A cheque from old cancelled account for 1 million?

[stevensfo]

Silly question and the fact that I have to ask it indicates how far we've come from the days of innocence to those of numerous laws and looking over our shoulder etc. But....

I found an old chequebook from an account closed long ago.

If I were to give a cheque for one million to my young nephew as a joke, and he actually tried to pay it into his account (he's 17 so may have one soon) could either of us get into any trouble over it? I assume not, but was just wondering if, in theory, one or both of us could be questioned for suspected money laundering/ fraud/ cornering the market on Curly Wurlys etc?

Steve

PS Does the Curly Wurly still exist?

[Lanark]

The money would be paid into his account and then at some point in the clearing period, which I think is something like 5 days, it will unceremoniously be yanked back out again when the bank realises the problem.

Now if young nephew quickly converts the money to bitcoin and spends it all, he will be rich, but will also have a £1 million unauthorised overdraft at the bank.

[staffordian]

And there may well be costs incurred by your nephew as his bank reverses the "Refer to Drawer" (bounced) cheque.

[scrumpyjack]

If a cheque is bounced citing insufficient funds in bank account, it is a criminal offence and the payee - the person or the bank - can file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

[dealtn]

The money would be paid into his account and then at some point in the clearing period, which I think is something like 5 days, it will unceremoniously be yanked back out again when the bank realises the problem.

Now if young nephew quickly converts the money to bitcoin and spends it all, he will be rich, but will also have a £1 million unauthorised overdraft at the bank.

Possibly, it would depend on the bank, and the method of paying it in.

A cheque size of £1million would probably be above the "house" limit and mightn't appear in the account but default to an internal suspense account. It would also flag on an "unusuals" list for investigation. (Assuming not much has changed since I left retail banking - admittedly a long time ago).

You wouldn't likely get in serious trouble, but technically it is attempted bank fraud. It could get taken extremely seriously. You could also both get questioned about money laundering. If it was a closed account at a bank you still had a relationship with they could end that relationship too, which could be problematic.

[stevensfo]

If a cheque is bounced citing insufficient funds in bank account, it is a criminal offence and the payee - the person or the bank - can file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

Are you absolutely sure about that? After 25 years on TMF and TLF I know that there are times when a bank balance goes down at the worst time and cheques can be refused. I can't possibly believe that it would actually be a 'criminal' offence.

I once had a succession of direct debits refused due to some delay in transferring money, and received high charges on my account as a result. When I explained the situation, those charges on my account were refunded. How is that different?


Steve

[SalvorHardin]

Are you absolutely sure about that? After 25 years on TMF and TLF I know that there are times when a bank balance goes down at the worst time and cheques can be refused. I can't possibly believe that it would actually be a 'criminal' offence.

I once had a succession of direct debits refused due to some delay in transferring money, and received high charges on my account as a result. When I explained the situation, those charges on my account were refunded. How is that different?

If you write a cheque which you know will not clear because there isn't the money (in this case you know that the account does not exist), and you then pass it off as a legitimate cheque, you are committing fraud. There's plenty in The Fraud Act 2006 that covers this.

When direct debits or cheques do not clear because of delays, that is not fraud. In this case there is no no "guilty mind" aka mens rea; this is required for the vast majority of acts to be criminal. By knowingly writing a bad cheque and passing it off as real, you have sufficient mens rea

Curly Wurly's still exist

https://www.cadbury.co.uk/products/cadbury-curly-wurly-11311

[stevensfo]

Are you absolutely sure about that? After 25 years on TMF and TLF I know that there are times when a bank balance goes down at the worst time and cheques can be refused. I can't possibly believe that it would actually be a 'criminal' offence.

I once had a succession of direct debits refused due to some delay in transferring money, and received high charges on my account as a result. When I explained the situation, those charges on my account were refunded. How is that different?

If you write a cheque which you know will not clear because there isn't the money (in this case you know that the account does not exist), and you then pass it off as a legitimate cheque, you are committing fraud. There's plenty in The Fraud Act 2006 that covers this.

When direct debits or cheques do not clear because of delays, that is not fraud. In this case there is no no "guilty mind" aka mens rea; this is required for the vast majority of acts to be criminal. By knowingly writing a bad cheque and passing it off as real, you have sufficient mens rea

Curly Wurly's still exist

https://www.cadbury.co.uk/products/cadbury-curly-wurly-11311

Well, maybe you have a point. Though I'm pretty sure that it wouldn't reach the courts. My nephew would be in terrible trouble, what with missing his detentions and so on... I wouldn't mind as long as they gave me solitary confinement for a few days. I'd be prepared to pay for longer! I believe that the solitary confinement cells for married men have a hotel-like device for inserting your card to enter.

Good news about the Curly Wurlys. Maybe I'll add an extra zero on the cheque!

Steve

[Arborbridge]

This actually happened with a friend of a friend. He gave a cheque for 1 million pounds for his birthday as joke, which his best friend then tried to pay in (also as a "joke"). Lots of ruffled feathers, but nothing came of it except a stern face at the bank.

This must have been around 1968 - innocent days indeed. That was also around the time another firend (as I related a while back) was able to prove his ID for drawing cash, by showing the bank cashier the name tab in his trousers.

Arb.

[doolally]

This must have been around 1968 - innocent days indeed. That was also around the time another firend (as I related a while back) was able to prove his ID for drawing cash, by showing the bank cashier the name tab in his trousers.
Arb.

Was his name Levi?

doolally

[stevensfo]

The money would be paid into his account and then at some point in the clearing period, which I think is something like 5 days, it will unceremoniously be yanked back out again when the bank realises the problem.

Now if young nephew quickly converts the money to bitcoin and spends it all, he will be rich, but will also have a £1 million unauthorised overdraft at the bank.

Possibly, it would depend on the bank, and the method of paying it in.

A cheque size of £1million would probably be above the "house" limit and mightn't appear in the account but default to an internal suspense account. It would also flag on an "unusuals" list for investigation. (Assuming not much has changed since I left retail banking - admittedly a long time ago).

You wouldn't likely get in serious trouble, but technically it is attempted bank fraud. It could get taken extremely seriously. You could also both get questioned about money laundering. If it was a closed account at a bank you still had a relationship with they could end that relationship too, which could be problematic.

Needless to say, as any internet search will reveal, if enough bank managers had been questioned in the past about their own bank's Money Laundering, the mostly honest citizens of the UK would have a much easier time!!

Steve

[staffordian]

I read somewhere that if an RAF officer wrote a cheque which bounced he could be court martialled, so as long as the OP isn't serving he might be ok

[dealtn]

The money would be paid into his account and then at some point in the clearing period, which I think is something like 5 days, it will unceremoniously be yanked back out again when the bank realises the problem.

Now if young nephew quickly converts the money to bitcoin and spends it all, he will be rich, but will also have a £1 million unauthorised overdraft at the bank.

Possibly, it would depend on the bank, and the method of paying it in.

A cheque size of £1million would probably be above the "house" limit and mightn't appear in the account but default to an internal suspense account. It would also flag on an "unusuals" list for investigation. (Assuming not much has changed since I left retail banking - admittedly a long time ago).

You wouldn't likely get in serious trouble, but technically it is attempted bank fraud. It could get taken extremely seriously. You could also both get questioned about money laundering. If it was a closed account at a bank you still had a relationship with they could end that relationship too, which could be problematic.

Needless to say, as any internet search will reveal, if enough bank managers had been questioned in the past about their own bank's Money Laundering, the mostly honest citizens of the UK would have a much easier time!!

Steve

There is an incredible amount of time and energy (and associated cost) directed at ordinary bank employees, including bank managers, concerning Money Laundering and much more regulation. No doubt "enough" might mean it's not 100% effective. Just like you refer to "mostly honest citizens of the UK" I would suggest the vast majority of bank employees are "honest" too.

Most of them don't appreciate the general criticism they, and the industry, seem to attract too (or at least didn't when I left the industry 5 years ago - I doubt it has changed).

[Breelander]

PS Does the Curly Wurly still exist?

Yes, so at least you can safely give one of those to your nephew...

https://www.cadbury.co.uk/products/cadb ... urly-11311

[stevensfo]

Possibly, it would depend on the bank, and the method of paying it in.

A cheque size of £1million would probably be above the "house" limit and mightn't appear in the account but default to an internal suspense account. It would also flag on an "unusuals" list for investigation. (Assuming not much has changed since I left retail banking - admittedly a long time ago).

You wouldn't likely get in serious trouble, but technically it is attempted bank fraud. It could get taken extremely seriously. You could also both get questioned about money laundering. If it was a closed account at a bank you still had a relationship with they could end that relationship too, which could be problematic.

Needless to say, as any internet search will reveal, if enough bank managers had been questioned in the past about their own bank's Money Laundering, the mostly honest citizens of the UK would have a much easier time!!

Steve

There is an incredible amount of time and energy (and associated cost) directed at ordinary bank employees, including bank managers, concerning Money Laundering and much more regulation. No doubt "enough" might mean it's not 100% effective. Just like you refer to "mostly honest citizens of the UK" I would suggest the vast majority of bank employees are "honest" too.

Most of them don't appreciate the general criticism they, and the industry, seem to attract too (or at least didn't when I left the industry 5 years ago - I doubt it has changed).

I don't think that people regard those at the tills as money launderers, simply incredibly thick and usually narrow minded who believe the world stops at Dover. One cannot help wondering how, with us now all obliged to have our salaries paid into accounts rather than given in brown envelopes, so many banks seem to be shadows of their former selves. The increase in income for banks has been ***** astronomical!! Yet, our local Barclays went from being a friendly warm place to a robotic and cold functional space. Something, somewhere is going seriously wrong. As TLF regulars, I think that we all know that the emphasis on AML laws and KYC was and is a bit of a smokescreen to persuade the establishment that they are squeaky clean as part of their effort to pretend that they learned their lesson after the financial crisis.
As far as I'm concerned, I prefer KYB. After the crisis, I regard banks as market stalls. Oh, and cash is still king!

Steve

[chas49]

Moderator Message:
The discussion here has gone far beyond a DAK question and answer. The OP has had an answer. This board is not for extended discussion. (And for what it's worth, characterising all bank till staff as "incredibly thick and usually narrow minded who believe the world stops at Dover" is not only off-topic but rather offensive and not appropriate for any board on this site in my opinion.)

Further posts on this topic should be limited to answers to the original question please

[stevensfo]

This actually happened with a friend of a friend. He gave a cheque for 1 million pounds for his birthday as joke, which his best friend then tried to pay in (also as a "joke"). Lots of ruffled feathers, but nothing came of it except a stern face at the bank.

This must have been around 1968 - innocent days indeed. That was also around the time another firend (as I related a while back) was able to prove his ID for drawing cash, by showing the bank cashier the name tab in his trousers.

Arb.

When I went to uni around 1980, we were all opening bank accounts everywhere and getting the freebies. I can't remember any problems with ID, though I always had an old library card with me, so maybe that helped. At one time I must have had about five accounts, four with nothing in them, and my main one, Barclays, because they had a branch in the uni. In my home town, there were girls in the branch that made me feel like a king and I remember, as a penniless student, having a meeting with a banker. I could possibly have stretched to 50p?

Good times!

Steve