🚀 go-pugleaf

Gordon Charrick wrote:
> 
> In misc.consumers Jamie <jamie@digex.net> wrote:
> : Why should Crestar (as opposed to your bank) honor the check, if, as you
> : said, it was rejected it due to insufficient funds?
> 
> : A bad check is a bad check.  I've never heard of anyone being able to
> : cash a bad check simply going to the issuing bank personally.  The
> : reason you couldn't cash it at your bank in the first place, is because
> : Crestar themselves had rejected it due to insufficient funds.  Why would
> : showing up there in person change that situation?
> 
> Suppose you break into John Doe's home and steal some of his checks. You
> write one out and forge his signature and take it to his bank to be
> cashed. How do they know whether or not it's a forged check unless that
> branch has his signature card? John isn't going to be out the money
> because he'll bitch and scream and file an affidavit of fraud and get
> the money back. The bank or it's insurance company will eat the loss.
> This is the banks way of discouraging this kind of fraud.

What does this have to do with availability of funds?  I wasn't talking
about forgeries here, I was talking about a check for $X being deposited
against an account with <$X.

Jamie