A black man in Michigan tried to deposit checks at his bank. The manager called police

[Muhammed]

Any bank manager in their right mind would just say " Fuck you, that's not a coincidence, I'm calling the FBI.

Why would you call the FBI? He's wasn't robbing the bank, he was trying to deposit money into it.

Suspicion of fraud, DAN.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Any bank manager in their right mind would just say " Fuck you, that's not a coincidence, I'm calling the FBI.

Why would you call the FBI? He's wasn't robbing the bank, he was trying to deposit money into it.

Suspicion of fraud, DAN.

How would you like your information passed to the FBI or any law enforcement agency on a bogus "suspicion" of something? The banker probably misinterpreted that portion of the law that shields them from reprisal if they report someone under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or Supicious Activity Report (SAR), even when they're wrong. That law however does not shield them from liability when engaging in prohibited discriminatory or other prohibited activity.

When someone falsely accuses you of having committed a crime, to the point that the police are called, that's considered defamation per se which is a tort (a civil wrong) as opposed to a violation of a criminal law. That means that in a civil action (lawsuit) that you don't have to prove that you were harmed by the defamation or prove the extent to which you were harmed. Defamation per se presumes damages if the defamation falls into certain categories as this one did, with the false accusation of a crime. The fact that the checks were successfully deposited/cashed at another institution is proof that they weren't fraudulent and that their customer had committed no crimes warranting the police being called with a false accusation of fraudulent activity.

If yuo had ever been treated this way, on more than one occasion, I would hope that you'd be able to see how ridiculous and hollow your excuses are for this abhorrent behavior that is still being meted out against certain members in our society.
For a significant portion of the population, not being white is all the suspicion they need to assume the worse, as this case shows.

And for the record, the people who work at the bank, especially the managers can get things done WHEN THEY WANT TO, oftentimes with a simple phone call.

 

[Muhammed]

Any bank manager in their right mind would just say " Fuck you, that's not a coincidence, I'm calling the FBI.

Why would you call the FBI? He's wasn't robbing the bank, he was trying to deposit money into it.

Suspicion of fraud, DAN.

How would you like your information passed to the FBI or any law enforcement agency on a bogus "suspicion" of something? The banker probably misinterpreted that portion of the law that shields them from reprisal if they report someone under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or Supicious Activity Report (SAR), even when they're wrong. That law however does not shield them from liability when engaging in prohibited discriminatory or other prohibited activity.

When someone falsely accuses you of having committed a crime, to the point that the police are called, that's considered defamation per se which is a tort (a civil wrong) as opposed to a violation of a criminal law. That means that in a civil action (lawsuit) that you don't have to prove that you were harmed by the defamation or prove the extent to which you were harmed. Defamation per se presumes damages if the defamation falls into certain categories as this one did, with the false accusation of a crime. The fact that the checks were successfully deposited/cashed at another institution is proof that they weren't fraudulent and that their customer had committed no crimes warranting the police being called with a false accusation of fraudulent activity.

If yuo had ever been treated this way, on more than one occasion, I would hope that you'd be able to see how ridiculous and hollow your excuses are for this abhorrent behavior that is still being meted out against certain members in our society.
For a significant portion of the population, not being white is all the suspicion they need to assume the worse, as this case shows.

And for the record, the people who work at the bank, especially the managers can get things done WHEN THEY WANT TO, oftentimes with a simple phone call.

The bank employee never accused anyone of a crime in the first place, DAN.

THINK!

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Any bank manager in their right mind would just say " Fuck you, that's not a coincidence, I'm calling the FBI.

Why would you call the FBI? He's wasn't robbing the bank, he was trying to deposit money into it.

Suspicion of fraud, DAN.

How would you like your information passed to the FBI or any law enforcement agency on a bogus "suspicion" of something? The banker probably misinterpreted that portion of the law that shields them from reprisal if they report someone under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or Supicious Activity Report (SAR), even when they're wrong. That law however does not shield them from liability when engaging in prohibited discriminatory or other prohibited activity.

When someone falsely accuses you of having committed a crime, to the point that the police are called, that's considered defamation per se which is a tort (a civil wrong) as opposed to a violation of a criminal law. That means that in a civil action (lawsuit) that you don't have to prove that you were harmed by the defamation or prove the extent to which you were harmed. Defamation per se presumes damages if the defamation falls into certain categories as this one did, with the false accusation of a crime. The fact that the checks were successfully deposited/cashed at another institution is proof that they weren't fraudulent and that their customer had committed no crimes warranting the police being called with a false accusation of fraudulent activity.

If yuo had ever been treated this way, on more than one occasion, I would hope that you'd be able to see how ridiculous and hollow your excuses are for this abhorrent behavior that is still being meted out against certain members in our society.
For a significant portion of the population, not being white is all the suspicion they need to assume the worse, as this case shows.

And for the record, the people who work at the bank, especially the managers can get things done WHEN THEY WANT TO, oftentimes with a simple phone call.

The bank employee never accused anyone of a crime in the first place, DAN.

THINK!

So why call the police??

If there was no accusation of a crime

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And what policy involves calling the police because the banker was unable to verify the funds?

None. I didn't imply that. I said calling the police, if he didn't accept his answer and leave, was appropriate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The banker probably misinterpreted that portion of the law that shields them from reprisal if they report someone under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or Supicious Activity Report (SAR), even when they're wrong. That law however does not shield them from liability when engaging in prohibited discriminatory or other prohibited activity.

Accurate and well said.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't think it's racial discrimination, I think it a case of a hate filled stupid bitch.

Some guy walks into the bank and wants to open a new savings account with $99,000 in checks. Of course it raised a big red flag.

Why wouldn't it?

90% of the time when somebody does shit like that it is fraudulent.

Hey dummy. You dont call the police. You call the issuing bank to verify.

And what do you do if the person tosses a tantrum and loses it because you cannot BY LAW just give them back 13% of the Patriotic Act impounded checks?? Especially if he's screaming racism and the poor teller is worried about the NSA and Homeland Security??

Then you call the police. I find if you simply say you're going to verify something then someone committing fraud will disappear.

Well I HOPE that's what happened... But from my own experience, the lower level bank personnel are not willing to discuss the DETAILS of that Patriotic Act verification, because the govt doesn't want ANY Jihadists to KNOW the details.. So the "cold shoulder" might not have been because the bank didn't like the guy..

He's going to trial with it, so why don't we meet up back here in about 6 months and FIND out what triggered him...

This is why I'm focused on Civil Liberties.. NOT JUST the subset of Civil Rights.. Because a HUGE fraction of perceived "racism" is actually government induced violations of the liberties of EVERY American.. And I would think we're all in the boat together.. But apparently not...

 

[flacaltenn]

Any bank manager in their right mind would just say " Fuck you, that's not a coincidence, I'm calling the FBI.

Why would you call the FBI? He's wasn't robbing the bank, he was trying to deposit money into it.

I think some folks have lept to the conclusion that he was confusing racism with "the way things work".. And that MIGHT be the case.. Only way to tell is to have it go to trial, put the clerk and black bank manager on the stand to describe whether he became hostile or combative without being given adequate explanation of their inability to cash the checks right there and then...

Then you and Asclepias can start NOT VOTING for bigger more muscular govt that turns bank clerks into financial fraud investigators...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Any bank manager in their right mind would just say " Fuck you, that's not a coincidence, I'm calling the FBI.

Why would you call the FBI? He's wasn't robbing the bank, he was trying to deposit money into it.

I think some folks have lept to the conclusion that he was confusing racism with "the way things work".. And that MIGHT be the case.. Only way to tell is to have it go to trial, put the clerk and black bank manager on the stand to describe whether he became hostile or combative without being given adequate explanation of their inability to cash the checks right there and then...

Then you and Asclepias can start NOT VOTING for bigger more muscular govt that turns bank clerks into financial fraud investigators...

That's really not relevant. The only Federal involvement here would have been a SAR, which is filed in the background, by the bank's one BSA officer, after being submitted directly to them by the employee. It is not something you would inform the customer or even your co-workers about.

 

[flacaltenn]

Any bank manager in their right mind would just say " Fuck you, that's not a coincidence, I'm calling the FBI.

Why would you call the FBI? He's wasn't robbing the bank, he was trying to deposit money into it.

I think some folks have lept to the conclusion that he was confusing racism with "the way things work".. And that MIGHT be the case.. Only way to tell is to have it go to trial, put the clerk and black bank manager on the stand to describe whether he became hostile or combative without being given adequate explanation of their inability to cash the checks right there and then...

Then you and Asclepias can start NOT VOTING for bigger more muscular govt that turns bank clerks into financial fraud investigators...

That's really not relevant. The only Federal involvement here would have been a SAR, which is filed in the background, by the bank's one BSA officer, after being submitted directly to them by the employee. It is not something you would inform the customer or even your co-workers about.

No.. that's not true.. The entire "Know Your Customer" construct from Patriotic Act requirements requires the banks to make JUDGEMENTS about large sums of money... Uncle Sam is watching.. And he's deputized the lowest level employees of the banking world to be "investigators"..,.

Simply "filing a SAR" is all the public knows.. But the IRS, DHS, Treasury,NSA, FBI are ALL watching these large transactions.. And the information they can PUMP from banking personnel is not really public knowledge for security reasons.

AND if the bank gets it WRONG -- they'll be crawling with security auditors at their next inspection wearing ALL of those badges...
\

 

[harmonica]

It happens to whites as well. To such a degree that the banks are protected:

Your bank may deny your items for deposit if they have reason to be suspicious. Suspicious items are covered in Regulation CC 229.13

The man himself may have been acting suspicious to further his discrimination career. Who knows. Regardless, it is legally, the banker's call. And with the amount at stake, I am sure the bank wanted to err on the side of the bank.
Banks are equal opportunity discriminators. They hate us all...

..I've been '''discriminated '' against many times--and I'm white

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No.. that's not true.. The entire "Know Your Customer" construct from Patriotic Act requirements requires the banks to make JUDGEMENTS about large sums of money...

No, youre confused. Yes, there is a required CTR for all cash transactions over $10,000 in a day. And there is an SAR to file in the background for suspicious activity.

The check fraud charges would be handled at the State level. There is no rule or guideline requiring them to contact authorites and to have police come out for mere suspicion of check fraud. Which is why the bank apologized: because they went far beyond any federal or state requirement.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey Fort Fun Indiana

DOn't believe the public is in the dark as to the involvement of LOWEST LEVELS of bank employees being dicks and snitches for the Patriot Act??

God bless Wikileaks... Too bad the MEDIA doesn't pick up on crap like this.. It's AUDIT THREATS that make tellers nervous..

https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/attach/166/166338_AML Compliance Materials for Baker_Volume III.pdf

 

[harmonica]

Although there are many who refuse to believe this (or just don't care that racial discrimination is still occuring in year 2020) I have plenty of first hand experience to the contrary.

I just read in the news yesterday that former Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf has been barred from the banking industry for life after it was exposed that Wells Fargo employees were opening additional accounts of their existing customers without their knowledge or consent.

A black man in Michigan tried to deposit checks at his bank. The manager called police.
Ironically, the checks that Sauntore Thomas tried to deposit were from a settlement for a racial discrimination lawsuit against his former employer.

Sauntore Thomas, right, and his lawyer, Deborah Gordon, left, on Jan. 23, 2020 in Bloomfield Hills,

Mich.Mike Householder / AP
Jan. 24, 2020, 8:51 AM PST
By Minyvonne Burke

An African American man who went to his local bank in Michigan to deposit checks had the police called on him by a branch manager suspecting fraud.

Ironically, the checks, totaling $99,000, that Sauntore Thomas, 44, sought to deposit at TCF Bank in Livonia were part of a court settlement for a racial discrimination lawsuit against his former employer.

Now Thomas, an Air Force veteran, has sued his bank's holding company, TCF Financial Corp., alleging racial discrimination.

The suit filed this week in Wayne County Circuit Court says Thomas has had a checking account at the bank since 2018, and he went there on Tuesday asking the branch manager to open a savings account for him so he could deposit the checks.

But the manager became suspicious that the checks were fraudulent and questioned Thomas about where he got them, the suit alleges.

The manager told Thomas that the checks would need to be verified, but that the computer system the bank uses to verify checks was not working. In order to complete Thomas' transaction, the manager said she would need to go in the back and "call in the checks," the suit says.

Instead of trying to verify the checks, the suit claims that the manager refused to deposit them and then went into the back to call Livonia police. Four officers arrived at the bank and questioned Thomas about the checks.

Thomas called his lawyer on the phone to have her verify where he got the checks from but that still did not satisfy the branch manager.

"Defendant still refused to deposit the checks," the suit states. "TCF Bank subsequently filed a police report against Plaintiff for check fraud."

Thomas eventually left the bank and went somewhere else to deposit his checks. The lawsuit claims that Thomas' race "was a factor in Defendant's decision to treat him less favorably than other individuals."

Thomas reiterated that sentiment during an interview with the The Associated Press.

“They did not want to assist me because I was African American. They didn’t want to assist me because they assumed that I had a fraudulent check, which was far from the truth," he told the outlet, adding, "This was no mistake."

A spokesman for TCF did not immediately return NBC News' request for comment. The bank told the Detroit Free Press in a statement that the police should not have been called on Thomas and that it apologizes for what happened.

“We strongly condemn racism and discrimination of any kind,” the bank said. “We take extra precautions involving large deposits and requests for cash, and in this case, we were unable to validate the checks presented by Mr. Thomas and regret we could not meet his needs.”

The lawsuit says Thomas was humiliated by the incident and suffered mental anguish and emotional distress. He is seeking damages.

A black man in Michigan tried to deposit checks at his bank. The manager called police.​

..I've had to wait at restaurants and people who came in after me were seated first
...I was waiting to pick up my food I ordered for pick up at 12:30...I finally got it at 1pm.--after everyone else....the BLACK clerk didn't help me at all
..I had an appointment to get my car fixed at 10:00 am...I went over to McDs then came back at 1130 and asked about my car---they hadn't even started on it!! the clerk asked if I had an appointment
..I have many, many stories like this...and I'm white!!!
..

 

[flacaltenn]

No.. that's not true.. The entire "Know Your Customer" construct from Patriotic Act requirements requires the banks to make JUDGEMENTS about large sums of money...

No, youre confused. Yes, there is a required CTR for all cash transactions over $10,000 in a day. And there is an SAR to file in the background for suspicious activity.

The check fraud charges would be handled at the State level. There is no rule or guideline requiring them to contact authorites and to have police come out for mere suspicion of check fraud. Which is why the bank apologized: because they went far beyond any federal or state requirement.

You're right about "no police"... On everything else, you're misinformed or ignorant of the POWERS that lie in the Big Brother Patriot Act..... See the WIkileaks docs above...

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

DOn't believe the public is in the dark as to the involvement of LOWEST LEVELS of bank employees being dicks and snitches for the Patriot Act??

Again, in the background, via a SAR. Stop with the bait and switch.

 

[harmonica]

The cowardly right deflects, unwilling to acknowledge the fact that racism still very much exists.

..you haven't proved it was racism!!!!!!!!!!

 

[harmonica]

The cowardly right deflects, unwilling to acknowledge the fact that racism still very much exists.

..wrong--we admit it exist--but not in the quantities you say
AND you won't admit blacks are just as racist

 

[flacaltenn]

If you go back to the origins of this --- you'll find the Bank Secrecy Act that STARTED all this teller/branch manager paranoia about Federal raids and audits..

That's what's quoted in Wikileaks link above.. THAT only applied to FOREIGN transfers of money..

With the PATRIOT act and their need to domestically spy on "big money" movement, it was INCLUDED to include ALL large financial transactions at retail banks...

 

[flacaltenn]

DOn't believe the public is in the dark as to the involvement of LOWEST LEVELS of bank employees being dicks and snitches for the Patriot Act??

Again, in the background, via a SAR. Stop with the bait and switch.

Again, set your Civil Liberties alarm to snooze and IGNORE everything I've just shown you...