Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

take it to the bank-comments

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    I fail to see any evidence of a crime here. I see there s a report, but no evidence. What is motivating the police and da s to go forward here -- public policy
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 22, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I fail to see any evidence of a crime here. I see there's a report, but no
      evidence. What is motivating the police and da's to go forward here -- public
      policy with a bank?

      If the teller had reported that customer raped her several days after the
      alleged incidence and there was no evidence of a rape, would prosecution
      procede?
      ________________________________________
      fail to see any evidence of a crime here. I see there's a report, but no
      evidence. What is motivating the police and da's to go forward here --
      public
      policy with a bank?

      If the teller had reported that customer raped her several days after the
      alleged incidence and there was no evidence of a rape, would prosecution
      procede?




      I had a similar reaction. The whole thing smells "set up" to me, but why?
      Certainly not for that smallish amount of money.

      ----------------------------------------
      That is the sense I get.. something does not add up, and as Judge Judy says
      "if it doesn't make sense, it is a lie"

      _______________________________________
      vI'm really glad I don't work at or bank at that bank. They have real
      problems. It really sounds like the bank set this young woman up to take the fall
      for some seriously suspect banking practices.

      Plaintiff's problems:
      Teller violated the policy by not recognizing amount on cash line - as far as
      I can see this is the ONLY thing the woman did wrong. She should have seen
      the amount on the cash line and had the customer either initial the error, or
      had the customer write a new deposit slip. However, mistakes can be made if
      the bank is busy, or if the bank is busy and a customer is trying to pull a con
      (which isn't out of the realm of possibility).

      Teller wanted a banking career but since she was young did not have a track
      record - she may not have a track record as far as the bank is concerned, but
      perhaps she's had other jobs from whom she could get letters of
      recommendation or character witnesses. Perhaps she's had some college experience which
      would also be useful for recommendation.

      Some personal issues exist as smoking one to three marijuana cigarettes a
      week, no arrest or convictions of any kind - this is a tough one. Was she
      drug tested when she was arrested? Does the other side know about her use of
      marijuana? Can she keep this information quiet without perjuring herself?
      (Someone should also recommend that she give it up - aside from the fact that it
      is illegal (which should be enough for someone wanting a career in banking) it
      puts as much as 4x the amount of tar and toxic gases into the lungs as
      cigarette smoking does. I'm a former smoker so I know how bad cigarettes can be for
      one's health, marijuana has the potential to do even more harm.)

      Customer was paid back so bank contends every right to call the police. - I
      don't understand the logic of this. I would think there would be more cause to
      call the police before the customer was paid back if the bank suspected a
      crime. Since the police weren't called then, I would think that the bank would
      do an internal investigation. All regional banking locations have auditors and
      inspectors who look into just this kind of situation. Also, why in the world
      would the bank wait so long to take action on this situation? 55 days?
      Banks deal in hundreds of thousands of dollars, but $6000.00 is not a small
      mistake.

      Because of the time lapse nobody can really say with certainty that the two
      personal accounts which almost match the alleged missing money solves the
      question. - I'm afraid I'm a little unclear about this fact. . . This is
      what I understand. The customer gave checks for deposit. On the deposit slip
      she had noted cash deposit of $6000.00 in addition to the check deposits? The
      same customer deposits money twice more for the amount of the non-existent
      cash deposit less $100.00. If I have it right, I can't imagine how the teller
      would have remembered the deposit. There was nothing to set it apart from any
      other deposit except for the error on the deposit slip.

      Defendant's facts:
      The bank contends that it is the teller who is responsible for all cash. - on
      the face of it this is correct. The teller is responsible for making sure
      the cash deposits and withdrawals are completely verified and that her cash
      drawers are in balance. Some banks (maybe all banks), check cash drawers several
      times during a business day, and if a shortage of any kind is found, it is
      dealt with at that time. In this case, with the bank's policy of not counting
      the checks (a perfectly stupid rule, by the way. Most drive-thru's don't take
      more than 2 or 3 checks. Any more than that must be taken care of inside the
      bank.

      They had no choice in the matter since customer complained. - No choice in
      what? It doesn't appear that the bank was implementing good business practices.
      Even if the customer complained, it was the bank's job to investigate the
      situation, and if the customer's story could not be corroborated, the bank would
      either have to eat the shortage, or prove that the customer was pulling a
      scam. If their practice was to count during the business day, that might have
      been discovered the same day as the deposit.

      They did not make the arrest the cops did. - Right, and they had no idea
      that would happen when they called the police!

      They did not say she was a thief the customer did. - And they reinforced
      that by not standing behind their employee, not using good business practices,
      not investigating promptly and calling the police without telling the teller
      what they were doing and why.

      The teller should have remembered the transaction. - Why? Nearly two months
      had passed before she needed to remember the transaction. If the bank was as
      busy as the information suggests, and she worked five days a week, she most
      likely saw hundreds of customers in those 55 days.

      She didn't help matters because she did not remember. - Perhaps not, but I
      would be interested in the memory length of the other tellers. Can they
      remember transactions they handled two months ago?

      The bank had a receipt documenting cash was taken in and a customer saying
      the same. - This is a problem, there is not doubt. However, I still say the
      bank itself caused this problem by not having better money handling procedures.
      I've worked in corner stores where the money was accounted for more prudently!

      The teller had made two unrelated mistakes in the past which did not result
      in a loss to the bank. - I'm sure this will be used against the teller, however
      it sounds that she is a relatively new employee and mistakes are made when a
      person is learning a job. Did she have any one (a supervisor, for example)
      watching her, or checking on her transactions? If so, they have some explaining
      to do as well.

      Defendant's problems:
      They withheld information from law enforcement. Once law enforcement learned
      of other account transactions that day he testified he would not have
      arrested her. They waited 55 days before calling the cops. - These facts are just
      outrageous! This bank did not do business correctly and decided to make a
      young, inexperienced woman take the blame for their inadequacies.

      They permitted the teller to continue working the teller line up until the
      second she is arrested showing no concern for her trustworthiness until day of
      arrest. - I would love to hear the bank president's rationale for this. If I
      thought an employee had stolen $6000.00 from me, you can bet I wouldn't be
      giving that individual a chance to steal more!

      Even when the two personal transactions were uncovered during the criminal
      portion of this case they continued to prosecute. - That the bank has continued
      to prosecute doesn't surprise me, they are attempting to cover their
      collective butts and put all the blame on an apparently blameless employee. This
      should definitely be questioned.

      They never pointed out the location of the teller was in the drive thru,
      making customers statement she saw teller count the cash implausible. - I'm not
      sure I agree with this. My last two banks had a drive-thru teller cage that was
      designed so that the customer could watch the teller counting the money. I
      would want to be certain that wasn't the case here before I pursued this. If
      however, the customer could not see from the car, it's an important fact. I
      would also question the customer about why she didn't recognize the error
      herself as soon as it was made. Most people seem to pull over and count their
      change, check the deposit slip, etc. before they drive away from the bank. Why
      didn't she check the receipt for such a large sum of money? Why didn't she bring
      the error to someone's intention later in the day when she got the deposit
      receipt from the later transaction, which would have failed to show the large
      deposit?

      This unfortunately is a bad case for a young woman to find herself in.
      Businesses will often look for the youngest, most inexperienced person to take the
      fall if they have erred in some business practice, feeling that an employee
      such as this wouldn't put up much of a fuss. I think all of the blame lies with
      the fraudulent customer, and the ineffective bank.

      ____________________________
      I'm curious. Did the bank have CCTV covering all tellers at the time.
      Recorded material (if it exists) would clearly show all of these
      transactions and give an accurate time line of events.
      ----------
      Will try and find out for you.
      ________________________________________________
      Customer's don't know it, but any bank examiner would know that a key part
      of this story is missing. While no customer ever sees it, ALL cash
      transactions involve cash out credits and cash in debit slips - that is how
      tellers
      balance their records.

      Note that this has nothing to do with bcurrency transaction reporting
      requirements - it is the way that banks track the flow of cash within the
      institution. On a cash deposit over $5000, there could easily be other
      documentation
      as well.

      If a teller gives you $6,000, she gets that money from her drawer and fills
      out a "cash out credit" slip that explains where that money went (they call
      it
      a credit slip because it offsets the money spent). If she receives 6000
      cash, she will put that cash in the drawer along with a "cash in debit" that
      offsets it for balancing purposes.

      No bank I have ever subpoenaed records from did it differently - I don't see
      how they could and stay compliant with FinCEN.

      While it may be true that large numbers of cheques are not counted - that is
      entirely consistent with my experience - the notion that 6000 cash came or
      went without an accounting for the currency is completely inconsistent with
      the
      policy of any US Bank.

      I don't know who is trying to go where with this but I could take this
      nonsense apart if they need the help.
      ______________________________________________


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.