saying it as if checks vs apps are the only two option.
|
| > On the other hand, good luck explaining the police such
| obscure technical details as "they installed a proxy on my IP"
| or "they sim-swapped me to intercept the one-time password".
|
| Why would I explain any such thing? It is not my job to know
| how the bank got hacked.
| maratc wrote:
| > It is not my job to know how the bank got hacked.
|
| And without any explanations, it's not your bank's job to
| return your money.
| krisoft wrote:
| The explanation is that you see a transaction you are not
| recognising. You point at it and say "i didn't authorise
| that one" and let them investigate.
|
| They have the logs, you don't. This is probably the worst
| day of your life or close to it, while it is just a normal
| regular occurence for your bank. They have policies to
| handle it from their side. They will ask a lot of question,
| perhaps ask you to make a police report.
|
| I ask you this, if you have chest pain and shortness of
| breath, would you:
|
| a; jurry-rig an oscilloscope to check your ECG, start
| reading wikipedia all about cardiology, and then find a
| nurse to tell them about how concerned you are about your
| QT interval
|
| Or
|
| b; go to a hospital and tell them that you have chest pain
| and shortness of breath?
| maratc wrote:
| You have a lot of good faith in what your bank would or
| would not do, and they have a conflict of interest: if
| they side with you, they would need to make you whole --
| out of their own pocket. The hospital has the opposite
| conflict of interest: they are actually interested in
| helping you -- and charging you (or your insurance, or
| NHS, or somebody).
|
| If you get your case against the bank in front of a
| judge, you need to prove your claim of an account
| takeover. The bank does not need to prove anything. If
| you haven't convinced the judge, no money for you.
| adriancr wrote:
| > they would need to make you whole -- out of their own
| pocket.
|
| Banks have the means to ask for a freeze/for the money
| back from the other party's bank. Same as credit card
| companies can do charge backs.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| >It is not my job to know how the bank got hacked.
|
| But it may be in your best interest to show that you are not
| the hacker.
| fsh wrote:
| This is a very American perspective. The rest of the world has
| used bank transfers for decades, and the risk is very well
| understood. Online banking usually requires 2FA via a phone
| app, or using the bank card with a separate reader. 2FA via SMS
| has been mostly phased out due to the risk of SIM-swapping.
|
| Bank transfers are also usually commission free, and are
| instant in many countries.
| maratc wrote:
| For a perspective, I'm not American, and I don't feel
| comfortable giving my bank details to random people.
|
| I can also get checks with dates in the future, and know that
| I will collect the money (this way or another). If someone
| promises you a future money transfer, you can't be sure that
| they will actually deliver the way you can when you have
| their check in hand.
| mbesto wrote:
| > I don't feel comfortable giving my bank details to random
| people.
|
| What specifically makes you feel uncomfortable? If the
| person is truly "random" then guessing your account number
| is just as "random", no?
| maratc wrote:
| > What specifically makes you feel uncomfortable?
|
| The thought that they can call my bank, impersonate me,
| and drain my account with no recourse for me. That should
| be much harder if they don't know my bank details to
| begin with.
| kevincox wrote:
| Checks have your bank details on them. It's the funny
| numbers at the bottom.
|
| If they didn't how would the receiving bank be able to get
| the money from your account?
| maratc wrote:
| When I want someone (who needs to pay me) to give me the
| check, my bank account details are not supplied to them.
| I just deposit their check. The check has _their_ bank
| details printed on it, not mine.
|
| When I want someone (who needs to pay me) to transfer
| money into my account, I need to provide them with my
| account number.
|
| In the first case, my bank details are kept private, but
| in the second case, not so much.
| shortcake27 wrote:
| In Australia you can make instant bank transfers using
| phone numbers, email addresses, ABNs etc. Although I've
| never been too bothered about giving out my bank account
| details - they're designed to be public.
| mindslight wrote:
| Okay, but what happens if your device(s) _have_ been
| compromised, and a payment is misdirected?
|
| From the perspective of suffering large bureaucracies,
| procedures with obvious possibilities of failure have an
| advantage in that the bureaucracy will have to entertain the
| idea that something exceptional happened, rather than simply
| running your edge case under their steam roller.
|
| I admit this might be a very USian view, as we have extremely
| unaccountable bureaucracies here.
| adriancr wrote:
| > Okay, but what happens if your device(s) have been
| compromised, and a payment is misdirected?
|
| File a police report, same as in article with washed
| /rewritten check...
|
| Then figure out how you got compromised so it doesnt happen
| again.
| maratc wrote:
| The only difference from the check fraud is this: since
| the fraudsters -- having the password and OTP -- are
| _indistinguishable from you_ , the bank may not return
| your money (out of his pocket). And since the money was
| already cashed out, there's nowhere to get it back from.
| Bottom line, you will eat the damage.
| adriancr wrote:
| How is this different from washed check?
|
| That is also 'indistinguishable from you', check is valid
| and has your signature.
|
| In both cases you have to hope that funds can be clawed
| back.
|
| The author does point that it took 3 months to get funds
| back and it would have been difficult if he could not
| prove checks as fraud.
|
| I would also rate difficulty of grabbing otp and password
| as more difficult then intercepting an envelope. (outside
| cases where people willfully give them away to 'tech
| support'... in which case they might as well write a
| blank check)
|
| Police already being aware of 30+ cases in author's
| context does say its widespread issue even for savvy
| persons. I could fall victim by simply mailing a check,
| whereas I can't imagine having my bank account hacked.
| maratc wrote:
| > How is this different from washed check?
|
| I've pointed out the difference: banks, police, and
| courts understand check fraud. They don't understand
| account takeovers, as these are much more complicated.
| They are much more likely to side with you on a case they
| understand, and reinstate you, and you need them to side
| with you if you want your money back.
|
| There even may be a law that in the case of check fraud,
| the customer should be made whole. I seriously doubt
| there is such a law in the cases of email takeover.
|
| > The author does point that it took 3 months to get
| funds back
|
| As opposed to the cases where it took people much longer
| and they did NOT get their funds back?
| adriancr wrote:
| > banks, police, and courts understand check fraud.
|
| How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on
| a valid check?
|
| You fail to realise same issue is in both cases.
|
| Same procedures work in both cases.
|
| If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you
| is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for
| epayments.
|
| They do that by checking the other party of the
| transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you
| get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check
| and payment.
| maratc wrote:
| > How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging
| on a valid check?
|
| "Here is the picture of the check that I put in the mail"
|
| > they should be willing to do the same for epayments.
|
| Leaving "should" aside, sadly this is not how it works in
| practice.
| mindslight wrote:
| > _If police are willing to entertain a check signed by
| you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same
| for epayments._
|
| The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't
| great at simultaneously entertaining multiple
| possibilities. Rather they rely on crude pattern
| matching, with regulations to protect your rights. If a
| bank is able to close your case as a matter of "user
| error" and move on, it is likely to do so.
|
| You have blown up this thread asserting the complete
| equivalence of two things that are apparently very
| similar in the society you are used to, but not in
| others. In the US, there have been plenty of cases of
| people having to fight their bank because of forged
| transactions on some new "100% secure" digital scheme -
| the all too common trope of humans believing computers as
| authoritative sources rather than critically examining
| their workings. So, please enjoy your society where you
| can rely on the system to behave reasonably in the face
| of newer technology, and please stop trying to gaslight
| those of us who can not.
| adriancr wrote:
| > The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't
| great at simultaneously entertaining multiple
| possibilities.
|
| Are you basing this on something other then assumptions?
|
| If you go to the police and say you are a victim of fraud
| they will help, how it happened is secondary.
|
| Why so little faith in authorities?
|
| > You have blown up this thread asserting the complete
| equivalence of two things
|
| What I did say is police should help you if you are a
| victim, how it happened is secondary. That is on top of
| saying checks are a lot more insecure and its a lot more
| difficult if not impossible to fall victim with
| alternatives.
|
| > stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not
|
| You can enjoy the alternatives, just search for them.
| (one of the banks I'm using is revolut which is in the
| usa too and easy to set up on your phone...)
|
| As for gaslighting... That's just incredulity towards
| dismissiveness... If it seems like bad faith, it's not,
| surprised it would be interpreted as such so I'll stop.
| maratc wrote:
| > Why so little faith in authorities?
|
| I have dealt with the authorities on the account of
| fraud. My little faith in them comes from experience.
| mindslight wrote:
| I really hate making narratives about race and class and
| privilege, rather than just sticking to the general
| concept of rights we should uniformly enjoy, but that is
| an example of one of the major reasons police cannot be
| universally counted on to help.
|
| You yourself admit this when you throw out the following,
| as if it is a correct and just answer:
|
| > _They do that by checking the other party of the
| transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you
| get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check
| and payment._
|
| So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened
| by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And
| that's a sensible outcome?
|
| > more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with
| alternatives
|
| You continue to say this as if it's an unquestionable
| benefit, when the point of this entire thread is there is
| a _downside_ to people generally thinking things like
| this.
|
| > _and easy to set up on your phone_
|
| A phone? One of the least secure types of devices, that's
| easily lost or stolen due to carrying it everywhere?
| That's really your suggestion?
|
| Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street,
| get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent
| sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your
| bank's most advanced anal probe technology. You go to the
| police, they actually do the work of questioning the
| person whose account the money went to, who says that the
| payment was for buying a used phone from them on
| Craigslist. The police think this sounds an awful lot
| like a euphemism for drugs, but don't have any evidence
| to investigate further, so they just conclude they'd
| rather not help you rip off your dealer and send you on
| your way. You talk to your bank who says the transaction
| looks fully authorized, the police don't think there has
| been a crime, and oh by the way even if you were jumped
| you still shouldn't have pressed send if you didn't want
| to lose the money. This is the type of bureaucratic
| nightmare that's created when a model becomes
| unassailable.
| fsh wrote:
| In Europe, banks, police, and courts do understand
| account takeovers. They have roughly the same
| consequences (a lot of faffing around with the bank), but
| are much harder to pull off than check fraud. I really
| don't see a downside.
| Amezarak wrote:
| By law, the bank is liable for accepting a forged check,
| not you. They are required to reimburse you unless you
| did something very careless.
|
| https://www.helpwithmybank.gov/help-topics/fraud-
| scams/forge....
| adriancr wrote:
| surprisingly, they should also refund you for fraud,
| identity theft, etc...
|
| Under the same conditions - that you haven't acted
| 'grossly negligent'
|
| https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-
| money/banking/ban...
| trollied wrote:
| >On another note, checks charge 0% commission: to pay someone
| $5, you need $5.
|
| I can make a direct bank transfer "faster payment", which
| usually takes a few seconds to arrive in the destination
| account, for a fee of PS0.
| maratc wrote:
| > usually takes a few seconds to arrive in the destination
| account
|
| This also means that whoever takes over your account, can
| send the money out and cash it in very fast.
|
| This _of course_ would never happen to me or you, but
| happened to a relative of mine who got a call from "their
| bank security" and then were directed to install a "security
| check app" (remote control tool), and change their password
| in the banking app. The thieves then got off with money that
| they transferred out in a matter of seconds, with no
| recourse.
| adql wrote:
| They need to take over the account, vs fake a bit of paper
| [deleted]
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > a relative of mine who got a call from "their bank
| security" and then were directed to install a "security
| check app" (remote control tool), and change their password
| in the banking app
|
| Presumably you want their money to be returned, but would
| you want the same if it was physical thieves pretending to
| be the alarm/security company that went in to "repair" the
| physical safe and made off with all its valuables? Would
| you still want the money to be returned (ultimately
| subsidised by all other customers of the bank or the
| taxpayer) if someone physically withdraws all their money
| in cash and hands it over to someone who pretends to be a
| bank employee and has a convincing name tag?
|
| Looking at it from the bank's perspective, the user
| willingly delegated their identity to the scammer by
| voluntarily handing over control of their authentication
| instrument. There is not much the bank can do in this case
| that wouldn't also hinder legitimate usage - this may have
| very well been a legitimate transaction for buying a
| car/house deposit/etc.
|
| FYI, there is recourse against authorised push payment
| fraud, but it's a goodwill scheme that most banks
| participate in as opposed to a legally mandated feature.
| Nevertheless, it's worth trying out.
| ghaff wrote:
| >On another note, checks charge 0% commission: to pay someone
| $5, you need $5.
|
| I sometimes lead weekend trips for an outdoor organization and
| for quite a while even after various direct electronic payment
| arrangements became available, most leaders stuck with checks
| because there tended to be fees associated with other types of
| transactions.
|
| I assume dealing with check fraud has become pretty
| bulletproof. I bought a car for "cash" last summer and I
| surprised I could just write a check for the post-deposit
| balance when I picked up the car. I've always had to go to my
| bank for a cashier's check in the past.
| mindslight wrote:
| For the dealer, there are two failure modes. The first is you
| are who you say you are, but your personal check bounces.
| Good standing in the financial surveillance databases
| alleviates this concern, as it shows that if your personal
| check does end up bouncing you will rectify the problem
| rather than trying to play coy. I'd guess someone with a low
| credit score would still have been told to bring a bank check
| to eliminate the credit risk.
|
| The second is that the buyer has supplied a fraudulent
| identity, and forged check. But checking the buyer's ID will
| get the dealer most of the way there, and bank checks can
| still be forged. Furthermore, a car is a titled asset where
| ownership is transferred to the identity supplied. To commit
| a successful fraud, you'd have to pass a bad check, take
| possession of the car, and then _part it out_ like it 's a
| stolen car (because it is).
| bayindirh wrote:
| This is why Uniball has SuperInk, and Noodler's has Bulletproof.
| puffoflogic wrote:
| Bulletproof is pretty dangerous stuff though. Granted, I never
| had any issues with it when I was using it to write rent checks
| monthly, but I think long term it's likely to require a carpet
| replacement or two!
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| My bank allows me to have multiple checking accounts. I have
| money direct deposited in one account, and I transfer over just
| as much money as I need for checks into another account, and
| transfer over just as much money as I need for autobilling into a
| third account.
|
| I trust the entity that does the direct deposit, otherwise I
| would set up a fourth account just for that.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| One thing I dislike is the inability to disable ACH for a given
| account. I really want to use an account for safekeeping that
| can't have a check or ACH transaction run against it, rather I'd
| have to use banks internal tool to move funds. Does this exist?
| xbeta wrote:
| What's the Americans obsession with checks? I worked and lived in
| other countries , including Asia, Europe and Latin America. Most
| of them moved on to digital payment (especially China) where I
| found the US and Canada still heavily relied on a piece of paper
| to process a large amount of funds with no security.
|
| In US, I realized even buying groceries they accept checks
| written at the counter.
|
| Why can't the US just move on from checks?
| pettycashstash2 wrote:
| Check writing is very common and embedded in American culture.
| Yes there are risks, however there are more risks with scams with
| VENMo, PayPal, cash app, app du jour. yes more people are moving
| to these services , but checks are still needed for many formal
| transactions: ex purchase a home, or fill up my kids lunch
| account without being charged A CONVeniance fee.
| hnbad wrote:
| I was going to say that as a German writing a check to buy a
| home feels absurd but given all the other (legal) transactions
| involved (including taking out a loan) boil down to signing a
| lot of paper, I guess it wouldn't even really stand out much.
| In fact when I took out a loan I had to write out my bank
| account details by hand, so this was kind of the reverse
| experience of writing a check.
|
| It just feels extremely fussy for regular recurring expenses
| like rent and utilities. On the other hand, transactions on
| personal accounts are free with most banks (not so for business
| accounts but the cost is negligible) so there would be no
| benefit to doing it that way.
| ghaff wrote:
| I'm sure a lot of it is that I'm used to them. But, for the
| most part, checks either written by myself or by my bank via
| their web site work pretty well with a few exceptions.
|
| For an individual, receiving especially a large check in
| exchange for something you're selling carries risk that you
| can't wholly mitigate. (Maybe some of the systems available to
| merchants are available to individuals who need something like
| this once in a blue moon--but I've never heard of such.)
|
| Another case is chasing down checks for people who have signed
| up for some activity and/or handling last minute waiting lists
| etc. I dealt with this sort of thing for many years and
| electronic transfers are a lot less hassle.
| devilbunny wrote:
| > receiving especially a large check in exchange for
| something you're selling carries risk that you can't wholly
| mitigate.
|
| I mean, if you accompany them to their bank, and have them
| issue a cashier's check, you're definitely getting paid
| unless the entire bank is insolvent, because you're not
| counting on the check clearinghouse to handle the whole
| matter - the bank is staking its own reputation on
| willingness to pay.
| ghaff wrote:
| Which adds a ton of friction to the transaction. For that
| matter you can require them to pay you in cash.
|
| My point is that, historically, personal checks were the
| default for a lot of person to person transactions in the
| US but they carried some risk--depending on the situation.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| I am genuinely surprised people in America are still using
| checks. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but... A check?
| If you have checks laying around, you should destroy them. If you
| need something like a check, get a money order.
| jjav wrote:
| > If you need something like a check, get a money order.
|
| That would be silly. So now intead of being able to quickly
| write a check on the spot for free, you'd expect me to go to
| the post office (or other place that sells money orders), stand
| in line, pay extra for it? That doesn't make any sense neither
| from convenience nor cost perspective.
| Overtonwindow wrote:
| Yes. How often do you use checks? Do you even know where they
| are?
| sneak wrote:
| I can write a check in my home or office, put it in an envelope
| with a stamp, and put it in the outgoing post, all without
| going anywhere or paying anyone. I can complete the whole
| payment task in 5 minutes.
|
| Money orders have a fee and require time and gasoline to go
| somewhere to get them. In 5 minutes I haven't even arrived at
| the nearest location to purchase a money order.
| adriancr wrote:
| In the EU I can do instant payments from phone... no need to
| even write the check, get an envelope, buy stamps, going out
| to mail it...
|
| It would also arrive instantaneously on the other side if
| done during business hours...
|
| No fee...
|
| If i need to transfer to mates i just look them up from phone
| contacts and send money... Or they can send a payment
| request... or show a qr code that i scan...
| Tor3 wrote:
| > In the EU I can do instant payments from phone...
|
| ^ This. I'm not sure if this is actually EU wide yet.. but
| there are several payment systems available, which aren't
| AFAIK yet usable across countries or at least not many
| countries. They're in any case members of the European
| Mobile Payment Systems Association. The goal is to make an
| EU/EEC-wide mobile payment system.
|
| Unlike Paypal, Venmo etc. these are directly managed by the
| banks, i.e. nothing like the horrors you sometimes hear
| about from those private companies. With the variant I use
| I just need the/a phone number from the recipient, I enter
| it in my app, I see a name come up, I pay (with a pin),
| either directly from a bank account or from e.g. a credit
| card - I can choose at pay time. So, for that example where
| you need to pay someone doing garden work for you you don't
| hand over a check, you simply ask for the phone number,
| enter the details, show the guy "Is that you?", if "yes",
| then pay, show the guy the receipt on your phone, deal
| done. Instant, if it's paid from your account, or "Real
| Soon Now" if from your credit card (the transaction will
| fail if you don't have the credit - you don't get a receipt
| to show. You do get an instant receipt if your credit card
| works, so there's no doubt on the receiver's end that the
| money will come).
|
| Very convenient. Works in lots of shops too, and, as it's
| free up to a certain amount, and you only need a phone
| number you don't have to invest/rent anything, as in
| getting a card reader. When that's said, until this became
| popular you could more often than not use a credit card for
| _anything_ including flea market sellers, parking meters,
| everything. The only limitation I 've run into is with, of
| all things, doctor's offices where their payment machines
| for some reason only accept bank (direct debit) cards, not
| CC. The dentists accept everything though, and everybody
| else accepts everything too. But the phone payment is so
| extremely easy, and safe, that it's taking over everything.
| Splitting a bill at the restaurant? Phone transfer. Someone
| forgot their credit card at the gasoline pump? Phone the
| amount to someone who's got a CC and then the person with
| the CC can fill up the car. I do prefer contactless CC
| payment in shops though.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| a check gives transaction control to the parties directly
| participating.. a check can be physically held on private
| property. Why people cry out that this is "ancient" just says
| to me that people are conditioned to depend on outside
| companies for every aspect of financial life, minute by
| minute.
| jameshart wrote:
| A check is literally an instruction to a bank to talk to
| another bank and get some money, a process which, in the
| US, they usually complete by sending the check to a federal
| reserve clearinghouse. In what way does that give the
| parties directly participating in the transaction
| independent 'control'?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| clearing the check is centralized obviously.. Think for a
| minute about the sequence of steps of a transaction.
| Payment for ________ upon the completion of _________; a
| third party escrow; conditional transactions of every
| flavor.
| jameshart wrote:
| I guess by 'independent' you mean that with physical
| checks people are able to make up kind of 'folk
| protocols' for transactions involving steps like 'party x
| holds on to a check written by party y'. - without the
| banks having to know that that's what they're doing, or
| having to involve some third party to handle that like
| PayPal or someone?
|
| That seems like a pretty weak argument for checks. The
| range of cases where those processes are useful, in terms
| of mutual trust (or lack thereof), quantities of funds
| involved, etc, seem pretty narrow. Like, I don't trust
| you enough that I want to ask you to cut a check in
| advance, and I know you don't trust me enough to not cash
| it right away so we're going to have someone else hold
| it... but I trust you enough not to cancel the check, and
| that you'll be holding sufficient funds so that when I do
| get the check I know it will actually clear...
|
| Surely we'd be better off using a proper escrow service
| for that?
|
| I get that pre-electronic-banking this sort of folk-
| banking was all people could do but it should be easy to
| do this sort of thing _better_ electronically
| mistrial9 wrote:
| weak => a check can be held while the electricity is out;
| while someone is having a health emergency; while someone
| changes their mind, their plans, their decision
| mindslight wrote:
| OP overstated the case as being free of centralized
| parties, but checks do give individuals more rights -
| checks have been around long enough that even the US has
| had to develop sane regulations around them. Whereas
| digital payment services can just send you a text message
| saying "your whole account is frozen. see you in binding
| arbitration!". Maybe that will change in five decades,
| but it doesn't help us now.
| jameshart wrote:
| It's interesting that I guess I'm so used to reading
| takes on fintech touting 'independence' and
| 'decentralization' coming solely from a libertarian
| perspective which would assume that 'government'
| involvement was inherently centralized, it didn't occur
| to me to consider that OP might actually believe in
| society, and consider law enforcement around check fraud
| and regulations on banks as something that _enables_
| individual freedom.
|
| Good reminder that sometimes it's possible to read more
| into what someone's saying than is there in the words.
| mindslight wrote:
| Well I can't speak for OP, but there are aspects of
| checks that are decentralized regardless of how brashly
| libertarian your perspective is. Like the idea that you
| yourself are effectively creating your own quasi-currency
| note by writing on a piece of paper, regardless of the
| machinery making it so that can work is more centralized.
|
| In general, there is much libertarian thinking that
| shortsightedly focuses on the unilateral "exit" without
| thinking about what comes next. It's a reaction to how
| complex and overbearing our institutions have become,
| spurred on by capital looking to digest the proceeds. I'm
| a libertarian, but I recognize that it's ultimately a
| yin-yang - if there is a "completely free" power vacuum,
| some other power will often fill it, creating a de facto
| government by another name - one that generally won't
| have any mechanisms of accountability. The approach of
| defining rights axiomatically simply does not work, due
| to the contradictions created by layered complexity. An
| example of how this plays out after the first step is the
| current web 2.0 catastrophe. The first amendment
| definition of free speech may be necessary, but it is not
| sufficient - unaccountable companies have consumed the
| power vacuum at scale, digested it, and spit it back out
| in terms of heavily editorialized spaces that we still
| try to use as if they're public venues.
|
| (And just to be clear on my immediate practical stance, I
| think the current "free speech" marketing campaign of
| Twitter et al is utterly specious. The problem is the
| amassing of such power in the first place, due to the
| centralizing technologies webapps are built on. Changing
| the flavor of the Kool-Aid doesn't fix the fundamental
| problem.)
| bbbbb5 wrote:
| >I can write a check in my home or office, put it in an
| envelope with a stamp, and put it in the outgoing post, all
| without going anywhere or paying anyone. I can complete the
| whole payment task in 5 minutes.
|
| Is that better than logging into your online banking, making
| an instant transfer? No need to go anywhere or pay anyone.
| [deleted]
| jjav wrote:
| > Is that better than logging into your online banking,
| making an instant transfer? No need to go anywhere or pay
| anyone.
|
| If I have their bank routing number and account number,
| sure I can do that (then it's effectively the same thing as
| a check but without the slip of paper). But I don't always
| have that info particularly for informal one-off payments
| (e.g. yard cleaner that came to haul debris away) so it's
| easiest to hand them a check.
| sneak wrote:
| Every time I do that to a new recipient I have never paid
| before (especially when my client IP is in another country
| (where I spend more than half each year), but also even
| just in the US), Chase bank locks the entire account,
| including all debit and credit cards, and demands an in-
| person (in USA) visit with ID to unlock it, because US
| retail banks have not figured out unphishable web
| authentication yet.
|
| Paying a new person is at a minimum a 3 hour process using
| online payments for me if they don't accept credit card
| payments.
|
| Also, my checks don't have my full name or billing address
| on them. Credit card payments require disclosing at least
| part of these (at a minimum, billing address zip code) to
| the payee. Wire transfers disclose the full name on the
| account. I want to send money, not PII.
| adriancr wrote:
| find a better bank... Revolut has been great for me so
| far, seems to be in the usa as well, check them out at
| least for transfers
|
| > Also, my checks don't have my full name or billing
| address on them.
|
| Return address on envelope does...
|
| Also, aren't you worried someone will intercept check
| like in article and rewrite it?, non issue with
| electronic payments
| ghaff wrote:
| In fairness, you don't have to put your return address on
| the envelope.
|
| Historically, places could be fussy about accepting
| checks without an address although I expect that's not
| generally an issue today. (Of course, lots of other ways
| to get someone's address especially if they own a house.
| It's public information in general in the US.)
|
| But, yeah, I've never heard of this account locking
| thing. I can go to my major brick and mortar bank's web
| site and add a new payee in 30 seconds. Done.
| drukenemo wrote:
| Most countries in Western Europe and South America (that I know
| of) have stopped using checks at least 10 years ago.
| debesyla wrote:
| And Baltic countries (like Lithuania) never used checks at
| all - now it's only instant and free SEPA bank transfers.
| alkonaut wrote:
| 25 I'd say. I stopped using cash 10-15 years ago. I mean
| entirely, no exceptions.
| zippergz wrote:
| Last time I had a plumber at my house on short notice, they
| required payment on site and didn't take credit cards. Are you
| suggesting I keep large piles of cash sitting around for such
| occasions?
| [deleted]
| throwaway98797 wrote:
| i find keeping a grand enough to cover most emergencies,
| without being so much that i'm worried for it.
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| It then seems reasonable to store the checks in the same
| place one would store a grand of cash.
|
| (That's where I keep my checkbook; I only just keep a
| single, blank, folded-up check in my wallet for the
| unexpected need.)
| mindslight wrote:
| Actually with the way bank regulations around check fraud
| works, timely knowing (/reporting) that your physical
| checks have gone missing is important, so you do not want
| to hide them out of the way. Despite being just pieces of
| paper, there are different regulations depending on if a
| fraudulent check was created from one of your bona fide
| checks, or whether it was forged from whole cloth.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Don't they normally send an invoice?
| toast0 wrote:
| My regular plumbers are happy to send invoices, but
| emergency plumbers tend to want payment at time of service.
| Of course, if my regular plumbers are available on short
| notice, I'll use them, but sometimes you can't wait.
| adql wrote:
| Leasing a terminal costs around $15 here so many handymen
| just... have it.
|
| The worst case you can just get to the closest ATM.
| scatters wrote:
| Why wouldn't you pay by direct transfer?
| lordfrito wrote:
| I personally experienced check fraud about 7 years ago. 4 fake
| checks, $6,500 stolen. Fake checks looked real to me, as did my
| signature. Was confusing to me as the signature looked like mine,
| I did a triple take trying to figure out if I had written them.
| Upon further inspection the signature on all 4 checks was
| absolutely identical, my signature looks slightly different every
| time I sign, but these 4 were identical in every way (overlaid
| them in an image processing tool to convince myself).
|
| Figuring they photocopied the signature from an existing check, I
| went through my archive of cancelled checks until I found a
| perfect match for the signature. Turns out the signature was
| copied from a check that was written to a handyman for some
| maintenance work.
|
| Brought this info to the police and the bank. I don't know if
| they did anything with it, as they're not allowed to discuss
| details with me.
|
| Anyhow, long story short, took 3 months, but the $6,500 was
| eventually returned to me. Much better experience than crypto!
|
| Lastly, I had to close the checking account for fraud and get a
| new one. When I asked about ordering new checks, the bank manager
| admonished me "haven't I learned my lesson" and not to ever use
| checks. All of your personal information, address, and bank
| account # are in one place he said.
|
| I told him it's terrifying when your bank manager tells you not
| to use checks on the checking account his bank offers.
|
| I write very few checks now. Thankfully most transfers can now be
| done digitally (and without crypto I might add).
|
| Sign of the times I guess.
| tobyjsullivan wrote:
| The recurring comparison to crypto is ironic here. The central
| purpose of crypto is that, when used correctly, it makes
| exactly this type of fraud impossible. These stories show the
| fundamental problem with checks is that using them correctly
| exposes you to the fraud risk.
|
| I'm not pro-crypto or anything. The bar to use it "correctly"
| is too high to be practical. I'm only highlighting the irony of
| this particular comparison.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Yeah, to me one of the central problems with both checks and
| credit cards is you have to expose your private keys (your
| routing num, acct num, address, etc) to make the transaction.
| In an era of elliptical curve signatures and other
| cryptography methods, this sort of practice should be done
| away with altogether, even for non-blockchain tech.
| lordfrito wrote:
| Great analogy. Agreed, checks are insecure and obsolete
| technology for the reasons you stated.
|
| It does seem, however, that modern digital payment systems
| (mainstream, non-crypto) have largely caught up with the
| times. Your bank password is essentially a private key.
| It's not foolproof, but the challenge of keeping your
| password private is no different than keeping your private
| key private. From an OPSEC standpoint it's a level
| playfield.
|
| Of course these systems are still vulnerable to social
| engineering attacks, credential theft, outright fraud etc.
| These kinds of human problems can't be solved with
| technology.
|
| The old security holes still exist (check fraud, credit
| card fraud) as the system continues to support
| ancient/deprecated payment methods. Eventually they'll be
| obsoleted. I read a report stating that check use has been
| declining steadily. In 2000 there were 42.6b check
| payments, in 2018 there were only 14.5b. I'd say we're
| getting there. The younger generation embraces the new
| tech, it's only a matter of time.
|
| If this was 15 years ago, I'd say crypto was providing a
| solution to a problem. But since then bank systems have
| caught up, and have additional protections of FDIC,
| regulations, etc. I'd say that modern digital finance is
| already largely meeting the promises made by crypto
| enthusiasts, with none of the downsides.
|
| Put another way, _if_ crypto matures and doesn 't die in
| flames, it will basically look like one more competing
| digital payment system to those already offered by TradFi.
|
| People get caught up in the tech, but at the end of the day
| all that matters is you can use a password to digitally
| move money. We can do that now. Crypto is ubiquitous /
| crypto is irrelevant.
| grecy wrote:
| > _I told him it 's terrifying when your bank manager tells you
| not to use checks on the checking account his bank offers._
|
| It might be terrifying, but it's good honest advice, which is
| always worth it weight in gold.
|
| The man is an expert. I would take his advice.
| puffoflogic wrote:
| > as they're not allowed to discuss details with me.
|
| That would not be true if they actually investigated. This is
| code for "we don't care"; there was simply a miscommunication
| here when you did not recognize the euphemism.
| technothrasher wrote:
| Ok, separate from the fraud, this guy wrote a personal check
| instead of using the organization's funds to pay a state fee?
| That feels pretty sloppy for somebody running an organization
| "dedicated to improving financial literacy." While clearly
| innocent and done just for convenience, taking short cuts with a
| 501(c)(3) org is a bad idea. To keep the accounting straight,
| he'd end up having to get them to do up donation paperwork on it,
| which removes his goal of not bothering people over a small
| amount. Otherwise, it's co-mingling of funds.
| pilotneko wrote:
| He just ate the cost. It's five dollars.
| PopAlongKid wrote:
| > I decided it was simpler to pay the fee myself, rather than
| bothering Ben Holland (Treasurer for the Center) to have the
| Center pay the fee.
|
| But what does Ben Holland say?
|
| Yes, it is very sloppy to say the least. I recently completed a
| two-year term as the treasurer for a non-profit professional
| association, and I would have been highly peeved had one of the
| other board members gone ahead and done this without first
| "bothering" me.
|
| It is the treasurer's job to make sure essential payments are
| made and recorded on the books. Also, while my org does both
| make and receive payments electronically, we also have highly
| fraud-resistant business-style checks (watermarks etc) for
| times when check payments were easiest or required.
| owlbite wrote:
| Moving from the UK to the US a few years ago was like going back
| in time 20 years in finance tech. No-one supported contactless
| payment, cards didn't implement it, despite it having been
| standard tech in the UK for years.
|
| The UK de-facto deprecated cheques in 2011 when the cheque-
| guarantee scheme was closed, so it was very shocking to need one
| to rent an apartment in the US. (The UK would just use a bank
| transfer).
|
| Even with improvements seemingly brought on by covid, the US
| still seems massively behind the times - for example ACH still
| takes several days to do a bank transfer that is instant in the
| UK, and venmo or whatever seems to be overcomplicating it.
| javajosh wrote:
| Yes, and moving to the EU was like moving forward 20 years. The
| IBAN system is fantastic! The seller gives you their IBAN
| number, and you tell your bank to send money to that number. It
| happens instantly and for 0% commission. There are no routing
| number/account numbers. (Granted, I never had to deal with
| fraud so I'm not sure how that goes. I doubt that credit card
| style charge backs are possible.) It's also interesting that in
| some parts of Europe (esp Germany) cash is still the normal way
| of paying, even for large amounts.
| hnbad wrote:
| > I doubt that credit card style charge backs are possible.
|
| Actually they are, but only for SEPA direct debit (i.e. you
| giving your IBAN to the seller to authorize a recurring
| charge). Also I'm not sure if this is automatic or just
| standard practice but failed SEPA charges will invalidate the
| mandate, so you'll have to issue a new one if it ever
| bounces.
|
| Some(?) banks also allow you to reverse a bank transfer in
| online banking but I'm not sure if this just an "undo" before
| the transfer has actually gone through or an actual reverse
| charge. You can also set up recurring transfers in most
| online banking software for free but again they're not
| usually reversible like SEPA direct debit payments are.
|
| As for cash payments in Germany: the pandemic led to a lot of
| retail adoption of debit card payments but if you don't know
| in advance whether you'll be able to pay by card, it's good
| to keep cash on hand. Most larger retail stores (clothing,
| pharmacies, etc) and pricier restaurants take debit cards,
| grocerers/bakers and non-chain fast food places often only
| take cash. You probably can't pay for your Currywurst with
| your debit card but you can pick up your prescription (if
| it's not fully covered by health insurance) or pay for a
| fancy dinner. In the latter case they might even take credit
| cards, if they're particularly fancy.
| MerelyMortal wrote:
| Apparently a simple line after the spelled-out amount isn't
| enough, as it's clearly visible on the _low_ resolution scan.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Indeed. I think the most surprising thing here is that the
| check was accepted with those horizontal lines left in it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-02 23:02 UTC)