HOME SHARED LETTERS RATINGS MY PLANET COMMUNITIES MISSION SIGN UP!
Shared Letters

Join and browse our exclusive open discussion forums and talk about whatever you like.

Channels
» The Suggestion Box
» Company Responses
» PFB Feedback Line
» Consumer Podcasts
» Mommy Talk & Daddy Dialogue ™
» Shared Letters


Newsletter

Sign up for PlanetFeedback's "Consumer Café" email newsletter!





A Citibank Nightmare!

Posted Wed January 10, 2007 12:05 am, by Seon C. written to Citibank N A

Write a Letter to this Company  |  Rate this Company


To Whom This May Concern,

As a client in good standing of your bank for the last ten years, I am greatly dismayed to have to hereby inform you of a very serious irregularity committed in respect of my person by one of your bank's branches, namely: the East Brooklyn Financial Center, located 80 Jamaica Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11207. As is detailed in the following, this branch failed to execute a clearance check on a money order that I had expressly signaled to several employees (including a supervisor) as being highly probably fraudulent. Notwithstanding the bank's failure to follow rudimentary regulatory procedures in respect of suspicious negotiable drafts, I was explicitly informed by an employee of this branchafter a holding period of one weekthat the money order in question had been cleared and was, therefore, valid. I was duly issued the sum represented by the order ($2000) on the basis that the latter had been cleared, upon which I then transferred the sum of $1592 to a third party in the context of a transaction that subsequently did, indeed, prove to be fraudulentwith the money order well and truly being counterfeit, as I had suspected from the start. The professional errors committed by your bank have, thus, incurred my being defrauded for the sum of $1592. The legal liability in this case clearly lies with Citibank, whose representatives not only did not carry out the procedures in vigor for suspected instances of counterfeit drafts (as set down by both financial and Federal institutions) but furnished mein their official capacitywith false information. Accordingly, I am now requesting that you redress this situation as quickly as possible, by restituting to my account the sum of $1592. As your East Brooklyn branch has deemed fit to "impound" the money presently resting in my account (totaling some $920.14), I further request that you immediately instruct this branch to equally restitute this sum to me, as well as to cease importuning me with claims that I am in any way liable for the professional faults committed by its employees.

The history of my transactions pertaining to this matter with the Citibank East Brooklyn branch is as follows.

On November 1, 2006, I presented a money order to my local Citibank branch (sc: the branch whose name and address are furnished above), informing the teller to whom I spoke that I had good reason to suspect the money order was fraudulent and, therefore, wanted its validity to be checked.

Upon being questioned by the teller, a young woman by the name of Jessica (FC# 00305 FA#002), as to why I doubted the money order's authenticity, I informed her that the money order had been sent to me as payment for an article of furniture I had listed for sale on an Internet site, but that, as the sum far exceeded the price of the article for sale, the buyer wanted me to return the difference to him. In fact, the buyeror, more precisely, the buyer's "agent" (a certain Charles Anderson)claimed he was acting on behalf of a client and that the difference between the price of the object for sale and the sum of the money order represented his commission and shipping fees. The money order had supposedly been sent to me directly by the clienta certain David Davidsonwhich was why the sum of the money order (sc: $2000) exceeded that of my cabinet for sale ($400). In short, everything about the circumstances under which I had received the money order indicated I was being set up as the victim of a "fake money order scam", of the type that I have since learned to be now so prevalent in financial operations conducted via Internet sites.

The teller then conferred with her supervisor, "Sally Anne", who, after examining the money order, declared it to seem authentic and instructed the teller to process it. When the latter, upon returning to the bank counter, tried to swipe the money order, she discovered, however, that it would not swipe. Despite this, she nevertheless proceeded to process the order, explaining to me that the fact that it wouldn't swipe did not necessarily indicate it was false. She informed me I should wait "a couple of days" for the money order to be cleared.

In order to fully allow the bank time to check the validity of the money order, I decided to wait, in fact, for a period considerably longer than the "couple of days" I had been advised to by the teller before returning to see if the money order had, indeed, been cleared. Accordingly, it was not until November 8 that I returned to my branch. On this occasion I spoke to a male teller identified by the number FC# 00305 FA# 005, to whom I stipulated that I was there to receive confirmation or not of the validity of the money order I had deposed a week previously. After instructing me to perform a series of operationsnamely, to dip my banking card into the machine, enter my pin, and inform him of the amount of the money orderthe teller declared ad verbatim: "yes everything is fine; there is no problem with the money order." Having in this way been given official assurance as to the validity of the money order, I then requested the sum of the same in cash, which the teller issued to me as funds having been cleared by Citibank and deposited in my account.

As things stood, therefore, on November 8, my local Citibank branch had officially recognized the money order to be authentic. I had not only been officially notified of the money order's validity by the employee with whom I spoke at the term of the "holding period" of one week, but I had been issued the funds represented by the order, on the explicit basis that the latter had been cleared. As such, I could no longer doubt the honesty of the buyer's agent, Mr. Anderson, and proceeded to forward $1592.00US to his shipper, a certain Mr. William Cole (located 41 Franklin Rouvet, Limassol, 3014 Republic of Cyprus), as payment of shipping charges and commission. In conformity with the instructions I had received from Mr. Anderson I sent this money via Western Union (MTCN: 134-304-1859), thus concluding the sale of my cabinet.

On November 10, while consulting my Citibank account on line, I was horrified to discover that the money order had now been declared invalid and that the bank had debited my account $2000.00 US. I promptly called Citibank and spoke to two representatives, who suggested that I contact the agent, Mr. Anderson, or the person who had sent the money order to inform him it had been returned unpaid. They also specified I should return to the bank where the transaction had taken place to speak with the manager. I would note in this context, that, in accordance with the indications given to me by the Citibank representatives, I have made persistent efforts to contact Mr. Anderson, but to no avail.

On November 13, I went to the East Brooklyn branch where I was made to wait three and a half hours before the manager, Mr. Nicholas M. Moore, saw me in his office. I told him what had transpired in the past week, which he confirmed with the tellers and supervisor. He stated that he understood my frustration and that, given the gravity of the affair, the FBI and his superiors would be contacted. Visibly shocked by the fact that the tellers and supervisor had been explicitly informed by me of the seemingly fraudulent nature of the money order, he stated out loud: "I can't believe that they didn't call it in after you told them that".

In the course of our interview, Mr. Moore made copies of the deposit ticket, withdrawal ticket and Western Union receipt, after which he asked me to call him the following day. Upon returning home, I forwarded to Mr. Moore copies of the e-mails that had been exchanged between Mr. Anderson and myself in order to speed up any investigation that might be conducted. Thereafter, I called him on four separate occasions over the next five days and left messages including my name, account number and telephone number. Mr. Moore did not return any of my calls.

On November 20, exasperated by such an extraordinarily unprofessional manner of handling client relations in an affair in which Citibank was clearly at fault, I returned to the East Brooklyn branch. On this occasion, Mr. Mooreafter apologizing for not returning my callsspoke with me in the company of his operations manager. The latter asked me to tell her what had happened, then declared to me, in no uncertain terms, that the bank was not obliged to investigate the validity of checks presented by its customers on their behalf and that whatever its employees may have either said or been told had no importance whatsoever. According to the operations manager, all responsibility for verifying the validity of a check belonged to clients, whereas the bank's sole task was to accept the check, make the funds available to the customer and, then, validate the check in accordance with federal and state banking regulations. Should for any reason a check bounce, Citibank placed all onus for this upon the payee and not the person who had signed it. While apologizing for the difficulties I had encountered, she refused to accept any responsibility on behalf of Citibank, the supervisor and tellers.

I then asked the bank manager, Mr. Moore, if he would be kind enough to sign a note confirming what the tellers had been told and what they had said. Mr. Moore greeted this request with a blunt refusal, informing me that the only reason we were engaged in a discussion at all was due to the fact that the bank did not believe I was part of the "scam", but merely a victim with unrealistic notions of what a bank actually does. I was then referred to the police to complete a consumer fraud report documenting what had taken place. In addition I was told that corporate security would be called in on the matter, if need be, and that I should report to my home branch to work out a payment plan with the manager.

The discussion that took place between Mr. Moore, his operations manager and myself on November 20 was the last exchange that I have had with the Citibank East Brooklyn branchother than that consisting of my being informed that it has impounded/frozen my account (with the funds of $920.14 therein). Such a peremptory denial of all liability on its behalf is not only shocking; it is legally untenable.

Since the date of my last interview with Mr. Moore, I have, of course, contacted the police and, in conformity with their directions, consulted the Brooklyn Civil Court in order to inquire as to the possibility of filing a civil suit. I have additionally sought advice as to the legal liability of your bank in this affair.

Several points should be underlined in respect of the transactions having transpired between the Citibank East Brooklyn branch and myself.

First, in light of the notification given to the branch's employees (tellers and supervisor) of the money order's probable fraudulent status, Citibank should have imposed a holding period upon this draft until such a time as it had been honored by the issuing institution. As you are, undoubtedly, well aware, money ordersin their legal capacity as a "type of negotiable draft issued by banks, post offices, telegraph companies and express companies"are assimilated to checks by financial institutions, with the latter thereby fully entitled to place the same holds on them as federal regulations allow on local or non-local checks. Indeed, in the light of the increasing number of "scams" involving counterfeit money orders received as payment for transactions conducted via the Internet, and the subsequent information issued by federal bodies to both financial institutions and the general public on the necessity of increased security in handling drafts of this type, many banks now automatically impose holds for all such transactions. In this respectgiven precisely the fact that information has been issued by federal bodies to financial corporations, such as your own, concerning this type of scamsyour bank's employees must have been well aware of how incredibly suspicious all the circumstances surrounding the money order were.

In this particular instance, however, Citibank not only showed extreme negligence in not implementing any controls on a money order that had been signaled to it by a customer as of a suspected counterfeit nature, but actively misinformed the said customer, by stating to the latter that a clearance check had, in fact, been conducted.

In no way, therefore, can the present instance be assimilated to one involving a customer "non-familiarized with security precautions" who naively hands over a money order to be cashed to an "unsuspecting teller" unable to detect the fraudulent nature of the draft. Not only was the teller to whom the money order was originally presented expressly informed as to the dubious circumstances surrounding the draft, but she then duly informed her supervisor of the money order's suspected inauthenticity. The bank thus incurs liability by, on the one hand, its failing to take any special measures to confirm the money order's validity in the light of the information it had received and the express injunction of its customer, and, on the other, its issuing of false information to the latter as to the clearance status of the money order. The liability so incurred no doubt did not escape the East Brooklyn branch's manager, Mr. Moore, upon his learning of such aggravated malpractice; hence his exclamation expressing utter disbelief that the money order had "not been called in".

Second, by actively misinforming a customer on the subject of its having controlled the validity of a money order and then disclaiming all responsibility for the misinformation so dispensed, Citibank can be maintained to itself partake of fraudulent conduct in respect of its clientele. Information provided by official representatives of a financial institution to its customers is presumed to be trustworthy and a faithful representation of the institution's policy, such as to allow customers to take financial decisions on the basis of the information so provided. Insofar as clients engage loans and other financial operations on the basis of information concerning rates, etc., provided by the financial institutions they enter into transaction with, no reputable financial institutionsuch as Citibank would accredit itself to becould countenance the issuing of false information by its employees (notwithstanding the East Brooklyn branch's operations manager claiming the contrary in this respect). In the particular instance at hand, my decision to withdraw the sum of $2000 represented by the money order was completely dependent upon my having asked Citibank to control the draft's authenticity and havinga week laterreceived assurance that the draft was, indeed, valid. By issuing me the funds of $2000 contra the proclaimed clearance of the money order, the Citibank teller FC# 00305 FA# 005 can be said to have "countersigned" the draft, qua representative of the issuing institution.

In conclusion of this letter, I wish to impress upon you, good sir or madam, that I as yet trust that Citibank, as one of the finest financial institutions in the world, will act promptly to redress the irregularities perpetrated by its East Brooklyn branch in my regard. I am, as I stated in my opening paragraph, a customer of ten years good standing with your institution and have up to now never had reason to complain of your bank's services. As such, it would constitute all the more of a deception for me were I to have to pursue legal action and contact the media and other pertinent instances in this case. I await, therefore, the rapid recognition of liability in this affair by your institution and, consequent upon this, the restitution of the sum of $1592 to my account as well as the reinstatement of the latter's valid standing, such that the existing funds of $920.14 are immediately made available to me

Yours faithfully, Seon

Account Type: Basic Checking Account
Name On Account: Seon
Address: Brooklyn, NY 11207

Refund $1592


Reply



Log In/Create an account | 46 comments
     Add to your del.icio.us  del.icio.us    Digg this story  Digg this  
PlanetFeedback Comments are subject to strict terms and conditions. We reserve the right to deny site membership privileges to any individuals acting inappropriately.
by Seon Cort Posted Fri February 16, 2007 @ 1:18 AM

Truly, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to everyone and
most of all planetfeedback.com

As it stands, Citibank has credited my account the sum lost and
reinstated it in good standing.
Sincerely,
Seon


Reply
by angelicsabyne Posted Sat January 13, 2007 @ 9:05 PM

First of all, could you please prune down the letter next time? This
hurt my poor nearsighted eyes to read!

With that out of the way, here's my piece. Everyone who's already
posted to this is right. This is a really common scam that's gone on
for a long time now. My boyfriend was almost suckered into it last
year, though he managed to avoid being taken for anything, and was
only charged a small fee by his bank. But seriously, if you had a bad
feeling about the MO, why did you agree to let it be processed in the
first place? Your gut almost never lies, trust it in cases like
these.

I don't think Citibank's going to do much of anything in this regard,
as you went ahead with the transaction, regardless of your doubts.
But I hope the experience teaches you a valuable lesson about these
types of scams. I'd say just count this as a learning experience,
lick your wounds, and move on. It may be all that can be done.

Reply
by A A Posted Fri January 12, 2007 @ 12:04 PM

This scam has been going on for about 10 or 12 years and is pretty
common.
If you fell for it, then you are the one that loses. You basically
said you knew it was a scam but checked with the bank. Why? Why did
you not tell the "agent" and or "client" that you smelled a scam, and
that you were not a bank and did not want to act like a bank to
exchange one form of funds for another for a client you never met?
How in the world could you not see that if the "client" could send you
a money order for $2000, he could have bought 2 different money orders
and sent one to his "agent" and one to you much easier and faster than
having to process it through you?
Your letter is well written and I feel bad you were scammed, but I
think you were incredibly naive to even consider doing this under the
circumstances you described.

Reply

by MommyG4 Posted Thu January 11, 2007 @ 9:14 PM

LadyMac is correct. You relied on the bank to inform you whether or
not the money order was valid and they said, "Yes". This is a
horrible lesson learned.

Reply

by Venice Posted Thu January 11, 2007 @ 9:06 PM

Wow, after reading the new responses, I now feel compelled to read
this letter, but I think I'll wait until I "grab a cup of coffee"...
remember those letters?

Reply
by KateM Posted Thu January 11, 2007 @ 1:15 PM

I actually enjoyed this letter. It was long-winded, and wordy, but the
spelling and punctuation were entirely correct.
What would everyone have said if he hurried through it, wrote a
shorter letter, and asked for help from the bank to recover his funds,
(when it is clearly half their error?)

Everyone might be jumping down the poor guy's throat if he shortened
it. The details needed to be in there. It sounds like it's really been
a nightmare. He seems intelligent and well-spoken, (that's my only
beef with the letter.) I'm a college graduate, but there's no way I
could write a letter with that plethora (aha!) of words.

So he fell for the scam. (Has anyone else ever been scammed?) Someone
sent me a bank order once from a suit I was selling on Craigslist- (I
framed the MO.)

He lost a lot of money. Cut him a break.

Reply


by natalie t Posted Thu January 11, 2007 @ 1:07 PM

I just want to know how long it took you to write this letter??

Reply

by Cinderelly Posted Thu January 11, 2007 @ 12:20 PM

The one thing I find most disturbing is that you don't seem to place
any blame upon yourself for your part in the transaction.
I believe that you are an intelligent person and would know that if it
sounds too good to be true, it most likely is and should have
invesitgated it further.

Reply

by >Leanne< Posted Thu January 11, 2007 @ 9:03 AM

I completely agree with you Seon. As a former bank employee myself,
if you had informed me of a possible fraudulent money order, and then
I noticed that the magnetic ink on that money order did not scan, I
would have put the longest hold on that money order allowable by bank
policy or given it to management to follow through on with an alert to
them. If management insisted I put it through anyway, I would insist
they give me something in writing somewhere to clear my own name on it
so that later I would not be held responsible. I had to do that once
when a manager argued with me on a counterfit bill and insisted I was
being paranoid. I refused to take it back into my drawer unless she
gave me something in writing to clear me later. She huffed at me and
sent it in to be investigated, even wrote on the paperwork that it was
most likely a legitimate bill. That bill she later found to be
counterfit afterall. My radar would have been up immediately just on
the doubt of the customer's trust in this money order. I would not
have taken the chance.
I am surprised that they did not reprimand this employee at all.

I have also come across the scams where you are offered more than the
purchase price and are instructed to pay back money to finish the
transaction for shipping and other fees. I'm just surprised this was
permitted to go this far until it fell completely on the customer.

Reply


So you do think it's plausible, then, that the employee did assure Seon the money order was genuine? by calm Thu January 11, 2007 @ 11:52 AM


there are several things that could have happened by >Leanne< Thu January 11, 2007 @ 12:07 PM


Also by >Leanne< Thu January 11, 2007 @ 1:57 PM


by LadyMac Posted Thu January 11, 2007 @ 8:07 AM

Apparently I'm the only one who thought this letter was awesome! Very
well written and very clearly sets forth the legal concept of
detrimental reliance (known in some jurisdictions as promissory
estoppel).

Commenters - the issue in this case is not whether the OP knew or
should have known of the fradulent nature of the money order. Clearly
he suspected fraud. However, he relied on the averments of Citibank
that the money order was valid and acted upon those averments. Given
that Citibank was the one with the more sophisticated knowledge in
terms of ascertaining whether the instrument was fraudulent, it was
not unreasonable for Seon to rely on what they told him.

Give him a break. Sure it sounds, when you have all the information,
like it was a scam, but Seon didn't have that benefit.

Seon: Good luck to you.

Reply


I agree 100% Lady Mac by Crusading Brennie Thu January 11, 2007 @ 5:04 PM

I agree 100% by DeterminedStarlight22203 Thu January 11, 2007 @ 7:23 PM

by Venice Posted Thu January 11, 2007 @ 1:09 AM

I really must compliment anyone who actually read this letter for
having the patience of a saint.

I didn't even try. I know my limitations.

Reply

by Gino Version 1.2 Posted Thu January 11, 2007 @ 12:52 AM

I'm sorry to see this happen to you, but the way I see it, it was you
who took the risk FIRST by accepting the Money Order. It's a scam that
most reputable auction sites on the net have warnings about and the
reason why electronic transfer, Cashier's Checks, Pay Pal,and other
options are available, and even with them there's a certain risk
involved.
Citibank and Mr Moore are only acting in their best interest. It would
be more prudent to see what the security and police investiations come
up with before threatening media and legal action against the bank and
demanding they assume a bad risk and refund your money.
I do hope they can find the scammer, for your sake, because you
ultimately are the victim.

Reply


by donno Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 11:48 PM

[I was told] "the only reason we were engaged in a discussion at all
was due to the fact that the bank did not believe I was part of the
"scam", but merely a victim with unrealistic notions of what a bank
actually does." Nuff said.

Reply

by Sarah H Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 10:57 PM

Well...the way you wrote this letter makes you seem pretty smart. But
what I want to know is why did you try to bring this money order to
the bank in the first place? I smell scam all over it. Just think
about it...why oh why would anyone possibly overpay by almost $1600
for something? They wouldn't! Another thing that should have tipped
you off is that the Western Union transaction was going to someone in
a foreign country. I saw a scam just like this in the newspaper a few
months ago. A local college student fell for it...for a lot more
money...and lost her life savings. While I do agree that the
employees at the bank shouldn't have told you your money order would
go through (when they obviously didn't know what they were talking
about), I still don't think you're going to get your money back. You
should have known better than to bring it to the bank in the first
place. I wish you luck though.

Reply

by CrazyRedHead Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 10:42 PM

OWWWWIIIEEEE!!! I tried to read this letter again, but still didn't
make it to far, it is so full of fancy and long words, I couldn't
finish.

What do you want to bet that who ever gets this letter ends up taking
sick leave that day?

Reply


Let me recap. by calm Thu January 11, 2007 @ 12:47 AM


Thank you.... by CrazyRedHead Thu January 11, 2007 @ 8:41 AM


by donno Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 9:57 PM

would someone spend so much time drafting it? If the OP thought the
MO was bogus and then the scan came back negative, why proceed?

I can't believe he told this classic scam story to the bank people,
the scan failed, and they continued to cash it.

This makes no sense. No sense at all. In an ironic twist my reply is
much shorter than normal. Balances the girth above.

Reply
by S. Brown Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 6:20 PM

If it looks like a scam and smells like a scam, chances are it's a
scam. You knew the money order was most likely fraudulent yet you
proceeded in the minimum time possible to withdraw the money. Anyway
you look at it, you owe Citibank $2,000 and all the quotes and
employee numbers and threats in the world aren't going to reverse the
chance you took - - and lost.

Reply

by Tina N Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 5:30 PM

You went ahead with it. Now you are demanding compensation for your
stupidity?
If something is too good to be true, then it's NOT TRUE.


Reply


This SOUNDS familiar, but where have I heard it? by donno Wed January 10, 2007 @ 11:50 PM


by LunaDancer Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 5:12 PM

I'm very sorry you had to go through this, although I can't see how
Citibank is responsible (although what the tellers said could have
falsely reassured you). If you doubted the validity of the money
order, it would have been better to void the transaction. I hope the
police and/or FBI can help. I suggest you visit the following website
for information about scams. Reading the forums may also help diffuse
some of your anger, as many of the posters bait scammers and get back
at them. You'll see what I mean. Consider posting a shortened
version of your letter in the appropriate forum, and perhaps the
veterans can help you plan your next move.

http://www.419eater.com

Good luck...there's not much of a chance or recovering your money, but
who knows.

Reply

by RedheadWGlasses Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 4:38 PM

Because this is not a new scam, and websites such as ebay have issued
warnings about this. So have multiple news organizations. Yes, your
bank screwed up, but you fell for the scam as well.

Nevermind that this letter is 90% longer than it should be.

Go to the police. "Theft by swindle" is illegal.

Reply
by Juicy Jade Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 4:02 PM

Cut the fat out of this letter. Keep it direct and to the point. From
what I understand is that you were scammed, the bank allowed the money
order to go through, you feel that this is their fault and you should
be compensated for everything you are out.

This is a classic scam. But I guess you know that by now.

Reply


by natalie t Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 2:32 PM

this letter is entirely toooooo LOOOOOOOOOOOONG!

I don't think PFB will be able to help in this situation

Reply


I agree it's long by tickytack Wed January 10, 2007 @ 3:16 PM


You would think.. by Harleycat Wed January 10, 2007 @ 3:44 PM


Heck, I'll be able to hear it in Buffalo! (n/t) by tickytack Wed January 10, 2007 @ 4:13 PM


Buffalo.. by Harleycat Wed January 10, 2007 @ 4:32 PM


We have no snow, either by tickytack Thu January 11, 2007 @ 11:07 AM

by Refreshed Amanda Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 2:23 PM

Fancy words... too long...brain overload...shutting
down....................................

Reply

by tickytack Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 1:57 PM

How could you have even considered taking the money order to the bank?
Honestly, didn't it seem suspicious that the "purchaser" would make a
money order out to you for such a higher sum?

I'd have sent it back immediately, and so should you have done.

Reply


by Moof Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 1:50 PM

OK, if you thought it was a scam WHY DID YOU GO ALONG WITH IT! This is
a classic Nigerian scam!!!!!!!

Reply
by Banrion Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 12:48 PM

You are lucky that Citibank has not pressed charges against you yet.
By endorsing a check or money order, you are in essence telling your
bank that you believe the payment to be valid and that this money is
owed to and intended for you.

endorsement (n-drs'mənt) Pronunciation Key
n.
The act of endorsing:
Something, such as a signature or voucher, that endorses or validates.

Approbation; sanction; support

By law a bank is required to release funds from deposits within a
certain timeframe. The way these scam money orders are designed,
causes them to get tied up in the National Clearinghouses for longer
than the funds can legally be held. They do this by putting one
bank's name, for example Bank of Ameria, and address in printed form
on the money order, then the magnetic stripe at the bottom is coded to
a different bank, lets say USA Bank. So USA Bank gets the money order
from the NCH through automated processing. While trying to process,
the account does not exist, and they see that the MO should belong to
Bank of America. They write it off as clearinghouse error, and send
the MO back to the clearinghouse. The clearinghouse sends it to Bank
of America, and again the account doesn't exist, but BOfA sees that
the routing number in the mag stripe is for USA Bank and they send it
back to the clearinghouse. This can happen 2 or 3 times before the
clearinghouse finally notifies the depository that the MO has been
rejected, but at this point they have already been legally bound to
release the funds and have done so, per LAW. That's why this scam
works.

The fact that you were attempting to sell something online tells me
that you are not a novice internet user. As such you should be aware
of such scams, and YOU should have nipped the problem in the bud and
insisted that they pay you the correct amount, and told them that
their business dealings are none of your concern, and as such should
be handled amongst themselves.

Reply

Thanks for the explanation by S. Brown Wed January 10, 2007 @ 3:10 PM

by CrazyRedHead Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 12:47 PM

Do you write for the goverment? This letter is so full of long winded
words that I couldn't finish reading.

Reply


me either! by natalie t Wed January 10, 2007 @ 2:31 PM


by The New and Improved Brenda Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 11:34 AM

I agree with the other 2 posters.

If even YOU thought it was a scam, why did you do it?

I can't believe there are people out there who still believe this
stuff.

Reply
by S. Brown Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 11:33 AM

You got scammed and are looking for someone to blame other than
yourself. Counterfeit money orders are very sophisticated these days
and it can take a while for them to be detected - - particularly if
they are issued from a foreign country as I suspect this one was - -
and it is extremely unreasonable to expect Citibank to make good on
it.

Reply

by Lia Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 10:17 AM

The real nightmare is that the letter writer has to pontificate that
they got scammed.

Sorry it happened, but being longwinded is not going to fix the
problem.

Reply


by Harleycat Posted Wed January 10, 2007 @ 9:38 AM

This letter is way too long and is not likely to be read in it's
entirety.

That being said, you got scammed and it's not Citibank's fault. This
is a common scam going on and you should never accept a money order
that asks you to return money. Sorry, I don't think you are going to
get Citibank to refund the money. You should file a police report.

Reply




Home | Shared Letters | Ratings | Login | Communities | Categories | RSS | Contact Us | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy | FAQ
Copyright 2014 © All Rights Reserved PlanetFeedback.com | Web by Cicada