They should rename it Bank of A-holes!!!
San Francisco resident Matthew Shinnick tried to sell a pair of mountain bikes on Craigslist late last year. He attracted a buyer, received a check in the mail — and ended up handcuffed by police in a downtown Bank of America branch and jailed for almost 12 hours.
BofA calls the bizarre episode “an unfortunate series of events.”
Shinnick… 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.”
“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.”
In July, a San Francisco Superior Court judge ruled that Shinnick was innocent by “findings of fact” — a decision that essentially erases all record of the case.
But by this time, Shinnick said, he’d spent about $14,000 clearing his name. He wanted that money back and he felt BofA should pay it.
BofA felt otherwise. Earlier this month, a bank vice president, William Minnes, wrote to Shinnick’s lawyer to say that “Bank of America can certainly understand that your client is angry at the bank.”
However, he said, BofA has no legal liability in the case because of [a] 2004 Supreme Court ruling. Minnes warned that “litigation would not prove financially beneficial.”
Consumer talk show maven Clark Howard got interested in the case and is urging people to protest Bank of America’s indifference to Shinnick’s plight by taking their money out of BOA. “All he [Shinnick] and Clark asked was that BOA cover Matthew’s legal fees but BOA has refused…. Please remove any money you have with BOA and e-mail us the amount you’ve withdrawn.” He’s even got a “BOA Money Loss Meter” on his site you can check out. Gotta love Clark!
I would think he recourse is not against the Bank. They only did what they should have done. The wrong was done by Police who arrested him without cause.
Shinnick said he was never read his rights. He said he was instructed by one of the cops to keep his mouth shut and not say anything. Shinnick said he remained handcuffed in the bank lobby for about 45 minutes while the police spoke with BofA workers.
That there should be grounds for wrongful arrest.
AND who called the cops??
ANd why??
And there should be no winner, but the bank should be held responsible. there IS no immunity, or shouldnt be.
ECA, why should the Bank be held responsible. They did not arrest him. All they did was call the police to report that someone was trying to cash a bad check.
The Police investigation was poorly done and one sided. If the Police had investigated the incident first and then arrested him them they could claim that they acted in the line of duty which grants the Police immunity from law suits for wrongful arrests.
When the Police arrest and refuse to allow the person to contact a lawyer or demonstrate his innocence then they are not doing a proper investigation.
Welcome to San Francisco…
Sorry, but I can’t help.
I already closed my account when they let my financial information be stolen by crooks and then later didn’t tell anyone, and even opposed legislation that would hold them accountable.
But I do recommend everyone else close their accounts. It will also send a strong message to the other financial institutions.
They’re assholes because someone else tried to scam him? Or because rather than cashing what they knew to be a fraudulent check they called the cops?
Sounds to me like people are pissed at the wrong individuals, they guy trying to scam Shinnick is the real person people should be pissed at, but they don’t know who that is so they decide to be pissed at Bank of America since they are an “evil corporation” and have money.
They forget the Bank of America’s money is actually everyone who has deposited money in the banks money, and the only thing that BofA did “wrong” was report a crime in progress.
John, learn to think critically please. Oh wait, that is how you make your money, by spouting off nonsense and driving people to web pages.
3,
WELL,
WHOM reported the plot of bad checks?? BOA?
Then repoted it to the cops and the banks..
They should have talked to the guy first, HELD him at the bank and traced WHERE the products were being sent..
What I don’t get, is if the check was bogus then why did they tell him that it was a valid account and that funds were available?
There’s some piece to the story missing here…
Guy: “Hi, I’m trying to sell some stuff online and I want to make sure this check is good before I send my merchandise off. Can you help?”
Clerk: “Sure, the account on the check is valid and funds are available.”
Guy: “Great, I’d like to cash the check please.”
Clerk: “Sorry, I was just kidding about it being valid, I just said that to keep you here. I pressed the emergency button and you’ll be arrested in 3 – 2 – 1…”
“Liability Immunity”
Where are Murtaugh and Riggs when you need them?
“there IS no immunity, or shouldnt be”
In the US you have absolute immunity to make a report to the police. There are no exceptions. Even if you can prove they person who made the report was lying and knew he was lying, it simply doesn’t matter.
People can say what they will, there was a time when a bank would have been horrified that this happened to one of their customers.
And they wouldn’t have gotten their lawyers together to determine whether they were “liable” before deciding what they should do to help the situation.
My family was involved in the banking industry for decades, and there was a little word called “goodwill” that came up on a regular basis. It had to do with treating your customers well. I can’t say that I have heard the word “goodwill” uttered inside any bank I’ve been to in the last dozen years.
There’s this phrase in _Wild Wild West_ about `…your patented method of shoot first, shoot again, and when everyone’s dead, try to ask a question or two’.
Doesn’t bode well for international opinion of yank police when both a silly film hits the nail on the head.
“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.”
So the teller was lying when she said this?? Isn’t this the definition of entrapment? Being setup? He asked a valid question that happens at every bank almost every day as people ask if someone else’s cheque is good. He was told by the issuing bank it was and then they call the police because in fact it was not??
#6: “They forget the Bank of America’s money is actually everyone who has deposited money in the banks money…” Oh, please. You make BOA sound like The Baily Savings and Loan from “It’s a Wonderful Life”.
Yeah, I remember when a bank used to pay me to let them use my money. Barely. Now I have to pay them ridiculaous charges for almost any damn thing I do. Screw BOA and every other mega bank in the country. Go with local banks (if you can find one) or Credit Unions.
His recourse is to sue BoA, or find out where the bank manager parks his car and blow it up.
Stalling a person trying to pass bad paper for police is standard. I’m not saying I wouldn’t have done the same, but if the guy had waited a bit before calling in an attorney he may have avoided the fees. It doesn’t sound like he was ever actually charged. It is frustrating and scary for a non-criminal to be in custody.
I had an account at BOA years ago. I closed it because they suck. It looks like they still suck. I wish them all the worst.
From what I can see, there is no indication that Mr. Shinnick actually had an account of his own at BofA. He just came there because the check he was given was FROM BofA – he requested to CASH the check, not deposit it in an account of his own. Definitely a red flag there. To me, it doesn’t sound like BofA did anything wrong.
But the SFPD definitely could have done a better job.
Does nobody consider that Mr Shinnick holds some responsibility? His story is a bit fishy, if you read the whole article. First, he negotiates a price of $600 for bikes, then gets a check for $2000. Who does that, really? He let his greed cloud his thinking.
Then, instead of depositing the check, like most people would, he tries to cash it. If he thought the check might bounce, why would you want to cash it? My guess is he thought that if it bounced, he’d still have his cash, which, btw, is theft.
So, he knew the transaction was questionable, and just in case, tried to have the bank take the loss. I can’t feel that sympathetic for the guy. The guy did nothing illegal, but he acted indistinguishably from a criminal, and I think intentionally (cash a $2000 possibly fraudulent check – come on). My biggest issue is that it took $14000 in fees to clear things up. There is obviously an issue with the system that requires that kind of money to resolve any legal problem.
My biggest issue is that it took $14000 in fees to clear things up
According to him, the man who tried to cash a fraudulent check for $2000 to cover $600 in goods.
20 According to him…
Good point.
Reminds me of when my Mom mailed my niece a birthday card – with a check – which was not received…
The altered check was then deposited in an ATM – which cleared – wiping-out her account.
When she complained to the bank – and the police – she was initially indignent that they were suspicious that she trying to scam the bank.
Anyway,
Interesting that he wants the Bank to pay, when all they did was report suspicious activity to the Police.[??]
Isn’t that a typical TV-episode ploy – “Officers are on the way, stall him till we get there”.
What would customers want BofA – or a local bank, or a credit union – to do if this guy was trying to cash a check from their own account?
#10 – “In the US you have absolute immunity to make a report to the police. There are no exceptions. Even if you can prove they person who made the report was lying and knew he was lying, it simply doesn’t matter.”
Actuallly, it does matter. You don’t have immunity from prosecution if you KNOWINGLY file a false report with the police. That happens to be a crime that police particularly hate and will arrest you for. In addition to that charge, you can be charged with obstruction of justice if the report interfered with or compromised another police investigation. You can also be sued bigtime in civil court for slander and many other damages if the report results in someone being falsely arrested, jailed, etc.
Nothing says “smart” like offsetting millions in advertising with trying to save the few thousand that could have made this go away. Clark Howard’s audience alone accounts for more people that will now see them as suspect, than all the goodwill they generated in ads in the last six months. If they had run a commercial showing them handing the guy a check and the keys to a new car for their part of the screw-up they would have come out ahead of where they are now.
In other news – DONT EAT SPINACH
I just noticed that the “buyer” of the alleged bikes was supposedly in Canada.
What kind of shipping charges could you expect to ship two bikes from San Francisco to Canada?
Good thing he didnt have any SPINACH on him, would gone down for SPINORRISM.
From what I can see, there is no indication that Mr. Shinnick actually had an account of his own at BofA.
From the article:
“I didn’t want to deposit it into my account because I didn’t want it to bounce.”
Surely BofA could have checked Mr. Shinnick’s account to see that he is a good customer before they called the police. After all, they called the company on whose account the check was drawn to verify if the check was valid or not. If the bank had told him it was a fraudulent check, Mr. Shinnick himself would have probably called the police.
So we have a non-customer who has declined to deposit a check in his own bank account, for fear that it will bounce. And yet he wants to CASH the check at BofA…
Sorry, but the burden of proof is on Mr. Shinnick.
#19 – Comment by deepblue — 9/22/2006 @ 5:49 am
Does nobody consider that Mr Shinnick holds some responsibility?
I don’t.
His story is a bit fishy,
No it isn’t.
if you read the whole article. First, he negotiates a price of $600 for bikes, then gets a check for $2000. Who does that, really? He let his greed cloud his thinking.
That’s a fairly common scam, and most net savvy tech geeks would stand a fair chance of spotting it… But this guy isn’t geek and the heart of this scam is a social engineering trick that takes place in meatspace. Plus, the origin of the scam is the trustworthy ham and beer loving nation of Canada. I can understand why no red flags went up for this guy.
And who cashes checks… well, I would have. Especially since it was drawn on a bank that, at least I’m assuming since the article didn’t address it, wasn’t his bank. He’s there to verify it, they do, so cash it. If he want to deposit in his bank, fine, or he can go buy a laptop, who knows… But getting cash should not be a suspect act.
Then, instead of depositing the check, like most people would, he tries to cash it. If he thought the check might bounce, why would you want to cash it? My guess is he thought that if it bounced, he’d still have his cash, which, btw, is theft.
I just addressed that, but I want to add that its only theft if you are trying to steal money. He’s trying to cash a check in good faith after verifying that it is good with the bank it is drawn on.
So, he knew the transaction was questionable, and just in case, tried to have the bank take the loss.
You can’t comment to his thoughts, but if he did think t was questionable, he did the right thing by verifying the authenticity of the check with the bank.
I can’t feel that sympathetic for the guy. The guy did nothing illegal, but he acted indistinguishably from a criminal, and I think intentionally (cash a $2000 possibly fraudulent check – come on). My biggest issue is that it took $14000 in fees to clear things up. There is obviously an issue with the system that requires that kind of money to resolve any legal problem.
My umbrage with your post is that you are making it out as if this guy acted ‘like’ a criminal when he did exactly what I would have done and what I think most folks would have done. We live in a culture where people not only have no experience walking in the shoes of others, but actually are prideful of that fact. Not that I’m levelling a charge at you, but rather just saying we should consider that and what it means about the assumptions we draw to fill in the holes in these stories.
Here is a fact not addressed in the article – the very moment that guy was issued a jumpsuit, his life was in danger. This isn’t a Mayberry cell in Sherrif Taylor’s office – this is a major modern American city jail. What would this story be like if he had been killed during his brief time in lockup?
But you an I might be on the same page about how much it costs to clear your name. We have a great legal system if you can afford it. But many people can’t.
Justice is not blind to your wallet.
Once the bank reported to him that check was good, and was drawn on an active account with suffucient funds, there is no way in the world a jury would -or COULD- convict this guy of any wrongdoing.
Regardless of the other facts or allegations, he was doing exactly what 90% of us would do.
The suit should name BOTH BoA and the SFPD, in my opinion, though I am not a lawyer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night…
This is an outrage, and sets a dreadful precedent.