 OlegBellsouth FastaccessPremium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2 | reply to Umitencho
Re: [419] my brother got a check today..... I just do not understand why they always hold a victim responsible. |
|
| said by Oleg:I just do not understand why they always hold a victim responsible.
Who should they hold responsible?
I am pretty sure after their investigation and(if?) they find the "victim" wasn't involved they wouldn't press charges and possibly only take back funds not sent to the scammer.
This type scam isn't new by any stretch, older than widespread Internet usage as a matter of fact.
Too many are blinded by the dollar signs.
Many here are familiar with the Horse Ranch scam. |
|
 Doctor OldsI Need A Remedy For What's Ailing Me.Premium,VIP
join:2001-04-19
1970 442 W30
kudos:18 | reply to Oleg
said by Oleg:I just do not understand why they always hold a victim responsible.
Because the victim has broken the law by depositing a fraudulent check even though they didn't write the check. The victim did withdraw the money from the bank on the account that is in the their name. If the victim were to wait until the check fully clears (up to 15 days) then this type of scam would no longer work and the victim would not end up with a severely overdrawn account.
--
What’s the point of owning a supercar if you can’t scare yourself stupid from time to time? |
|
OlegBellsouth FastaccessPremium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2 | said by Doctor Olds:said by Oleg:I just do not understand why they always hold a victim responsible.
Because the victim has broken the law by depositing a fraudulent check even though they didn't write the check. The victim did withdraw the money from the bank on the account that is in the their name. If the victim were to wait until the check fully clears (up to 15 days) then this type of scam would no longer work and the victim would not end up with a severely overdrawn account. Right. But what if victim did not know it's a scam?
But JustBurnt has already explained. |
|
 scelliNative New YorkerPremium
join:1999-08-07
FLOT/FEBA
kudos:1 | reply to Oleg
said by Oleg:I just do not understand why they always hold a victim responsible.
They don't always hold the victim responsible and it's a gross exaggeration to claim so. However: Here's just one reason why those in the justice system can do so on pretty solid legal ground should the powers that be choose such a course:
Ignorantia juris non excusat
(Latin for: Ignorance of the law does not excuse.)
--
The maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters! |
|
|
|
peterboroAvatars are for posersPremium
join:2006-11-03
Peterborough, ON | said by scelli:said by Oleg:I just do not understand why they always hold a victim responsible.
They don't always hold the victim responsible and it's a gross exaggeration to claim so. However: Here's just one reason why those in the justice system can do so on pretty solid legal ground should the powers that be choose such a course: Ignorantia juris non excusat(Latin for: Ignorance of the law does not excuse.) A more appropriate term is "willful blindness" or “conscious avoidance,” and it first surfaced in case law in 1861 in Regina v. Sleep. This is common law we use here in Canada which come from England. |
|
KearnstdElf WizardPremium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ | reply to Doctor Olds
said by Doctor Olds:said by Oleg:I just do not understand why they always hold a victim responsible.
Because the victim has broken the law by depositing a fraudulent check even though they didn't write the check. The victim did withdraw the money from the bank on the account that is in the their name. If the victim were to wait until the check fully clears (up to 15 days) then this type of scam would no longer work and the victim would not end up with a severely overdrawn account. I find it sad that in 2013 it can take up to 15 business days to clear a check.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports |
|
harald
join:2010-10-22
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | That depends upon what one means by "clear". A deposited check is credited to my account very quickly, and is debited from the maker's account almost as quickly because the physical check no longer goes to the maker's bank.
The fifteen (or onger) days coems about because it may take the maker that long to discover the fraud and file a complaint.
I bet most folks here look at their accounts regularly. Not all do, especially businesses. So in that context "clear" means that the maker's window to protest has closed.
Not to lecture you - I'm sure you knew all this, but some readers may not. The second meaning of "clear" is the well spring from which most of the Nigerian frauds spring.
Best regards, |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to scelli
Ignorance that the check is a fraud =/= ignorance of the law |
|
scelliNative New YorkerPremium
join:1999-08-07
FLOT/FEBA
kudos:1 | said by AVD:Ignorance that the check is a fraud =/= ignorance of the law
Are you agreeing or disagreeing that a person should be held responsible?
--
The maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters! |
|
scelliNative New YorkerPremium
join:1999-08-07
FLOT/FEBA
kudos:1 | reply to peterboro
...and it first surfaced in case law in 1861 in Regina v. Sleep. This is common law we use here in Canada which come from England.
And a good law it is, peterboro.
--
The maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters! |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to scelli
said by scelli:said by AVD:Ignorance that the check is a fraud =/= ignorance of the law
Are you agreeing or disagreeing that a person should be held responsible? I'm just saying your position about ignorance of the law is not relevant.
--
* seek help if having trouble coping
--Standard disclaimers apply.-- |
|
scelliNative New YorkerPremium
join:1999-08-07
FLOT/FEBA
kudos:1 | said by AVD:said by scelli:said by AVD:Ignorance that the check is a fraud =/= ignorance of the law
Are you agreeing or disagreeing that a person should be held responsible? I'm just saying your position about ignorance of the law is not relevant. Then I will defer to the more nuanced response offered by peterboro.
Either way you cut it: A person who knowingly/unknowingly breaks the law by cashing a check that proves to be fraudulent had better be able to explain the reasons for their actions. It's called being held accountable for one's own actions, a trait sadly lacking these days in a society where all too many individuals are devoid of such an understanding.
--
The maximum effective range of an excuse is ZERO meters! |
|
