Check stolen in the mail and cashed by thief

[RobbieB]

Yeah, I think it was someone at the charity that stole the dough. Not a fault of USPS.

 

[Bamaman]

There's a reason that account numbers are listed when checks are endorsed and deposited. Numbers on the back of the check tell what account they went into--so a bank can charge back that check to the account it was deposited into originally.

 

[pb4uski]

The bank involved isn't going to give you any information..after all they F'ed up. I disagree about mail safety,I think it's plenty safe.

Perhaps not, but if law enforcement contacts them inquiring about it in relation to an investigation of a possible fraud, I think they will cooperate.

 

[plex]

Not that unusual, had a higher end desktop stolen from Fedex recently. Similar to checks, those things contain video cards worth $1k+ on the black market. Dell learned their lesson and made sure to send the next one in an unmarked box with faster shipping so it wouldn't sit somewhere over the weekend. It required a lot of updates to dell on my part since Fedex and the other carriers love to just mark it as unknown until a certain amount of time then suddenly stamp it delivered.

Then a few months later had a cheap blood pressure monitor through USPS stolen, that time, USPS only marked down the entirely wrong zip code as the delivered address.

 

[mrfeh]

If I had to guess, I'd say it could just have likely been an 'inside job' at the charity as it could be theft from while the check was in the possession of the USPS.

+1

I don't understand the assumption that the check was stolen from USPS.

 

[JoeWras]

Charities are sitting ducks when it comes to receiving mail! Don't assume it is an "inside job" either! There are many weaknesses in the system. Let me give you my story.

My Donor Advised Fund check to my church never made it to the church. It turns out, some other donation checks didn't make it either. After some investigation on the matter, it turns out that thieves were stealing from the church's mailbox on Saturday.

This is not a USPS problem. This is not an "inside job" church problem. This is a thievery problem. Blame the thieves.

The church's mailbox is in plain site of the administrator, so they thought they were OK on this problem. They had someone pick up mail on Saturday. But there was always a window with mail sitting there. Thieves lifted mail during that window. So the solution was that the USPS now holds all Saturday mail. The much maligned USPS is being very helpful here.

The same can happen with other charities, especially if their business address doesn't have a secure mailbox. Some don't or can't. Thieves apparently steal mail from charities because: 1) Some people send cash, 2) Checks can be washed.

We live in a sick society.

 

[ivinsfan]

JW stealing cash from a mailbox is one thing. Signing and depositing a 2K check in a bank is another thing. OK, AFAIK anyone can get a PO box...if you aren't going to be careful enough to do that, you don't get my money...

 

[ivinsfan]

Perhaps not, but if law enforcement contacts them inquiring about it in relation to an investigation of a possible fraud, I think they will cooperate.

Don't hold your breath waiting for law enforcement. See the banks will make everyone whole so it's basically a victimless non violent crime. That's how they will look at it anyway.

 

[JoeWras]

JW stealing cash from a mailbox is one thing. Signing and depositing a 2K check in a bank is another thing. OK, AFAIK anyone can get a PO box...if you aren't going to be careful enough to do that, you don't get my money...

It isn't always that simple, ivansfan. Especially for smaller charities that take delivery of goods.

 

[ivinsfan]

It isn't always that simple, ivansfan. Especially for smaller charities that take delivery of goods.

I disagree it's the duty of a charity to safeguard their donations

 

[Walt34]

Don't hold your breath waiting for law enforcement. See the banks will make everyone whole so it's basically a victimless non violent crime. That's how they will look at it anyway.

It's not quite that simple, and it most definitely is NOT a "victimless crime". The bank that cashed/negotiated the check is the entity that is going to end up holding the bag on the loss. So the bank and the bank's shareholders are in fact the victims. And we all pay slightly higher interest rates to make up for those and similar losses.

Next comes the issue of whether it is worth the bank's (paid employee) time to further investigate and prosecute. In order to prosecute this the law enforcement agency has to be able to put a warm body on the witness stand to testify that an entity (the bank in this case) sustained a financial loss. That warm body is of course a bank employee on paid time. Then the government has to prove that the accused did it. Even if successful prosecution takes place and the judge orders complete restitution (which is a dice roll) if the bad guy has a negative net worth anyway chances of recovery are about zero.

Therefore, why would the bank, being good stewards of the shareholder's resources, throw good money after bad in paying an employee or two to spend several days researching the details of this and then showing up in court? There's just no upside for the bank in following through on it.

Some banks do (or did when I was working) have a policy of following through and prosecuting on these cases when possible. But the majority do not and the reasons are easy to understand.

 

[Brat]

Here is my stolen check story:

DD is the CFO of a VC. Several years ago an investor sent a check addressed to the VC. The check was stolen from a mailbox and the 'pay to the order of' was altered to the (assume) name of the thief. The thief presented the check at a casino in Las Vegas for chips, then he cashed the chips in. The check was declined at the investor's bank.

The investor told DD that the thief's body was found in the Nevada desert.

 

[Walt34]

The investor told DD that the thief's body was found in the Nevada desert.

That's always a risk when forging the wrong guy's checks....

 

[ivinsfan]

Walt of course I know it costs the bank money I'm saying it's going to get pushed behind all the other crimes that include human victims. Not saying it's right but it's reality.

 

[Brat]

That's always a risk when forging the wrong guy's checks....

It is my daughter and the investor's* belief that the fellow who cashed the check at the casino settled the score. It isn't smart to cash a forged check at a casino. They don't take returned checks gracefully.

*The investor was out of the country when this happened and he suffered no loss because the bank didn't honor the check.

 

[harllee]

OP here with an update. The local police say that thieves are breaking into mailboxes in the area and stealing the contents. The police believe the signature on the check to be that of one of the thieves they are investigating. Police do not think it is an inside job at the charity. The police are recommending everyone get a locking mailbox (the charity involved is doing that). It is not possible to get a post office box because there are none available in the area. The police are recommending that people not mail checks if there is any way to avoid it.

This charity is one I have been involved with for many years and I believe in their mission so I am not writing them off. If and when DH gets the money back we will hand deliver a check to the charity.

I am not bashing the USPS --in this instance they probably did not do anything wrong. But I will not mail any large checks in the future, it is not safe to do so. I have learned my lesson.

 

[harllee]

There's a reason that account numbers are listed when checks are endorsed and deposited. Numbers on the back of the check tell what account they went into--so a bank can charge back that check to the account it was deposited into originally.

Bamaman, I am looking at a copy of the back of the check and it does not have any numbers. All it has is the illegible forged signature. Wonder what it means that there are no numbers on the back?

 

[iloveyoga]

They got cash?

 

[Bryan Barnfellow]

Although I don't personally mail checks, I like to pay by e-check from my bank. I have noticed that 80% of them end up being converted to paper and mailed. Is the bank to business part of the process going to be modernized?

Here in Switzerland no one uses checks. You receive a bill with a QR code on a payment slip and use your bank phone app to read the code (which has embedded the payee acct info and amount invoiced). Takes a few seconds and you're done. Everything is done by moving funds to and from accounts with immediate updates online for both parties, with no intermediate steps involved (like printing paper checks as quoted by RetMD21). If you do not have a phone or prefer not to use it you can pay in cash at any post office.

It seemed odd when we first arrived here (from the US) but now seems very natural and efficient.

-BB

 

[harllee]

They got cash?

I bet the thieves are getting cash from the stolen checks

 

[SJ1_]

My wife rolled over a IRA Discover CD to Vanguard a month ago. Vanguard said they never got it. Discover said they mailed it to Vanguard PO.
At least no one cashed it.

 

[ivinsfan]

I bet the thieves are getting cash from the stolen checks

How, that's the question? Ever tried to cash a check at a bank where you don't have an account? Even at a bank where you have an account 3rd party checks get extra attention.

 

[harllee]

How, that's the question? Ever tried to cash a check at a bank where you don't have an account? Even at a bank where you have an account 3rd party checks get extra attention.

Good question. DH has been on the phone over an hour today trying to get more information from Vanguard. So far Vanguard has not been able to find out what institution cashed the check. It was not cashed at a normal bank--they think it was cashed at some sort of check cashing place.