Originally Posted by
quickdodge®
SFGATE.com:
"But the bank says it was only doing its duty by notifying the cops when a bad check surfaced.
It also says Shinnick has no grounds to sue for thousands of dollars in legal costs because of a 2004 state Supreme Court decision that shields institutions and people from liability when reporting suspected crimes to the police."
"So Shinnick, who resides on Nob Hill, stopped by a BofA branch near Union Square in early January. He said he asked a teller if sufficient funds existed in the BofA business account to cover the check.
"She said it was a valid account and that there were funds to cover it," Shinnick recalled. "I said, 'Great,' and asked to cash the check."
He signed his name on the back.
What Shinnick didn't know is that he'd just become party to a crime. The bank account may have been real but the check was phony.
What he also didn't know is that, according to the police report for the case, a warning had been placed in BofA's computer system to watch for fraudulent checks drawn on the account in question.
The teller contacted the business and was informed that no check had been written to Shinnick for $2,000 or any other amount. She immediately passed the check to the branch manager.
"I saw him talking on the phone and staring at me," Shinnick said. "A few minutes later, four SFPD officers came into the bank. They didn't say a thing. They just kicked my legs apart and handcuffed me behind my back." "
But I guess it's ok, because BofA did have this to say about it:
"clearly and without equivocation, Bank of America regrets what occurred."
So it makes it all ok. Later, QD.
Reply With Quote
