BST transaction gone very bad with "lost" check

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by batsballsbases

Scott,
It is a one sided story so far Ians Side. (and granted he my be completly right) BUT in my opinion its a bit premature to come and post up something like this and not have waited until there was a final outcome. I.E. police,bank,return of money etc. Its the old carrot in front of the donkey ,Here is the story But Im not going to tell you who it is until BLAH ,BLAH ,BLAH . Of course people waht to know who it is ,is just human nature. Difference with you is you know who it is! Makes it much easier when a select few have that information and not everyone. My feeling is Ian should have waited until there was a final outcome either positive or negative to post up something like this. Just my nickels worth!

Al, what you say makes perfect sense. I think some might be missing his motive for posting here: he is trying to arrive at a final outcome and thinks this will help, both in terms of gathering advice he hadn't thought of and getting the accused to step forward.

Some people post such things to sway opinion or to blow off steam. That isn't the case here.

[batsballsbases]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Al, what you say makes perfect sense. I think some might be missing his motive for posting here: he is trying to arrive at a final outcome and thinks this will help, both in terms of gathering advice he hadn't thought of and getting the accused to step forward.

Some people post such things to sway opinion or to blow off steam. That isn't the case here.

Thankyou Scott,
And yes I do understand that he is trying to find out some information on how to proceed. Even some of the information posted opened my eyes to not knowing how the banks worked with respect to checks and time in cashing them. I assume that this was at least a four figure transaction and not something like $50.00. But in saying that I think at some point in time Ian outs the person involved as to save other board members the same plight that he has suffered weather it be now or after this ever gets resolved. The whole point of this board most times is to alert people about I.E. Bad cards on ebay, Bad items, people who dont pay, etc. This case is no different. We post ebay (handles) names all the time so why would this be different. If you want to live by the sword then you should die by the sword!

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I think some might be missing his motive for posting here: he is trying to arrive at a final outcome and thinks this will help, both in terms of gathering advice he hadn't thought of and getting the accused to step forward.

Some people post such things to sway opinion or to blow off steam. That isn't the case here.

Exactly! He would like to have the seller step up and do the right thing. I think by posting what he did, he let's the seller know that he's serious about the situation and is willing to out him if it's not resolved. He's giving the seller an opportunity to do the right thing. Read his last statement in the original post:

Originally Posted by itjclarke

In posting, I would also like to compel this seller to do what he should be doing here and actually respond and do what the bank is asking.

[rajah424]

I move often for work so I lose stuff all the time. A few years ago i found a pay check that was 6 years old (yes, I know i'm an idiot). I went to a BOA to see if there was anything i could do to cash or deposit it. The teller told me he couldn't accept it because it was so old but told me to deposit it at an ATM and it would be cleared undetected. I deposited it that night and the funds were available 3 days later no problem.

[itjclarke]

Scott/David- thanks guys, you're dead on with my intention and my goals in starting the thread. Posting to the board was definitely not something I wanted to do, but after 2 months+ yielded minimal results with the other person, I saw this as a next logical step. I also have no idea how long a true "outcome" will take, so I didn't want to wait silently until 2016, or whenever.

So far this thread has accomplished a few things.
- it's given me piece of mind re-affirming I'm not off base in my suspicions.
- it's provided me with a few ideas I had not considered (thanks to those who have posted or PMd)
- and within a very short period of time, it will show me whether this whole process needs to take the next step... or alternately, whether this person will reappear, either publicly here, or directly to me/my bank and begin cooperating.

Point noted, that he could be reading this while not logged in.. thanks.

Originally Posted by rajah424

I move often for work so I lose stuff all the time. A few years ago i found a pay check that was 6 years old (yes, I know i'm an idiot). I went to a BOA to see if there was anything i could do to cash or deposit it. The teller told me he couldn't accept it because it was so old but told me to deposit it at an ATM and it would be cleared undetected. I deposited it that night and the funds were available 3 days later no problem.

This is such a great example of how inconsistent this all is. Wells Fargo said their tellers are supposed to reject 6 month old checks as stale.. however, my guess is they can still be deposited in an ATM like your example, and done so without signing. And as shown here several, if not most banks will accept checks indefinitely without question, and the issuing bank has no real ability to stop this.

[egbeachley]

Yes, written checks are never officially "stale". I have also found small paychecks over 5 years old and deposited them with no problem. If you write a check that goes missing, your only safe recourse is to close the account.

As for Stop Payments, as others have said they are only good for 6 months and then you have to pay another fee for another 6 months. And so on. For large checks people sometimes do a Stop Payment twice, but rarely more than that. That's why you often see them deposited 13-14 months after getting "lost". It's not forgetfulness, it's a scam.

https://watchdognation.com/stop-payment-check-scam/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060601/031244.shtml

One thing you can do is write "Void in 180 days" on all checks. Then a stop payment only needs to be done once.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

One thing you can do is write "Void in 180 days" on all checks. Then a stop payment only needs to be done once.

Thanks for the tip. I never thought of that. Instead of writing it though, I may have a stamp printed and just stamp all my checks in the future.

I wonder if you could get the check company to print that on there?

[Theo_450]

Those who are complaining that Ian won't out the suspect need to take a step back. He is handling this how he deems the best, and that is his perogative.

Given that the matter is unresolved and has the potential for legal action, I fully agree with Ian's discretion.

Obvious things to do:
Print and scan all sent and recieved emails from seller, banks, authorities.
Start a journal documenting with as much detail as you can remember about every aspect of the transaction and interactions with all involved parties. Details will get fuzzy over time, documentation is critical.

I hope that it works out in your favor Ian.

[brob28]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Thanks for the tip. I never thought of that. Instead of writing it though, I may have a stamp printed and just stamp all my checks in the future.

I wonder if you could get the check company to print that on there?

David, I know this can be done, I have seen it before on checks cut for business purposes, although, I've not seen it on personal checks before so not certain on that part.

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by egbeachley

Yes, written checks are never officially "stale". I have also found small paychecks over 5 years old and deposited them with no problem. If you write a check that goes missing, your only safe recourse is to close the account.

As for Stop Payments, as others have said they are only good for 6 months and then you have to pay another fee for another 6 months. And so on. For large checks people sometimes do a Stop Payment twice, but rarely more than that. That's why you often see them deposited 13-14 months after getting "lost". It's not forgetfulness, it's a scam.

https://watchdognation.com/stop-payment-check-scam/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060601/031244.shtml

One thing you can do is write "Void in 180 days" on all checks. Then a stop payment only needs to be done once.

Eric, this is a wonderful post. I didn't know that a stop payment was only good for six months. Nor did I know you could write "void after 180 days" on a personal check. I've never really thought about that, but it makes good sense, as I've seen so many businesses do this.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by Theo_450

Those who are complaining that Ian won't out the suspect need to take a step back. He is handling this how he deems the best, and that is his perogative.

Given that the matter is unresolved and has the potential for legal action, I fully agree with Ian's discretion.

Obvious things to do:
Print and scan all sent and recieved emails from seller, banks, authorities.
Start a journal documenting with as much detail as you can remember about every aspect of the transaction and interactions with all involved parties. Details will get fuzzy over time, documentation is critical.

I hope that it works out in your favor Ian.

Ted, this is an excellent suggestion. I'm sure Ian has been taking detailed notes, and keeping a running paper trail of all pertinent communications.

By the way, guys, put me in the camp with those who think Ian is handling this the right way. I'm sure all of us would like to know who the board member is that's causng this issue. In time, if it's not resolved, we will know. I think that exercising discretion here is the way to go. In detailing what has happened, Ian has raised everybody's awareness when dealing on the BST. Without knowing who this person is, and how it was ultimately resolved, I will think twice about sending a personal check for anything (unless it is somebody I know well). Otherwise, I'll choose Paypal. He's also made it quite clear the steps he is taking to resolve this, so hopefully seeing this on the board will motivate the other member to resolve this amicably.

Ian is one of the most trustworthy members of the forum, and he's taking every step possible to move this to a resolution while still giving the other member the opportunity to right the ship, so to speak. With Leon involved, too, I'm sure things are going on behind the scenes that we are not privy to.

I understand the concern that this person might be trying to trade on other sports card forums, possibly with a different name. I would ask Leon if he has any contacts at the CU board, Sportscardforum, Blowout, etc that he might give a heads up to, without outing the person directly to the public?

Good luck, brother! I hope this ends soon, and the resolution is to your satisfaction. You need to be made whole. I know, too, this has to have put a damper on your enjoyment of the hobby, and I hate seeing that. I know how much you love collecting.

[1952boyntoncollector]

(Ted, this is an excellent suggestion. I'm sure Ian has been taking detailed notes, and keeping a running paper trail of all pertinent communications.

By the way, guys, put me in the camp with those who think Ian is handling this the right way. I'm sure all of us would like to know who the board member is that's causng this issue.---- In time, if it's not resolved, we will know. ---)

That's my point, what if nothing happens, nothing is resolved...you say 'we will know' in time......if he never discloses the name 'in time'..lets say 6 months..and another victim occurs...its really not fair to that victim....the seller could be doing other types of scams on other boards...that's why the identity is important.....it appears on your message..even though you agree the seller is not disclosed...that 'in time' you agree the name should be disclosed if the issue is not resolved.......it doesn't appear the name will ever be disclosed no matter how much time passes....and new victims potentially occur...that's my point..

It seems everyone agrees with me now that it doesn't matter if he doesn't post B/S/T here anymore because he can get other victims on other boards...so I don't see that argument anymore ..in addition, to think that a scammer only uses one method, ie. check to scam is not logical.....to just not send checks in the future as one member recommends could now open you up to other scams from the same unidentified person.....I don't think scammers have a professional conduct code that they will limit their scams in one specific way and will never use any other method...thus to say just not to buy through a check to me doesn't seem a like a solution to avoid this potential scammer...

plus I have paid by check before to get better deals, now if no checks are ever accepted, prices will be higher...