Posted on 10/07/2007 8:34:16 PM PDT by topher
A married couple had the horror of finding out someone had gotten hold of their checking account information -- routing code and account number.
The fraud was based on cashing checks using the stolen routing/account information at Wal-Mart. Another name was used on the fraudulent checks...
Apparently, to expedite customer sales, there is limited validation on check purposes [since Wal-Mart is the low price leader, it cannot afford to spend much labor to protect customers...]
Almost all of the $2000 that was de-frauded from the account was spent at Wal-Mart, the Wal-Mart gas stations and at Sam's.
Though the couple who were de-frauded reported this to the police, they are out the $2000, thanks to Wal-Mart...
In this particular case, a bogus name was used on the fraudulent checks. In other words, if the real person's name was Freddie and Jane Doe, it was a name like Laura Clinton used on the checks [why not use the Clinton as one associated with corruption in this example].
I know Wal-Mart has been fined because of all its illegal alien employees, but apparently there is poor quality in the employees/procedures at Wal-Mart to allow this to happen...
Nice Walmart bash. Walmart uses the same “validation” as any of the other big box stores like Target, Sears, or grocery stores like Kroger.
FYI, the illegal alien employees weren’t direct employees of Walmart, they were contractors’ employees.
Not surprised at all. Personally, I’ve never set foot in China-Mart.
A merchant has a minimum duty to verify that the account number on the check being presented does, in fact, belong to the person doing the presenting. This includes asking for identification. If the trail is not too cold, they may even have a videotape of the transaction.
At worst, the bank dinging the defrauded person's account must be able to present the check as evidence. If it shows up as a counter check (account numbers written in), then the merchant has an even higher duty to verify it is genuine-- including writing a driver's license or other form of identification on the check. The bank should be in trouble big time for cashing such a check, particularly with unmatched signatures.
Maybe that is just the New Jersey Wal-Mart's that English is not necessarily spoken by some employees. This employee was stocking selves, so maybe they did not require English to be spoken...
Also, due to privacy laws, (and to the best of my recollection) there can be no verification of name against routing number/account number.
This sounds very suspicious. What bank doesn’t offer it’s customers fraud protection? I’m not believing that this couple is out $2,000. This reads like a spammed email.
A more common fraud these days is someone with a cell phone taking a picture of a credit card so that infomration can be stolen from that.
This is the first time I have heard of a checking account fraud like this with a major store chain -- such as Wal-Mart...
If this really happened, the checking account owner won't be out the money.
It's just like any stolen check case.
Nice troll, though.
I know the new electronic check system has complicated matters, but generally fraudulent transactions are supposed to be absorbed by the bank or retailer, not the customer.
|
I don’t believe the victims would be held liable for the $2000.
No, but I do know WM *lost* some info not long ago, so it's possible.
Last year someone got a hold my our bank account info (routing & account number) and my name & address. They purchased stuff in three stores using our account info, but the checks were not from our bank. One of the places they purchased stuff was Wal-Mart. Because Wal-Mart uses checks like debit cards, it took three times a long for our bank to reimburse the money. No doubt Wal-Mart (and Office Depot) use this check/debit thing because it saves them lots of time & money, but when fraud is involved it takes up a lot of time for the victim.
In my case it would not have mattered if they checked ID, because the thief had a fake ID with my name & such on it.
I agree. Sort of weak. Except to anyone who is prone to believe Walmart=evil then of course they'll lap it up as the gospel because you know only Wal-Mart uses that system since they hate us all. I give it a three for thought time and perhaps a 1 1/2 for actual believability. But if it upsets them so, less people to deal with when I go into Wal-Mart I say.
Of course there is a deeper issue of ID theft here but it's not just Wal-Mart.
You’re assumption makes sense. It’s implausible to me to think someone would get my card and be able to use it! Hell, even the gas pumps demand my zipcode!
The couple at some point had no money in the checking account.
The bank may have already re-imbursed the money back to the couple.
I just thought it was harder these days to perform this type of fraud.
The bad checks were supposedly written in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. The couple who had the account lived in South Louisiana...
Ahh! Katrina.....
The people defrauded may have had more trouble with their bank as their account was setup to withdraw from savings when the checking account was overdrawn...
The people defrauded were not from the Katrina area (Southeast Louisiana), but from Southwest Louisiana...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.