If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Boston)   Turns out the $1,400 in counterfeit bills a bank tried to pawn off on a customer weren't counterfeit at all. It's just the other bank he went to apparently has no idea what real money looks like   (boston.cbslocal.com) divider line 74
    More: Followup, Westborough, Sovereign Bank, WBZ-TV, Citizens Bank, WBZ, bank teller  
•       •       •

10474 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Jan 2013 at 9:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



74 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-31 09:32:39 AM
You know, this story had that update on the site the first time this was posted.
 
2013-01-31 09:34:34 AM
To be fair they didn't say "dollah" on them because Boston.
 
2013-01-31 09:34:39 AM
why did he need to go to two banks anyways?
 
2013-01-31 09:35:48 AM
Who are these people who greenlight articles?
 
2013-01-31 09:35:49 AM
Not knowing what money looks like should probably be a firing offense for a teller.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2013-01-31 09:37:23 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Not knowing what money looks like should probably be a firing offense for a teller.


^^THIS^^

Especially since they have these at their disposal:
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2013-01-31 09:38:43 AM
Can't you just transfer funds with a bank card or computer now?

:P
 
2013-01-31 09:38:45 AM
FTA: "Westboro police also confirmed the settlement saying the Citizens Bank teller made a mistake and that the cash turned out to be older money that they had not seen in a while. "

I know they have made changes to the currency over the years to combat counterfeits but $100 dollar bills still have the same guy on them they just redesigned them. The teller must be really young to not recognize older bills.
I always thought though regardless of design changes, the paper stayed the same and those pens would work on a bill from 2013 just as well as one from 1970 (or earlier)
 
2013-01-31 09:39:13 AM
Bank teller made a mistake and that the cash turned out to be older money that they had not seen in a while.

Dumb-ass young people. Ever actually try and use a $2 bill or silver dollar? Deer in the headlights.
 
2013-01-31 09:41:14 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Not knowing what money looks like should probably be a firing offense for a teller.


Same for checks.  Years ago, I was told a check I deposited wasn't actually a check because it was drawn on the Federal Reserve Bank. The assistant manager insisted that the Fed, as a "bank for banks", didn't issue checks to individuals. He ended up calling the AVP of my department to verify that, yes, the Fed does issue checks to individuals.
 
2013-01-31 09:41:37 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Not knowing what money looks like should probably be a firing offense for a teller.


Old bills, apparently. Probably these, and a young teller who had never dealt with them before:

hundreddollarbill.info

Still utterly moronic, and the teller should have asked somebody if they didn't know. And I agree that they should be fired, but that's probably how it happened.
 
2013-01-31 09:42:03 AM

proteus_b: why did he need to go to two banks anyways?


He may be cashing the check at his works bank and then taking it to his bank. It is pretty stupid though he isn't using direct deposit and instead running around with 1.4k of cash to lose or be robbed of when he can't afford it apparently.
 
2013-01-31 09:42:11 AM

proteus_b: why did he need to go to two banks anyways?

 Only thing I can think of is, maybe the check was drawn on the first bank and there's no waiting period for funds to clear.
 
2013-01-31 09:42:28 AM
I sense a disturbance in the force.  As if a thousand Lawyers began salivating over a lawsuit...
 
2013-01-31 09:43:05 AM

octopied: Can't you just transfer funds with a bank card or computer now?

:P


Yep, but the funds aren't available for something like 72 hours.
Transfer it, and you can't get it back out until it clears.
Deposit it in cash, and you can spend it immediately.

Silly I know, but that's how the system works.
 
2013-01-31 09:43:23 AM
In before Taco Bell.
 
2013-01-31 09:43:29 AM
Why would you accept the authority of a cashier or teller?  If someone that low on the totem pole is asserting my money is counterfeit, I'm not leaving until a USSS agent shows up.  Odds are they're trying to pocket it for themselves.
 
2013-01-31 09:45:08 AM

Intrepid00: proteus_b: why did he need to go to two banks anyways?

He may be cashing the check at his works bank and then taking it to his bank. It is pretty stupid though he isn't using direct deposit and instead running around with 1.4k of cash to lose or be robbed of when he can't afford it apparently.


Maybe he is a contractor and works for different people each job.
Easy way to not have direct deposit and sill get largish checks.
 
2013-01-31 09:47:07 AM

proteus_b: why did he need to go to two banks anyways?


Go read the original thread.  That was covered very early.

Just because it was a paycheck doesn't mean it will magically clear.  If someone works for a company with a history of shorting payroll, it's smart to go to the issuing bank and get cash ASAP.  Then they can take that cash to their own bank and deposit it, having funds available immediately.  Ever deposit a check that bounces?  It sucks.  The depositor gets hit with a bounced check fee because, "fark you!  We're the bank."  And, if you're like most people, missing a paycheck puts you in the red and all your checks bounce because they'll clear the biggest one first to overdraw the account, then run the smaller checks so they can hit you for $$ per bounced check.  Then they'll start to hold all of your future checks for as long as possible before clearing them.

The guy probably got burned once with a rubber paycheck and no longer takes chances.
 
2013-01-31 09:49:32 AM

The Crepes of Wrath: He ended up calling the AVP of my department to verify that, yes, the Fed does issue checks to individuals.


?
 
2013-01-31 09:49:50 AM
Happened to me and a friend.  He cashed a paycheck at a bank and had a $100 bill.  We went to a small burger place to eat a quick snack and they were fine with taking the $100.  Then the manager held the bill and called the cops.  Told us the bill was counterfeit.  It wasn't

It turns out that the bill was from 1977 and didn't have the security strip thing.  Manager was pretty apologetic.  We got a few free gift certificates for that little incident.

/csb
 
2013-01-31 09:50:13 AM

Satanic_Hamster: The Crepes of Wrath: He ended up calling the AVP of my department to verify that, yes, the Fed does issue checks to individuals.

?


God dammit.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-01-31 09:51:10 AM

Satanic_Hamster: God dammit.


Ha!  I knew someone was going to go for that.

/assistant vice president
 
2013-01-31 09:52:02 AM
This is why you need assault weapons.
 
2013-01-31 09:58:27 AM
That reminds me of the time I tried to use a $2 bill at a Taco Bell...
 
2013-01-31 09:59:10 AM
HotWingConspiracy
Not knowing what money looks like should probably be a firing offense for a teller.


Depends if the teller was trained by the bank to recognize that kind of money,
Otherwise chances are good that you'll be replacing someone who is now unlikely to make that mistake again with someone who might or might not know what those bills look like.
 
2013-01-31 09:59:12 AM
In the banks defense, attempting to deposit $1,400 is highly suspicious if you are brownish.
 
2013-01-31 10:00:23 AM

nickerj1: Why would you accept the authority of a cashier or teller?  If someone that low on the totem pole is asserting my money is counterfeit, I'm not leaving until a USSS agent shows up.  Odds are they're trying to pocket it for themselves.


This.  At minimum I'm going to be talking to the branch manager, maybe a bank VP or President if they're holding my cash.

Hell I bet the Secret Service would love to talk with me right then and there.  Make it easier for them to track down where the money came from.
 
2013-01-31 10:01:36 AM

SurfaceTension: proteus_b: why did he need to go to two banks anyways?
 Only thing I can think of is, maybe the check was drawn on the first bank and there's no waiting period for funds to clear.


Probably works for a small business with hand written paychecks.  Most paychecks (the typed or machine created kind) aren't put in a waiting period because the company is usually good for them.  Handwritten ones though do bounce from time to time and some banks will put them in the normal cycle for personal checks.

Although he's been doing it for a decade so maybe he started that way and it just became habit even though the NEED to is gone.

Worked as both a teller and a CSR with a local bank before they were bought out years ago.  People do weird shiat with their money.
 
2013-01-31 10:02:01 AM

jtown: proteus_b: why did he need to go to two banks anyways?

Go read the original thread.  That was covered very early.

Just because it was a paycheck doesn't mean it will magically clear.  If someone works for a company with a history of shorting payroll, it's smart to go to the issuing bank and get cash ASAP.  Then they can take that cash to their own bank and deposit it, having funds available immediately.  Ever deposit a check that bounces?  It sucks.  The depositor gets hit with a bounced check fee because, "fark you!  We're the bank."  And, if you're like most people, missing a paycheck puts you in the red and all your checks bounce because they'll clear the biggest one first to overdraw the account, then run the smaller checks so they can hit you for $$ per bounced check.  Then they'll start to hold all of your future checks for as long as possible before clearing them.

The guy probably got burned once with a rubber paycheck and no longer takes chances.


Thank you for that insightful response.  I really was wondering this.  When I first read the article the other day, I thought "this guy is pulling a scam. there's no reason he would go to two banks".  Your point makes perfect sense and that exact scenario has happened to me many years ago.
 
2013-01-31 10:03:52 AM

vudukungfu: In before Taco Bell.


Came for this reference.  Glad he didn't make any payments with these:

rrcoins.net
 
2013-01-31 10:04:36 AM

jtown: proteus_b: why did he need to go to two banks anyways?

Go read the original thread.  That was covered very early.

Just because it was a paycheck doesn't mean it will magically clear.  If someone works for a company with a history of shorting payroll, it's smart to go to the issuing bank and get cash ASAP.  Then they can take that cash to their own bank and deposit it, having funds available immediately.  Ever deposit a check that bounces?  It sucks.  The depositor gets hit with a bounced check fee because, "fark you!  We're the bank."  And, if you're like most people, missing a paycheck puts you in the red and all your checks bounce because they'll clear the biggest one first to overdraw the account, then run the smaller checks so they can hit you for $$ per bounced check.  Then they'll start to hold all of your future checks for as long as possible before clearing them.

The guy probably got burned once with a rubber paycheck and no longer takes chances.


It's also a quicker way to get money into your account. Depositing a check drawn on another bank might mean a wait of a business day or two for the deposit to clear. This way, the money gets into your account (or pocket) faster.
 
2013-01-31 10:05:18 AM

cptjeff: HotWingConspiracy: Not knowing what money looks like should probably be a firing offense for a teller.

Old bills, apparently. Probably these, and a young teller who had never dealt with them before:

[hundreddollarbill.info image 640x273]

Still utterly moronic, and the teller should have asked somebody if they didn't know. And I agree that they should be fired, but that's probably how it happened.


It's also a possibility that they got a false positive from one of those detector pens.
 
2013-01-31 10:06:31 AM
the new $100.00 bills don't scan correctly "head to the right"
 
2013-01-31 10:09:00 AM
Ok the Teller was a moron.  But this business of trying to fire someone after one farkup really needs to stop.
 
2013-01-31 10:12:52 AM

cptjeff: HotWingConspiracy: Not knowing what money looks like should probably be a firing offense for a teller.

Old bills, apparently. Probably these, and a young teller who had never dealt with them before:

[hundreddollarbill.info image 640x273]

Still utterly moronic, and the teller should have asked somebody if they didn't know. And I agree that they should be fired, but that's probably how it happened.


I think firing is a little overkill in this case. If there is any disciplinary action it should be because of the overreaction, but even then it might have been exactly what he was instructed to do. In many countries, tellers and people who work at currency exchange counters are personally liable for any counterfeit money they accept. It's all about incentives. Think of it this way... if your job included processing some form and you were going to be docked a week's pay for every form that passed your desk that wasn't 100% perfect, but were not docked anything for rejecting a form that ended up being perfect after all, you'd be rejecting them for seemingly arbitrary reasons too.

As I mentioned in the other thread...

You'd think working in a job that does nothing but deal with money he'd be savvy to the old ones, but in theory (that is, the "way it was supposed to be") no one should have to be familiar with them. But because of the clusterfark around the printing and release of the new $100 bills (currently two years behind schedule, and it will be at least six more months from the date they do make an announcement), counterintuitively we're seeing a lot more pre-1996 bills popping up in circulation. The 2006As are supposed to fill the gap but they're obviously not, as my bank has tried to give me pre-1996 bills twice in the past year. I'd never had a problem getting relatively new bills until around 2010.

So this is likely to get worse before it gets better, "better" meaning either the new bill supply finally catches up with demand or more tellers and cashiers are educated on what the old bills look like.

nickerj1: Why would you accept the authority of a cashier or teller?  If someone that low on the totem pole is asserting my money is counterfeit, I'm not leaving until a USSS agent shows up.  Odds are they're trying to pocket it for themselves.


Do you really expect the guy to know the nuances of US currency laws? And from his perspective, the teller is supposed to be the "expert"... if anyone is able to recognize counterfeit money you'd think it would be a teller. He was probably freaked out enough that he might be hauled off to jail without question.
 
2013-01-31 10:18:57 AM

Glancing Blow: This is why you need assault-looking weapons.


FTFY
 
2013-01-31 10:22:28 AM
So, now that people know his reputation, the day he cashes his check, and how much he carries between banks, how long until he gets robbed and that gets reported?

/Anyone?
//Bueller?
///Bueller?
////Bueller?
 
2013-01-31 10:23:11 AM
Why no interest?
 
2013-01-31 10:24:05 AM

cptjeff: Old bills, apparently. Probably these, and a young teller who had never dealt with them before:


I had an old $100 bill like that confiscated last summer at a credit union.  At the time, I figured they knew what they were talking about, but maybe they were just brainless. Damn.

Next time, I'm going to ask them in detail how they know it's counterfeit.  The answer should be revealing.
 
2013-01-31 10:25:28 AM

jimmyjackfunk: FTA: "Westboro police also confirmed the settlement saying the Citizens Bank teller made a mistake and that the cash turned out to be older money that they had not seen in a while. "

I know they have made changes to the currency over the years to combat counterfeits but $100 dollar bills still have the same guy on them they just redesigned them. The teller must be really young to not recognize older bills.
I always thought though regardless of design changes, the paper stayed the same and those pens would work on a bill from 2013 just as well as one from 1970 (or earlier)


The pens don't work on bills from before 1968 and those bills don't have the portrait watermark or the security strip which are the most obvious of the security marks on the new bills.

/you should still know about the old bills, especially if you're a bank teller
 
2013-01-31 10:25:34 AM

proteus_b: why did he need to go to two banks anyways?


That does seem odd, no?
 
2013-01-31 10:34:21 AM
That's a shame. The older bills are sometimes collectible -- if you know where to offer them, you can get more than face value for them. Of course, that implies being well-off enough to keep a hundred bucks out of circulation for a while.
 
2013-01-31 10:36:29 AM

alabasterblack: proteus_b: why did he need to go to two banks anyways?

That does seem odd, no?


Oh my gosh- please try reading some of the above comments, before posting the same question that has been asked and answered again and again.........
 
2013-01-31 10:43:14 AM
Which of these was it?

Hopefully this one:
planetoddity.com
 
2013-01-31 10:44:15 AM

Harvey Manfrenjensenjen: cptjeff: HotWingConspiracy: Not knowing what money looks like should probably be a firing offense for a teller.

Old bills, apparently. Probably these, and a young teller who had never dealt with them before:

[hundreddollarbill.info image 640x273]

Still utterly moronic, and the teller should have asked somebody if they didn't know. And I agree that they should be fired, but that's probably how it happened.

I think firing is a little overkill in this case. If there is any disciplinary action it should be because of the overreaction, but even then it might have been exactly what he was instructed to do. In many countries, tellers and people who work at currency exchange counters are personally liable for any counterfeit money they accept. It's all about incentives. Think of it this way... if your job included processing some form and you were going to be docked a week's pay for every form that passed your desk that wasn't 100% perfect, but were not docked anything for rejecting a form that ended up being perfect after all, you'd be rejecting them for seemingly arbitrary reasons too.

As I mentioned in the other thread...

You'd think working in a job that does nothing but deal with money he'd be savvy to the old ones, but in theory (that is, the "way it was supposed to be") no one should have to be familiar with them. But because of the clusterfark around the printing and release of the new $100 bills (currently two years behind schedule, and it will be at least six more months from the date they do make an announcement), counterintuitively we're seeing a lot more pre-1996 bills popping up in circulation. The 2006As are supposed to fill the gap but they're obviously not, as my bank has tried to give me pre-1996 bills twice in the past year. I'd never had a problem getting relatively new bills until around 2010.

So this is likely to get worse before it gets better, "better" meaning either the new bill supply finally catches up with demand or more tellers and cashie ...


Firing sounds severe.  If anything make this a training lesson for the organization.  What is with the "fire them now" attitude?  Oh right, it's Fark.
 
2013-01-31 10:44:23 AM
I was a teller back when we were measuring gold on a scale, but an individual teller could never - should never be allowed to - make such a decision.  At a minimum the head/lead teller makes the call that it is suspicious.  A bank officer must make the call that it is counterfeit.
 
2013-01-31 10:55:53 AM
I'd rather click on a "smoking hot" Fark link than any farking CBS link....WTF did they hire some 3rd grader to make all the CBS websites??  No disrespect to 3rd graders...
 
2013-01-31 10:56:05 AM

Too Pretty For Prison: jtown: proteus_b: why did he need to go to two banks anyways?

Go read the original thread.  That was covered very early.

Just because it was a paycheck doesn't mean it will magically clear.  If someone works for a company with a history of shorting payroll, it's smart to go to the issuing bank and get cash ASAP.  Then they can take that cash to their own bank and deposit it, having funds available immediately.  Ever deposit a check that bounces?  It sucks.  The depositor gets hit with a bounced check fee because, "fark you!  We're the bank."  And, if you're like most people, missing a paycheck puts you in the red and all your checks bounce because they'll clear the biggest one first to overdraw the account, then run the smaller checks so they can hit you for $$ per bounced check.  Then they'll start to hold all of your future checks for as long as possible before clearing them.

The guy probably got burned once with a rubber paycheck and no longer takes chances.

Thank you for that insightful response.  I really was wondering this.  When I first read the article the other day, I thought "this guy is pulling a scam. there's no reason he would go to two banks".  Your point makes perfect sense and that exact scenario has happened to me many years ago.


Do it all the time.
I try to use cash, but it is increasingly difficult.
Sure, the 3 days the bank plays with my deposited checks is not a lot of cash to me, but the 3 days is a speed bump in the War on Poverty.
 
2013-01-31 10:58:33 AM

cptjeff: HotWingConspiracy: Not knowing what money looks like should probably be a firing offense for a teller.

Old bills, apparently. Probably these, and a young teller who had never dealt with them before:

[hundreddollarbill.info image 640x273]

Still utterly moronic, and the teller should have asked somebody if they didn't know. And I agree that they should be fired, but that's probably how it happened.


In the new world order, no employee will hold a job more than 3 weeks.
Training is opotional, there will be no math.
 
Displayed 50 of 74 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report