| Forum: Discussions
  Discussions “Man 1, Bank 0.” (karma: 1)
en>fr fr>en
By EU_Army  Comments: 2134, member since Sat Mar 28, 2009On Sun Aug 05, 2012 08:38 AM
A bit long, but good:
www.google.dk . . . - Patrick Combs deposits a junk-mail cheque for $95,000 – for a joke. The bank cashes it
15 Replies to “Man 1, Bank 0.” |  re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” (karma: 1)
en>fr fr>en
By Johnny_Ola Comments: 10257, member since Sat Apr 28, 2007On Sun Aug 05, 2012 08:49 AM
This guy is a moron.
Knowingly depositing a fake check is a criminal act, whether they cash it or not. | re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” (karma: 1)
en>fr fr>en
By EU_Army Comments: 2134, member since Sat Mar 28, 2009On Sun Aug 05, 2012 08:52 AM
Edited by EU_Army (82060) on 2012-08-05 08:53:20 [q]
Edited by EU_Army (82060) on 2012-08-05 08:55:33
Johnny_Ola wrote:
This guy is a moron.Knowingly depositing a fake check is a criminal act, whether they cash it or not.
A $95,000 richer moron....Are you sure it's a criminal act, if the bank fails to do it's job?
In the United States, when a bank receives notice that a cheque paid into your account has bounced, it has 24 hours to notify you and, if it fails to do this, you are safe to spend the money. |  re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” en>fr fr>en
By PopsFrost Comments: 12271, member since Mon Jan 21, 2008On Sun Aug 05, 2012 09:38 AM
EU_Army wrote:
In the United States, when a bank receives notice that a cheque paid into your account has bounced, it has 24 hours to notify you and, if it fails to do this, you are safe to spend the money.
I notice that you provide no link for that quote and that 'check' is misspelled in the British fashion.
I think in the future you should get your legal advise from that big-mouthed drunk guy down at the pub. |  re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” en>fr fr>en
By MadRusski Comments: 40617, member since Mon Aug 16, 2004On Sun Aug 05, 2012 09:42 AM
A $95,000 richer moron....
LOL! What a fucking idiot. Looks like they have no idea what money is in EU. The sad fuck does not have a bank account.
Are you sure it's a criminal act, if the bank fails to do it's job?
ROFLMAO. Seriously. You should try to defraud or rob a bank or your shitty gooberment. Maybe the guards won't do their job either and you will get richer. |  re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” en>fr fr>en
By JacquesOff Comments: 5623, member since Sun May 09, 2004On Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:11 AM
Yep, if a bank makes an error and deposits money in your account if you try to spend it you will be arrested. I have no idea about Euro banking but I find it difficult to believe that it is not the same there. | re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” (karma: 1)
en>fr fr>en
By Johnny_Ola Comments: 10257, member since Sat Apr 28, 2007On Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:33 AM
EU_Army wrote:
Johnny_Ola wrote:
This guy is a moron.Knowingly depositing a fake check is a criminal act, whether they cash it or not.
A $95,000 richer moron....Are you sure it's a criminal act, if the bank fails to do it's job?
In the United States, when a bank receives notice that a cheque paid into your account has bounced, it has 24 hours to notify you and, if it fails to do this, you are safe to spend the money.
I promise you this is not true. At the very least he will be required to pay the money back. The fact that he KNOWINGLY deposited a fake check (and posted online about it) makes him subject to criminal charges. |  re: �Man 1, Bank 0.� (karma: 6)
en>fr fr>en
By mikgof Comments: 11815, member since Tue Feb 17, 2004On Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:44 AM
Nah. It's a fake. If you want to rip people off you need to own a bank. that way it's all legal and you get billions from the taxpayer. | |
re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” en>fr fr>en
By EU_Army Comments: 2134, member since Sat Mar 28, 2009On Sun Aug 05, 2012 01:40 PM
PopsFrost wrote:
EU_Army wrote:
In the United States, when a bank receives notice that a cheque paid into your account has bounced, it has 24 hours to notify you and, if it fails to do this, you are safe to spend the money.
I notice that you provide no link for that quote and that 'check' is misspelled in the British fashion.
- If you had read the article/story i gave in the starting thread, you would know where it came from, because it's 100% from that Financial times article... | re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” en>fr fr>en
By JacquesOff Comments: 5623, member since Sun May 09, 2004On Sun Aug 05, 2012 03:50 PM
EU_Army wrote:
PopsFrost wrote:
EU_Army wrote:
In the United States, when a bank receives notice that a cheque paid into your account has bounced, it has 24 hours to notify you and, if it fails to do this, you are safe to spend the money.
I notice that you provide no link for that quote and that 'check' is misspelled in the British fashion.
- If you had read the article/story i gave in the starting thread, you would know where it came from, because it's 100% from that Financial times article...
OK, I read the article and there are still some things that don't add up. I KNOW I have read many times about people getting put in jail for doing this same thing. I have also sold things on craigslist in the past so I read up on the scams. The cashier check scams get you by bouncing a week or two later, even if you have the banker "verify" the believed validity of the check. That does not make sense to me in the internet age, but hey, the bankers own the politicians. |  re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” (karma: 1)
en>fr fr>en
By Global_Village Comments: 9840, member since Sun Aug 07, 2005On Sun Aug 05, 2012 04:11 PM
If you want to rip people off you need to own a bank. that way it's all legal and you get billions from the taxpayer.
Exactly... expect liefrog to call you names, according to him, banksters are innocent, the problem is government regulations, so he thinks that more deregulation is therefore needed!  Truth is, the banking cartel and our so called "decisions makers" are the same people... | re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” (karma: 1)
en>fr fr>en
By JacquesOff Comments: 5623, member since Sun May 09, 2004On Sun Aug 05, 2012 04:24 PM
Global_Village wrote:
If you want to rip people off you need to own a bank. that way it's all legal and you get billions from the taxpayer.
Exactly... expect liefrog to call you names, according to him, banksters are innocent, the problem is government regulations, so he thinks that more deregulation is therefore needed! Truth is, the banking cartel and our so called "decisions makers" are the same people...
To be fair one of the critical aspects of deregulation is dramatically limiting the governments interference in banking and thus minimizing the governments ability to be pick winners and losers with the tax payers money. If the pols can't pick the winners and losers than the bankers have no need to bribe them. | re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” (karma: 1)
en>fr fr>en
By mikgof Comments: 11815, member since Tue Feb 17, 2004On Mon Aug 06, 2012 12:24 PM
Global_Village wrote:
If you want to rip people off you need to own a bank. that way it's all legal and you get billions from the taxpayer.
Exactly... expect liefrog to call you names, according to him, banksters are innocent, the problem is government regulations, so he thinks that more deregulation is therefore needed! Truth is, the banking cartel and our so called "decisions makers" are the same people...
Actually I'd agree with him. If deregulation also meant that they were to never have access to taxpayers money. If deregulation also meant that if they were to harm our country in any way, that they were punished in line with the damage that they did. (which in the case of Britain they did more damage to our economy than a major war. Which was treasonable and should be punished as such.) And of course that the bankers, shareholders and executives, would be liable from their own assets for any money taken from the taxpayers purse. But of course that will never happen. We've got privatised profits but nationalised losses. As far from capitalism as communism ever was. |  re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” en>fr fr>en
By goodinfidel Comments: 1658, member since Tue Dec 13, 2005On Tue Aug 07, 2012 01:36 AM
i use paypal |  re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” en>fr fr>en
By Armonteutmaronne Comments: 10934, member since Sun May 20, 2007On Tue Aug 07, 2012 05:43 AM
goodinfidel wrote:
i use paypal
Ok, you're a gebtleman !
 | re: “Man 1, Bank 0.” en>fr fr>en
By Johnny_Ola Comments: 10257, member since Sat Apr 28, 2007On Tue Aug 07, 2012 01:10 PM
mikgof wrote:
Global_Village wrote:
If you want to rip people off you need to own a bank. that way it's all legal and you get billions from the taxpayer.
Exactly... expect liefrog to call you names, according to him, banksters are innocent, the problem is government regulations, so he thinks that more deregulation is therefore needed! Truth is, the banking cartel and our so called "decisions makers" are the same people...
What if we required all people who buy stocks to hold on to them for at least 90 days? If you want to gamble, go to Vegas. Stocks should be for long-term portfolios.
Actually I'd agree with him. If deregulation also meant that they were to never have access to taxpayers money. If deregulation also meant that if they were to harm our country in any way, that they were punished in line with the damage that they did. (which in the case of Britain they did more damage to our economy than a major war. Which was treasonable and should be punished as such.) And of course that the bankers, shareholders and executives, would be liable from their own assets for any money taken from the taxpayers purse. But of course that will never happen. We've got privatised profits but nationalised losses. As far from capitalism as communism ever was. |
ReplySendWatch
|
Advertise Here
The Ban Chroniclesbizlah paid to be unbanned at Sat Dec 22 14:38
PistolPierre banned ArthurH for 24 hours on Wed Sep 19 15:40 with the message 'Speak English'
PistolPierre banned ArthurH for 24 hours on Sun Sep 02 14:27 with the message 'Fag'
ArthurH paid to be unbanned at Sun Sep 02 13:28
PistolPierre banned ArthurH for 24 hours on Sun Sep 02 13:18 with the message 'Fuck you'
|
