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

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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..

Nonsense. That is far above their paygrade. Tellers and branch managers are only required to file CTRs and SARs.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

Try to focus. What you tried to do is frame this incident as the complete result of the BSA act, which was incorrect.

 

[Muhammed]

According to TCF's Wennerberg, Thomas presented three checks written from Enterprise that day: One for $59,000. One for $27,000. And one for $13,000.

"They couldn't verify that those checks were due to a settlement," said Wennerberg, adding the bank contacted Enterprise to verify that the checks were part of a lawsuit, but were unable to do so.

Wennerberg said the assistant manager who waited on Thomas was African American, and felt that something didn't "look right," so she called police.

"Obviously, the customer got upset at that point," Wennerberg said, adding Thomas had made a "highly, highly unusual request."

According to Wennerberg, Thomas wanted to deposit the two larger checks in his bank account, which, Wennerberg said, had only 52 cents in it. And he wanted to cash the $13,000 check, he said, adding the bank told him that those funds would be on hold for two business days, and that Thomas said "fine." Thomas also wanted a new debit card because, he told the bank, his old one wasn't working, he said, adding that request sounded unusual as well.

Wennerberg said he had not yet seen the race discrimination lawsuit that Gordon filed against TCF on Wednesday, but denied that the bank engaged in discriminatory behavior.

"We disagree with that," Wennerberg said. "We were looking at the behavior, the asks that he was making."

The bank also issued a statement Thursday: “TCF Bank is a diverse business serving a diverse community and we abhor racism in all forms. Mr. Thomas’ transaction was handled like any other transactions involving requests for large amounts of cash. We regret any inconvenience to Mr. Thomas.”

The Livonia Police officer assigned to the case did not return requests for comment, though she explained some of the bank's concerns in an email she sent on Wednesday to Gordon, in which she asked for help in establishing the checks' authenticity.

"Do you have a contact person that you were dealing with at Enterprise that would be able to confirm for me that these checks are in fact legitimate," read the email from Lora Claypool of the Livonia Police Department's Detective Bureau.

"The problem that the bank is having is that these check(s) appear different then (the company's) payroll checks so their computer system is telling them that they are fraud. If I can confirm that they are not fraudulent, by getting a hold of Enterprise Leasing Company then I can give that information to the bank, and we can resolve this situation."

So there you have it. The bank's computer system could not verify that the checks were legit. And the guy, who only had 52 cents in his account and arrived on foot (no license plate on camera) wanted to walk out with $13,000 in cash and a new debit card.

It was a highly unusual, and therefore suspicious, transaction.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So there you have it. The bank's computer system could not verify that the checks were legit.

Which they do not need to do, to accept them for deposit. They can simply hold the funds until they can be reasonably sure the checks have cleared. Contrary to some implications made in this thread, banks are under no legal obligation whatsoever to verify funds for checks.

 

[Asclepias]

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!!!
..

Stop whining. Just because you stink doesnt mean it was racial discrimination.

 

[Asclepias]

According to TCF's Wennerberg, Thomas presented three checks written from Enterprise that day: One for $59,000. One for $27,000. And one for $13,000.

"They couldn't verify that those checks were due to a settlement," said Wennerberg, adding the bank contacted Enterprise to verify that the checks were part of a lawsuit, but were unable to do so.

Wennerberg said the assistant manager who waited on Thomas was African American, and felt that something didn't "look right," so she called police.

"Obviously, the customer got upset at that point," Wennerberg said, adding Thomas had made a "highly, highly unusual request."

According to Wennerberg, Thomas wanted to deposit the two larger checks in his bank account, which, Wennerberg said, had only 52 cents in it. And he wanted to cash the $13,000 check, he said, adding the bank told him that those funds would be on hold for two business days, and that Thomas said "fine." Thomas also wanted a new debit card because, he told the bank, his old one wasn't working, he said, adding that request sounded unusual as well.

Wennerberg said he had not yet seen the race discrimination lawsuit that Gordon filed against TCF on Wednesday, but denied that the bank engaged in discriminatory behavior.

"We disagree with that," Wennerberg said. "We were looking at the behavior, the asks that he was making."

The bank also issued a statement Thursday: “TCF Bank is a diverse business serving a diverse community and we abhor racism in all forms. Mr. Thomas’ transaction was handled like any other transactions involving requests for large amounts of cash. We regret any inconvenience to Mr. Thomas.”

The Livonia Police officer assigned to the case did not return requests for comment, though she explained some of the bank's concerns in an email she sent on Wednesday to Gordon, in which she asked for help in establishing the checks' authenticity.

"Do you have a contact person that you were dealing with at Enterprise that would be able to confirm for me that these checks are in fact legitimate," read the email from Lora Claypool of the Livonia Police Department's Detective Bureau.

"The problem that the bank is having is that these check(s) appear different then (the company's) payroll checks so their computer system is telling them that they are fraud. If I can confirm that they are not fraudulent, by getting a hold of Enterprise Leasing Company then I can give that information to the bank, and we can resolve this situation."

So there you have it. The bank's computer system could not verify that the checks were legit. And the guy, who only had 52 cents in his account and arrived on foot (no license plate on camera) wanted to walk out with $13,000 in cash and a new debit card.

It was a highly unusual, and therefore suspicious, transaction.

Thats not very convincing for a couple of glaring reasons and there was nothing suspicious about it.

1. You stated earlier that banks only verified funds by computer.
2. The paste you did starts out with the words....Wennerberg said....and .....According to Wennerberg, Where is the part where Thomas said what happened.?

You dont need to arrive in a car to deposit a check.

 

[initforme]

Good for him...Sue em and Sue em good....I CONDONE it.

 

[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..

Nonsense. That is far above their paygrade. Tellers and branch managers are only required to file CTRs and SARs.

You're usually FOS and I'm not helping you fix that problem.. There are 7 sections in the Patriot Act that ADD responsibilities OVER and ABOVE the Bank Secrecy Act that filters down to EVERY teller and low level staffer BESIDES filing a SAR...

You stay blissfully ignorant.. Here''s ONE hint that I'm correct and I've been OPPOSING elements of the Patriot Act since it was passed under Bushie...

https://www.sapling.com/6812342/patriot-requirements-opening-bank-account

Terrorist Check
Banks also have to determine whether a person opening a new account appears on a list of known or suspected terrorists or terrorist groups. The Office of Foreign Assets Control provides a list known as "314A," which includes people suspected of terrorism or money laundering. The Patriot Act does not outline specific guidelines, besides checking the list, to determine if a person is involved in any terrorism, but it still holds banks responsible. Because of this, banks may ask about other accounts linked to a person, the nature of a person's business, employer information, income information, tax status, source of funds and a person's investment objective. If a bank suspects a person of suspicious activity, it is not allowed to tell the customer that she triggered an investigation.

That could really piss a person off -- dont ya think?? Even when they're trying to deposit $99K and get $13K cash back..

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are 7 sections in the Patriot Act that ADD responsibilities OVER and ABOVE the Bank Secrecy Act that filters down to EVERY teller and low level staffer BESIDES filing a SAR...

Not regarding reporting of activity, there aren't. Sorry my man, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. New account holders have to go through an OFAC search (not that you have any idea what that is); this is automated. It's not something tellers have to stress over, and the account cannot even be opened, in general, until this automated search is performed. The OFAC database is a centralized, federal database that core banking software communicates with. But you didn't understand that's what your copy/paste was talking about, because you know less than nothing about this and furiously googled for something, anything that would support the nonsense you were making up on the spot.

If a bank suspects a person of suspicious activity, it is not allowed to tell the customer that she triggered an investigation.

Right, they file a SAR in the background, exactly as I said. And the banks do not conduct the investigation, never mind the tellers and branch managers. The SAR is filed, and that means the staff member is 100% covered.

Let me help you out here, to save you any further embarrassment:

You know exactly fuck all about any of this. I, on the other hand, am an expert, as it is part of the duties of my job. So you can probably shut up, now.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Let's look at the facts.

1. A man (black or not) walks into a bank with a check for 99 grand. He currently has 52 cents in his inactive account.
2. The bank employees were unable to authenticate the check.
3. When asked to authenticate it, he was not able to.

The bank is just trying to cover its ass from fraud.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The bank is just trying to cover its ass from fraud.

False. They could have taken the checks on deposit and held the funds for a reasonable amount of time. 7 business days would have been more than enough.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The bank is just trying to cover its ass from fraud.

False. They could have taken the checks on deposit and held the funds for a reasonable amount of time. 7 business days would have been more than enough.

Coulda shoulda woulda. They were well within their rights to not deposit a check they couldn't authenticate. His race is irrelevant. He's just using it again like he used it before. If he doesn't get what he wants it's wascist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Coulda shoulda woulda.

That's right! And now it's maybe going to cost them. A LOT. Banking discriminatory suits usually pay out at or near the maximum. If he wins the suit, the payout will make $99K look like chump change.

They were well within their rights to not deposit a check they couldn't authenticate.

Not true. If it is shown they did so while performing discriminatory practices, what they did was illegal. If it can be shown that this is not how they always do things (which, I promise you, it is not), that is the beginning of a case for discrimination.

His race is irrelevant

In a civil suit, where it can be shown this is not standard practice? No it isn't. Maybe you are not familiar with the thread topic.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Coulda shoulda woulda.

That's right! And now it's maybe going to cost them. A LOT. Banking discriminatory suits usually pay out at or near the maximum.

They were well within their rights to not deposit a check they couldn't authenticate.

Not true. If it is shown they did so while performing discriminatory practices, what they did was illegal. If it can be shown that this is not how they always do things (which, I promise you, it is not), that is the beginning of a case for discrimination.

His race is irrelevant

In a civil suit, where it can be shown this is not standard practice? No it isn't. Maybe you are not familiar with the thread topic.

But they have to PROVE his race had anything to do with it. If that teller has a history of treating blacks like crap then shes toast. Otherwise a good defense attorney can get this thrown out easily.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But they have to PROVE his race had anything to do with it.

Only to a point. They will not be publishing academic research, they will be making a case before a jury made up of human beings.

If the bank cannot demonstrate any good reasons why they suddenly treated this customer differently than others or outside of stated policies, it's not much of a leap from there to convince a jury of racial discrimination.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

On the other hand, if plaintiff cannot reasonably establish that he was treated differently or outside of policy, the case dies. For instance, if the bank could produce policy stating the procedures that took place, the bank is in good shape.

The bank made a HUGE mistake, as far as this case goes, when it publicly apologized for its employees calling the police. It admitted an error in judgment resulting in regrettable actions outside of standard policy and procedure. Whoops! Should have called the lawyer first, not the PR guy.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

wanted to walk out with $13,000 in cash and a new debit card.

So, you tell him no, the funds will be held. Which, apparently, they did.

I am not saying that such behavior shouldn't be watched or deemed suspicious. But there are safeguards in place that don't cause any loss to the bank and don't involve calling the police to report a crime. You hold the funds until the check clears, give him his cash once it does, get a CTR filed, then go on with your day.

And give him the debit card when he asks for it. Instant issue debit cards are ubiquitous. Fee him, if you have to, from the held funds, for the debit card replacement.

Did he make a scene? Refuse to leave, when asked? I havent heard anything that points to this.

This appears to have been handled very poorly by the bank.

 

[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.

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

THINK!

If no crime was being committed then why did she call the 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.

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!

If no crime was being committed then why did she call the police?

Didn't you read the article?

The detective explained it.

"The problem that the bank is having is that these check(s) appear different then (the company's) payroll checks so their computer system is telling them that they are fraud."

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Nice gig he has going. A hundred grand from a discrimination lawsuit and another one on the way. I wish I could be a discrimination victim.

Tell people that you identify as a black