Complaint Review: Tampa Green Consultants - Tampa Florida

..In many cases, people do not take any responsibility for their own actions. However, if any institution that is reasonably assumed to be on "our" side, is taking advantage as well, or exploiting regulations or customer error/foolishness, naivety, etc, they are only contributing to the problem.

I understand the banks position in cases like this and I do not think they should be held responsible or have a suit over this, there are plenty other better reasons for this they are currently dealing with, but it just seems to me no matter what rules, regulations or laws are put in place, they find a way to fall through the cracks and profit off it.

Can I blame them for trying?, no, they are a business I understand. But once ethical boundaries are being crossed, it should at least be looked into.

Of course if a teller explains to a customer that they have seen checks like this be fraudulent, as they always are..if they give fair warning, then at that point, the customer is totally responsible. Unfortunately we read all to often, the bank took the check no problem and no questions asked, and the customer got stiffed. But then we read of customers that had problems with the bank clearing good checks which were issued by the government, courts, well known businesses etc, and those they seem to hold until verified. Is it just coincidence that the policies and regulations are often used in a way that most inconveniences the customer, and/ OR greatly increases the chance of fees? Many regulation changes are often made to be better for customers and decrease the chance of fees, but somehow the banks turn it around. It just bothers me..that's all.

Due to their information regarding current scams...but one must also realize that the final responsibility lies with the account owner. Yes I did work for a bank, in a branch for many years and there really aren't any new scams out there. Just variations of playing on people's naivete or gullibility.

During one particular week I remember stopping three of these such scams, going so far as to call the paying bank for the client and verifying the nature of the check in question. What stands out most in this week was one customer in particular that would not take my advice regarding the reality of this internet lottery that she had won. I was able to convince her to open a secondary account to let the funds sit in while the check went on it's way. When it inevitably came back I was able to save her the problems of owing the bank.

The banks are in a tight spot when it comes to this issue, as they can't say 100% that it will be returned and most banks will not communicate with other institutions (wonderful thing that privacy act) thankfully the fraud areas are one that do trade info and think outside of the box. Another issue is the client who "has been a faithful client of this bank for 20 years" ever tried telling him that we're going to follow regulation cc and place a delay on this funds to insure collectability?  Most banks have ways to circumvent this reg for clients with a good history and I have worked with one that even kept a negative check database for any check that was ever returned and would prevent depositing of one with the same account number. Even with multiple levels of fraud prevention new employees are hired every day and some of those are green while others are just "9 to 5'ers" that couldn't care less about the person in front of them.

There will always be problems that shouldn't exist in a perfect world, and scams like this should be eliminated but the holes in the process allow for way to many opportunities and that is what the scammers count on.

I guess my point is this and is truly the heart of ROR - if it's too good to be true it probably is. Own the responsibility to determine for yourself and not count on someone else to save you...otherwise you end up where our gov't is leading the US...total dependency on big brother. Personal responsibility has taken a back seat to suing everyone and everything, and no one wants to accept it when they make a mistake.  I know that's a bit off-topic but it's the heart of ROR...to educate the masses so that they can hopefully avoid being taken advantage of in the future.

your answer may be an over simplification..and doesn't get to the root of the problem.

Now of course no one should believe they are getting money for free, or won a lottery they never entered etc..but the scammers are playing off human nature, greed , naivety etc..so a percentage of people are going to deposit the bad checks..

And this is where the banks come into play, because without the banks, this scam would not be possible. Now i have read in the UK they have virtually stopped this scam since the tellers take a look at a check like that, and toss it in the garbage..problem solved.

Now as far as your statement that the check would be considered "good", all it would really take is a professional set of eyes (which many would assume a bank is), to tell it is a fake, or if unsure, to warn the customer it could be and to not spend against it until the account the check came from was verified.

I just feel the banks should know better, and probably do, but allow this to happen no questions asked since they will hold the account owner responsible regardless. Since it is a reasonable assumption to the general public that a bank of all places would understand how the check system works, and that these types of checks are ALWAYS fakes, that they would do something, such as the UK has been trying.

Here is some info I copied and pasted from (((Redacted)))

1. If the check is a Cashier's Check or if Joe is a customer in good standing, Joe's account may be immediately credited with funds. 

   "Immediately" means that a portion of the  money in the JoesBank "safe" is credited to Joe's account pending receipt of the funds from the bank that issued the Cashier's Check. 

   Normally, the Cashier's Check bank debits funds from its "safe" and sends them to JoesBank.  JoesBank puts the funds from the Cashier's Check bank back in its "safe." 

   I'm simplifying here, but only by very little.  No point in getting into each detail of how money moves through the Federal Reserve, going back and forth between banks. 

   In any event, in this case the Cashier's Check is denied, so there is no money to put back in the JoesBank "safe" to replace the money credited to Joe's account.




2. If the check is a regular corporate check, it's sent through the system.  This means that a Hold is placed on the check until it clears.  That means the check is presented to the account holder's bank and, if there are sufficient funds in the account holder's account on the day the check arrives, the amount is credited to JoesBank.

   
   

"Clears" is an electronic term.  It means that the amount of the check is electronically conveyed to the account holder's bank as a debit, followed by the physical check which travels in what are called "batches" to a check clearing house. 

Again, I'm simplifying but it's not much more complicated than that.  Basically, Brinks picks up a bag (batch) of checks from JoesBank at the end of the banking day, drives them to the local check clearing house, and from there the checks are sent off to the various banks they came from.

Back to clearing the check.  A check travels through the system electronically and physically.  The check owner's bank electronically acknowledges receipt of the debit, debits the check owner's account, and

forwards the funds back through the system to be credited to JoesBank, then to Joe's account. 

Depending on the "route" (how many credit and debit processes the check owner's bank is from JoesBank), the entire process can take from just a few days to a couple of weeks.

Now comes the sticky part

Remember the physical check that Brinks picked up and transported to the clearing house?  It is finally verified by actual eyes and declared invalid.  If it's a Cashier's Check or Money Order, that happens fairly quickly. 

If it's a corporate or personal check, eyes-on can take weeks depending on when statements are sent out and when the account holder actually eyeballs the check.  Or verifies his account balance.

Once the check has been declared invalid (this includes Cashier's Checks, Money Orders, Traveler's Checks, what have you), the check owner's bank sends a debit through the system, debiting JoesBank for the amount in full, plus handling fees.  JoesBank has no choice but to allow the debit to be taken from its "safe."

What's in the "safe" specifically means a portion of the sum total of the money that Joe's neighbors have left with JoesBank for safekeeping, minus that which is out on loan and invested. That's how the ledger is kept.  Depositor money in, depositor money out.  Because of the bank's license, it is the bank's fiduciary responsibility to retrieve those funds by whatever manner possible. 

Since it was Joe's contractual responsibility as an account holder to be responsible for the true value of what he deposits into his

account, Joe is the one to whom the bank turns.

What most people don't realize is that most of the checks, for all intent and purposes, would be considered "good" at initial investigations. An account number is lifted off of a legitimate check and then used to create counterfeit checks that run through the banks. It is only upon the company whose account has been compromised to notice that checks that they haven't written were clearing their account. According to fed rules, they have 60 days in which to notify their bank and then your bank where you deposited the fraudulent check finally returns it. These scams play off of larger businesses that may not notice a small check (for them) clearing until a bean counter somewhere along the line takes notice, and squeaks. Basically if you haven't done anything to warrant the surprise cash, you won't be getting anything.

And no need to get all huffy.

I will try to keep this simple and to the point. Bear in mind I am not blaming the banks for this scam, or accusing them of a crime per say...I just smell a rat.

Fact) I have seen reports here of banks excessively holding legitimate checks, which led to fees.

Fact) I have seen reports here of banks very quickly cashing or clearing fraudulent Nigerian lottery checks or similar,also leading to fees.

So I am suspect, and curious. That is all, no need to make a scene. From my experience here, you seem to know your stuff regarding bank policies so I asked a few questions. let me make it very easy...check yes or no...10 simple yes/no questions.

Are there any regulations that prevent a bank from verifying if a check is legit before accepting/clearing?   Yes []        No    []

Seems most or all banks don't use a check scanner/reader.
Is this by choice?    Yes[]          No[]

Is there a chance the banks have seen this scam happen before? Yes[]   No[]

If so, would it be a good thing for customers if they put in safeguards?
Yes[]    No[]

Is it possible, that the banks can and often do charge and collect many fees when a check does not clear?

Yes[]    No[]

Is it possible when a check bounces, that the account is subject to overdrafting, hence additional fees can and often do result?   Yes[]   No[]

Could this SCAM work, if the banks had safeguards? Yes[]   No[]

Even though the people that fall for this are not the smartest, are they criminals? Yes []     No[]

Is it reasonable or "logical" to assume the banks stand to collect fees when a fraudulent check is discovered to be a fraud 2 weeks later?   Yes[]    No[]

Is it reasonable and "logical" to assume the banks make NOTHING if they DO NOT except a fraudulent check Yes[]   No[]


Fin

   What you propose is not feasable.  Unlike you, I do not feel the need to write 60 paragraphs explaining why.    The scammers were smart enough to figure out the loopholes, I suggest you do the same.

"It would seem in all logic, the banks know about this scam, choose to do nothing to help protect their customers who fall victim, and it can be concluded that the banks as well perpetuate the scam. "

  So, even though a bank gains nothing (and usually loses money) on these scams, in the Ronny Universe the bank perpetuates the scam just so they can be mean.  Does that sound logical?

I understand whether a check is good or not, the regulations state they must clear it the next business day for most checks, some they must make the first 100 dollars available the first day and remaining funds the 2nd day if local, 5 days if distant.

So in that respect I can see how they must comply in most cases. I guess what I am more concerned with, is why they don't do more to protect the customers from this scam. I mean they must see this with EVERY SINGLE victim, as the bank is used in this scam. The scam could not work without the banks participation.

Is there any regulation that prevents them from verifying if a check is legit?..or do they CHOOSE not to do this since they are going to hold the customer responsible for the full amount anyhow...plus any additional and fees that result once the check is discovered fraudulent days or weeks later?


It would seem in all logic, the banks know about this scam, choose to do nothing to help protect their customers who fall victim, and it can be concluded that the banks as well perpetuate the scam.

Yes, you are correct, this is exactly how the scam works. But , MY question is, how come when a customer deposits a LEGITIMATE check, they can not take out funds against it until it clears, but when it's a FRAUDULENT check, then funds can be drawn before it clears?

And, how come the banks do not put the check through a reader like EVERY other business does to see if it is legit? Are there any "regulations" that prevent them from verifying a check before excepting deposit and allowing funds to be drawn on it before it clears?

It almost seems to me if we can't get a reasonable answer for this, that the banks are not really doing the right thing here either. I mean does this seem suspect to anyone else but me? Am I overlooking something?

"Just wondering who would go through the cost and time of doing this? What do they get out of it?"

  The check is phony, but it's a good enough forgery to pass initial inspection at a bank.  As such, it make take as long as two weeks for the check to make its way back to the (supposedly) originating bank and be declared a forgery.

  This scam takes advantage of US banking regulations that force the bank to make deposited funds availlable to you within a certain time period (Regulation CC), whether the originating bank has cleared the check or not. 

  The scammers have you deposit the phony check in your account.  When the bank makes the funds available, they have you send a Western Union or Moneygram transfer for several thousand dollars to the "tax agent" to pay for taxes on your big prize.   They insist on this method because W.U. and Moneygram transfers are untraceable.  The "tax agent" is just a scammer that picks up the cash (usually in Canada to complicate jurisdictional issues).  You've basically sent good cash to scammers who sent you a phony check.

  The last thing that happens is your bank notifies you that the bank eventually notifies you that the check was identified as a forgery and you now owe them the amount of the phony check.

  This scam works because people are often ignorant about how the banking system works.  They assume that if the bank made the funds available, the check must have been good.  Big mistake.    The other reason it works is that people who send W.U. and Moneygram transfers to people they don't know, do not realize that it is equivalent to handing cash to a stranger on the street.