🚀 go-pugleaf

unidextr@mindspring.com wrote:
> Frequently when you get a rubber check the person who has given it to
> you will tell you to redeposit it because they now have funds enough
> to cover it in their account - when this happens often the only bank
> that you can take the check to is the one that issued it - most of the
> banks I have dealt with (and worked for) had standing policies not to
> accept returned checks for redeposit and advised depositors who tried
> to do it to get a 'fresh' check from the dead beat who tried to stiff
> them in the first place!

Understood, but unless a lot of information was left out here 
that doesn't sound like what happened.  The original account:

>I received a refund check from a local businessman written (6 July) on a
>Crestar account.  I cashed the check at my own bank Central Fidelity
>last weekend (16 August) and today received notification that the check
>was returned for non-sufficient funds.  So I took the check to Crestar
>and lo and behold -- the only way I could cash the check was to present
>two ID's (ok, not such a big deal) _AND_ agree to give them my thumb
>print.  Well, I've been living off savings since 29 April (on leave of
>absence from my Federal job) and I need the $90 just as much as the
>check-bouncing citizen probably does, so I went through the
>fingerprinting process.  What humiliation!!!  (Hey, they don't even
>provide a "handy wipe" to clean off the ink! (Tongue planted firmly in
>cheek)).

Just seems like a strange story.  Also very strange: the check was
apparently received around July 6th, but cashed on August 16th.  Why did
the recipient wait nearly 6 weeks to cash the check, especially
considering their professed financial circumstances?  (It is possible
the poster means the check was dated July 6, but to me the date on the
check is much less important than the date it was received).

Jamie