- Report: #182918
Complaint Review: Suntrust Bank - Atlanta Georgia
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Suntrust Bank
Atlanta, CA Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Suntrust Bank counterfeit money order fraud misrepresentation offset loss customer checking account Atlanta Georgia
*Consumer Comment: What is happening......
*Consumer Comment: PhD doctor, unless you are at school
*Consumer Comment: PhD doctor, unless you are at school
*Consumer Comment: PhD doctor, unless you are at school
*Consumer Suggestion: He was the one trying to rip off the bank
*Consumer Suggestion: Nigerian scam
*Consumer Comment: Good Try Though
*Consumer Comment: Richard is probably right....
*Consumer Comment: Richard is probably right....
*Consumer Comment: Richard is probably right....
*Consumer Comment: Richard is probably right....
*Consumer Comment: It has been............
*Consumer Comment: An obvious scam to begin with.
*Consumer Comment: This one gets a 9 on the Goofy Scale
*Consumer Comment: There's a whole bunch of people who need to get lives
Suntrust Bank Negligence Leads to $3,000+ Loss for Customer
Does Tennessee permit a cause of action against a bank for the following forms of negligence?:
(1) bank officers fail to heed alert issued by FDIC on counterfeit postal money orders,
(2) bank officers fail to heed alert issued by Knoxville postal inspectors on counterfeit money orders,
(3) bank negligently fails to train its tellers or issue an alert about counterfeit postal money orders,
(4) particularly bank teller cashes $3,000 in postal money orders without even bothering to hold them to the light and check for a watermark,
(5) customer said he did NOT want these money orders tied to his checking account in any manner, and teller responded that he should endorse them as ''not for intended purpose,''
(6) TN statute provides for an endorsement ''without recourse'' that the teller negligently failed to advise the customer. The Suntrust Bank has withdrawn $3019.50 from the customer's account.
Ordinary citizens would have no reason to view this USPS scam alert web page, until after they have been the victims of a counterfeit postal money order crime.
However, banking personnel would reasonably be expected to view these banking fraud alert web pages. After viewing the USPS web page, even a child could detect the counterfeit nature of the three money orders. A bonafide U.S. postal money order has a left-side watermark picture of Benjamin Franklin inside an oval, and that face is easily visible when the money order is held up to the light. Counterfeit money orders usually cannot duplicate that Franklin photo watermark, as is the case with the three money orders in dispute. Suntrust and its tellers failed to take the time to hold even one of the money orders that I gave them up to the light. The right side of the money order contains a different, more common watermark, and I originally assumed that was the watermark referred to on the back of each money order as a sign of authenticity.
Suntrust negligently failed to advise its tellers to be aware of possible counterfeit money orders. When I contacted the Suntrust's toll free customer support, Suntrust's representative told I that tellers would have no reason to examine U.S. postal money orders for possible counterfeit notes, because ?they are treated as good as cash just like an IRS refund check or a check from the U.S. Treasury.? I subsequently learned that the U.S. Postal Inspectors office in Knoxville, TN, had been in direct and personal contact with the security officer for Suntrust's Knoxville-area banks concerning these counterfeit postal money orders, and still Suntrust took no tangible action to alert its tellers to this danger.
By negligence or failing to train its tellers with respect to counterfeit U.S. postal money orders, Suntrust breached a duty of care owed to its customers and also failed to meet the comparable industry standards for reasonable conduct for a bank. In contrast to Suntrust's negligence, according to the USPS web site, when J.P. Morgan Chase received the alert from the FDIC about counterfeit postal money orders ?Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for J. P. Morgan Chase, said that it had issued a security alert to all its branches regarding the counterfeit postal money orders.? Suntrust issued no such alert to its branches.
But for the negligence of the Suntrust in (1) failing to advise I of the proper endorsement restriction (?without recourse?) and giving him a bogus restriction (?not for intended purpose?) to place on his endorsement, (2) failing to exercise reasonable care by lifting any of the three money orders up to the light to see if the image of Benjamin Franklin appeared inside the white oval, (3) failing to train its tellers to be cautious of providing large sums of cash for overseas transfer (rather than a check, which can be traced), (4) failing to issue a U.S. postal money order security alert to its branches following the FDIC alert sent to Suntrust's bank executives and teaching them the Benjamin Franklin watermark to look for as a sign of a counterfeit note, (5) failing to separate the money order cash transaction from I's personal checking account, as requested by I for both personal and professional reasons, and (6) failing to file a claim with its insurance carrier ; I would not have incurred a loss of $3,019.50.
We will now have a court hearing to answer the question of who should bear the loss of counterfeit notes where a customer tells a bank teller: (1) he did not want to deposit three postal money orders to my account, (2) he did not want them linked or tied to my checking account in any way, and (3) he simply wanted to cash the money orders, does a bank have a right to charge his account if they turn out to be counterfeit? The teller told him to endorse the money orders in a peculiar manner: to write "Not for Intended Purpose" on back, which he thought meant they would not be tied to my account. He subsequently learned that TN has a statute that provides for an endorser to write "Without Recourse" on a negotiable instrument, but the teller failed to give him the correct endorsement for my circumstances. The teller failed to inspect the money orders or hold them up to the light to check for a watermark. The U.S. Postal Inspectors office in Knoxville had been in direct contact with the security officer at Suntrust Bank about counterfeit postal money orders, but Suntrust failed to give its tellers proper training and alerts to protect its customers.
The bank's attorney seems to think this is a slam dunk, easy summary judgment win for his client. Is there no justice in America? Just how far must banks go before their own negligence plays any part in the recovery of funds?
Dr. Michael A. S. Guth, Ph.D., J.D., is an attorney at law based in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. His practice focuses on enabling people to represent themselves pro se without a lawyer (and thereby save on legal fees), as well as full representation for appellate practice. One area his work has particularly emphasized is child support defense and elimination of the unconstitutional debtor prisons that now saturate our court jurisdictions across the nation. For more information, see URL http://michaelguth.com/prose.htm and http://michaelguth.com/samplepleadings.htm
Michael
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
U.S.A.
Does Tennessee permit a cause of action against a bank for the following forms of negligence?:
(1) bank officers fail to heed alert issued by FDIC on counterfeit postal money orders,
(2) bank officers fail to heed alert issued by Knoxville postal inspectors on counterfeit money orders,
(3) bank negligently fails to train its tellers or issue an alert about counterfeit postal money orders,
(4) particularly bank teller cashes $3,000 in postal money orders without even bothering to hold them to the light and check for a watermark,
(5) customer said he did NOT want these money orders tied to his checking account in any manner, and teller responded that he should endorse them as ''not for intended purpose,''
(6) TN statute provides for an endorsement ''without recourse'' that the teller negligently failed to advise the customer. The Suntrust Bank has withdrawn $3019.50 from the customer's account.
Ordinary citizens would have no reason to view this USPS scam alert web page, until after they have been the victims of a counterfeit postal money order crime.
However, banking personnel would reasonably be expected to view these banking fraud alert web pages. After viewing the USPS web page, even a child could detect the counterfeit nature of the three money orders. A bonafide U.S. postal money order has a left-side watermark picture of Benjamin Franklin inside an oval, and that face is easily visible when the money order is held up to the light. Counterfeit money orders usually cannot duplicate that Franklin photo watermark, as is the case with the three money orders in dispute. Suntrust and its tellers failed to take the time to hold even one of the money orders that I gave them up to the light. The right side of the money order contains a different, more common watermark, and I originally assumed that was the watermark referred to on the back of each money order as a sign of authenticity.
Suntrust negligently failed to advise its tellers to be aware of possible counterfeit money orders. When I contacted the Suntrust's toll free customer support, Suntrust's representative told I that tellers would have no reason to examine U.S. postal money orders for possible counterfeit notes, because ?they are treated as good as cash just like an IRS refund check or a check from the U.S. Treasury.? I subsequently learned that the U.S. Postal Inspectors office in Knoxville, TN, had been in direct and personal contact with the security officer for Suntrust's Knoxville-area banks concerning these counterfeit postal money orders, and still Suntrust took no tangible action to alert its tellers to this danger.
By negligence or failing to train its tellers with respect to counterfeit U.S. postal money orders, Suntrust breached a duty of care owed to its customers and also failed to meet the comparable industry standards for reasonable conduct for a bank. In contrast to Suntrust's negligence, according to the USPS web site, when J.P. Morgan Chase received the alert from the FDIC about counterfeit postal money orders ?Thomas Kelly, a spokesman for J. P. Morgan Chase, said that it had issued a security alert to all its branches regarding the counterfeit postal money orders.? Suntrust issued no such alert to its branches.
But for the negligence of the Suntrust in (1) failing to advise I of the proper endorsement restriction (?without recourse?) and giving him a bogus restriction (?not for intended purpose?) to place on his endorsement, (2) failing to exercise reasonable care by lifting any of the three money orders up to the light to see if the image of Benjamin Franklin appeared inside the white oval, (3) failing to train its tellers to be cautious of providing large sums of cash for overseas transfer (rather than a check, which can be traced), (4) failing to issue a U.S. postal money order security alert to its branches following the FDIC alert sent to Suntrust's bank executives and teaching them the Benjamin Franklin watermark to look for as a sign of a counterfeit note, (5) failing to separate the money order cash transaction from I's personal checking account, as requested by I for both personal and professional reasons, and (6) failing to file a claim with its insurance carrier ; I would not have incurred a loss of $3,019.50.
We will now have a court hearing to answer the question of who should bear the loss of counterfeit notes where a customer tells a bank teller: (1) he did not want to deposit three postal money orders to my account, (2) he did not want them linked or tied to my checking account in any way, and (3) he simply wanted to cash the money orders, does a bank have a right to charge his account if they turn out to be counterfeit? The teller told him to endorse the money orders in a peculiar manner: to write "Not for Intended Purpose" on back, which he thought meant they would not be tied to my account. He subsequently learned that TN has a statute that provides for an endorser to write "Without Recourse" on a negotiable instrument, but the teller failed to give him the correct endorsement for my circumstances. The teller failed to inspect the money orders or hold them up to the light to check for a watermark. The U.S. Postal Inspectors office in Knoxville had been in direct contact with the security officer at Suntrust Bank about counterfeit postal money orders, but Suntrust failed to give its tellers proper training and alerts to protect its customers.
The bank's attorney seems to think this is a slam dunk, easy summary judgment win for his client. Is there no justice in America? Just how far must banks go before their own negligence plays any part in the recovery of funds?
Dr. Michael A. S. Guth, Ph.D., J.D., is an attorney at law based in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. His practice focuses on enabling people to represent themselves pro se without a lawyer (and thereby save on legal fees), as well as full representation for appellate practice. One area his work has particularly emphasized is child support defense and elimination of the unconstitutional debtor prisons that now saturate our court jurisdictions across the nation. For more information, see URL http://michaelguth.com/prose.htm and http://michaelguth.com/samplepleadings.htm
Michael
Oak Ridge, Tennessee
U.S.A.
15 Updates & Rebuttals
Kathleen
Nashville,Tennessee,
U.S.A.
There's a whole bunch of people who need to get lives
#2Consumer Comment
Thu, March 22, 2007
Don't you people have anything better to than take cheap shots at someone else's misfortune. What have we got here a bunch of Saints! You're askin about this guys credentials, lets hear about all of yours. This is exactly what is wrong with our society today is insecure people who lack common courtesy and obviously education as well since none of you can seem to address an issue without put downs and unintelligent comments. What goes around comes around people and if karma doesn't get you, the Big guy upstairs will. Your nothing but a bunch of opinionated,self righteous bullies! What has the guy's hair got to do with anything? People who have to take cheap shots at others are people who have far greater issues than Michael. Do any of you even know why or how he deserves to use the title he presents, probably not, being he's leagues above all of you. He didn't respond because there was nothing and no one worth responding to. Good for you Michael, I wouldn't have responded either. People on this site are trying to inform others, it's an act of selfless effort. It means spending your time so others are informed and can avoid what you've been through. If you can't appreciate that start your own web site and insult each other to your hearts content but don't take up valuable space that denies other people who may want to actually use this site for the purpose it was intended to be used for.
Robert
Jacksonville,Florida,
U.S.A.
This one gets a 9 on the Goofy Scale
#3Consumer Comment
Tue, April 25, 2006
This guy claims alot of stuff. One is that he was taken by some counterfeit money orders. Now, read this, taken directly from his website. "Dr. Michael Guth is a trilingual (English, German, French) business transactions lawyer and financial manager with fifteen years experience and legal expertise in the areas of mergers, acquisitions, and divestitures; securities regulation and hedge fund creation; and deal structuring / business transactions. To further compliment his legal skill set, Michael Guth is an experienced investment banker having worked within the top tier investment banks, namely Credit Suisse and Deutsche Bank, for an international clientele. He played an instrumental role in developing an index-tracking fund and answered technical questions on fund management marketing calls. He advised clients on pre-IPO investments, stock repurchases, and using structured finance products to manage risk. More recently, he directed the risk management and financial control groups for two trading floors." ROFLMAO!!! I know we ALL want this guy handling our finances. Go to his site and check him out. The dead carcass laying on his noggin is just too funny. In fact, it's PRICELESS! With those pics, I up this to a 10. CLICK here to see why Rip-off Report, as a matter of policy, deleted either a phone number, link or e-mail address from this Report.
Duane
Monroe,North Carolina,
U.S.A.
An obvious scam to begin with.
#4Consumer Comment
Tue, April 25, 2006
I don't know how anyone could fall for this scam to begin with. I suppose some people have no common sense or are so greedy they dispense with the common sense. This is clearly a case where the original poster made a stupid choice by cashing those money orders. Then he refuses to admit he made a stupid mistake and tries to pass the blame to the bank. Dude.....it is your own fault that you are in that position.
D
Naples,Florida,
U.S.A.
It has been............
#5Consumer Comment
Tue, April 25, 2006
"Doctor" Guth, it has been over a month since you came here and made your little report about Suntrust not knowing that you had been ripped off by someone. And you were to embarassed to press charges against the people who gave you the money orders. So please give us an update or you will force us to think, what we think. One thing to anyone else who reads these reports, Dont you hate it when people come here make a report, and never respond again?
D
Naples,Florida,
U.S.A.
Richard is probably right....
#6Consumer Comment
Sat, March 25, 2006
Richard is probably right with that it might be the "Nigerian Scam" and the good Dr. is embarassed that he had been taken in by the scam. We just had in the news down here that an area lawyer might have been taken for over $2,000,000.00. Why does it seem that the more education a person has, the less common sense they seem to have? And have you been able to see the web-sites that he listed at the end of his report? I did and 'Dr.' Guth appears to look like a ventriloquist's dummy who's missing it's upper lip. Let's hope that Dr. Michael S.E. Guth, Ph.D.,J.D. responds to us soon. P.S. I wonder what happened to the $3000 that he got from the bank.
D
Naples,Florida,
U.S.A.
Richard is probably right....
#7Consumer Comment
Sat, March 25, 2006
Richard is probably right with that it might be the "Nigerian Scam" and the good Dr. is embarassed that he had been taken in by the scam. We just had in the news down here that an area lawyer might have been taken for over $2,000,000.00. Why does it seem that the more education a person has, the less common sense they seem to have? And have you been able to see the web-sites that he listed at the end of his report? I did and 'Dr.' Guth appears to look like a ventriloquist's dummy who's missing it's upper lip. Let's hope that Dr. Michael S.E. Guth, Ph.D.,J.D. responds to us soon. P.S. I wonder what happened to the $3000 that he got from the bank.
D
Naples,Florida,
U.S.A.
Richard is probably right....
#8Consumer Comment
Sat, March 25, 2006
Richard is probably right with that it might be the "Nigerian Scam" and the good Dr. is embarassed that he had been taken in by the scam. We just had in the news down here that an area lawyer might have been taken for over $2,000,000.00. Why does it seem that the more education a person has, the less common sense they seem to have? And have you been able to see the web-sites that he listed at the end of his report? I did and 'Dr.' Guth appears to look like a ventriloquist's dummy who's missing it's upper lip. Let's hope that Dr. Michael S.E. Guth, Ph.D.,J.D. responds to us soon. P.S. I wonder what happened to the $3000 that he got from the bank.
D
Naples,Florida,
U.S.A.
Richard is probably right....
#9Consumer Comment
Sat, March 25, 2006
Richard is probably right with that it might be the "Nigerian Scam" and the good Dr. is embarassed that he had been taken in by the scam. We just had in the news down here that an area lawyer might have been taken for over $2,000,000.00. Why does it seem that the more education a person has, the less common sense they seem to have? And have you been able to see the web-sites that he listed at the end of his report? I did and 'Dr.' Guth appears to look like a ventriloquist's dummy who's missing it's upper lip. Let's hope that Dr. Michael S.E. Guth, Ph.D.,J.D. responds to us soon. P.S. I wonder what happened to the $3000 that he got from the bank.
Cory
San Antonio,Texas,
U.S.A.
Good Try Though
#10Consumer Comment
Sat, March 25, 2006
You took several counterfeit postal money orders, deposited them in account and are now trying to make the bank "make good" on them. And what's with the syntax?????? "Advise I". "...even a child could detect the counterfeit nature...". In all the terms and agreements YOU signed when opening an account, YOU agreed to deposit GOOD FUNDS, which YOU failed to do. It IS a slam dunk for the bank. Even that, "customer said he did not want these money orders tied to his account", isn't gonna get you off the hook. And WTF is this Dr Micheal A.S.... ?
Richard
Chalmette,Louisiana,
U.S.A.
Nigerian scam
#11Consumer Suggestion
Sat, March 25, 2006
This sounds to me like one of those email scams where someone contacts you to cash money orders for them, wiring the bulk of the money and keeping a small fee for yourself. Then by the time the banks realized the money orders are counterfeit, the money's long gone and you're on the hook. I've seen a dozen of these cases where, either through greed or ignorance, someone falls for one of these scams and then tries to hang it on the bank. By the way, I hardly think the bank teller is obligated to give legal advice on check endorsements.
Steph
Park Ridge,Illinois,
U.S.A.
He was the one trying to rip off the bank
#12Consumer Suggestion
Fri, March 24, 2006
This guy was the rip offer and the bank the ripoffee. HE got some use out of the 3000 dollars and now wants the bank to cover what he used it for. If he hadn't used the 3000 dollars he would still have it and you give it to the bank and you're even minus the fee. Once I deposited a money order I didn't realize was fraudulent. Luckily it was only 30 dollars. I spent it and had to give the money back to the bank. He should be going after who gave him the money order. Tellers deal with thousands of checks money orders every day.
Dave
New Westminster,British Columbia,
Canada
PhD doctor, unless you are at school
#13Consumer Comment
Fri, March 24, 2006
Sounds like someone is posting a letter they had written for them, or perhaps a zine article they found somewhere. A Ph.D. does let you use the title "doctor" in a limited number of places. The only way to get away with cashing a bogus check / draft / money order is to do it somewhere like MoneyMart. Or pass it off to someone who will cash tehm into their own bank account, and thus launder the money for the crook. Sounds like this is what happened to you. Whenever I go to buy a money order, if it is for anything over $500, they tell me to buy a Bank Draft instead. Many places won't touch a large Money Orders anymore because of how common it is to "doctor" them.
Dave
New Westminster,British Columbia,
Canada
PhD doctor, unless you are at school
#14Consumer Comment
Fri, March 24, 2006
Sounds like someone is posting a letter they had written for them, or perhaps a zine article they found somewhere. A Ph.D. does let you use the title "doctor" in a limited number of places. The only way to get away with cashing a bogus check / draft / money order is to do it somewhere like MoneyMart. Or pass it off to someone who will cash tehm into their own bank account, and thus launder the money for the crook. Sounds like this is what happened to you. Whenever I go to buy a money order, if it is for anything over $500, they tell me to buy a Bank Draft instead. Many places won't touch a large Money Orders anymore because of how common it is to "doctor" them.
Dave
New Westminster,British Columbia,
Canada
PhD doctor, unless you are at school
#15Consumer Comment
Fri, March 24, 2006
Sounds like someone is posting a letter they had written for them, or perhaps a zine article they found somewhere. A Ph.D. does let you use the title "doctor" in a limited number of places. The only way to get away with cashing a bogus check / draft / money order is to do it somewhere like MoneyMart. Or pass it off to someone who will cash tehm into their own bank account, and thus launder the money for the crook. Sounds like this is what happened to you. Whenever I go to buy a money order, if it is for anything over $500, they tell me to buy a Bank Draft instead. Many places won't touch a large Money Orders anymore because of how common it is to "doctor" them.
D
Naples,Florida,
U.S.A.
What is happening......
#16Consumer Comment
Fri, March 24, 2006
What is happening with you getting your money back from the people that GAVE YOU THE MONEY ORDERS in the first place? And 2 other questions for you. Why are you referring to yourself in the third person so much? Unless Mr.Guth is not the person who filed this report. And if NOT, than why not? IF this IS Mr. Guth, WHY are you giving yourself the DR.? You are NOT a Doctor. You DIDN'T GO TO MEDICAL SCHOOL otherwise you would have a M.D. listed. I look forward to your response.
