Man deposits fake check in ATM, gets to keep the money. (1995)

At least one bank is still this clueless. My father is a member of a charitable organization in his small town, and it was recently discovered that their treasurer had embezzled about $30K. What makes this story so unusual is that this person also worked as a supervisor at the same bank used by the organization! It is difficult to separate the fraud which was carried out by this person as a private individual and that which required the rights of a bank employee to carry out. While there might exist banking regulations which make this an easy matter to sort through, I know nothing of them. However, the bank's clueless-ness is obvious. It has been months since this fraud was first discovered. The treasurer was fired immediately, and the bank's investigator was in contact with the local charitable organization. Incredibly, the bank has never offered to do the obvious -- make this organization whole without regard to the law or the specifies of the fraud which actually transpired! How many quarter-page ads in the local newspaper does $30K buy? Not enough to make-up for the loss of goodwill this story will have caused by the time the local paper stops reporting on it. There's some evidence that a good portion of the fraud required this person's position at the bank to carry out, so it's likely that the difference between what would actually be owed and $30K isn't all that great. And, how much positive goodwill could result if the local newspaper first reported how the bank had "rushed to help out this organization in its time of need without regard to how the chips would fall after a complete analysis of the facts"?

The bank is a small, regional player, but it doesn't seem like much analysis is required to figure out that the best strategy is to offer the defrauded organization a check with an agreement that all claims for losses incurred would be surrogated to the bank. How could they be so clueless at basic PR?

I liked how the story started, but the whole talk show circuit and DVD angle left a bad taste in my mouth. But that's probably just because the story is so long.

Here's what bothers me the most. It was widely agreed that he was entitled to the $95,000 by a technicality. He decided to "do the right thing" and give it all back. A hundred grand of 1995 money. So why did the bank make him pay $175 to close his account?

What if he had refused?

The story was pretty good for a while, but then it devolved into the guy describing for pages his "epic" quest to get media attention. Eventually, the pages are interspersed with ads to buy his book, his DVD, to donate, etc. Really good start, but went way downhill.

It's a good story but the title is wrong. He didn't keep the money, he was legally entitled to the money after the bank's mistake but returned it. Also, the story has 5+ pages. Great story though.

I am not going to manage to finish this tonight. I'm currently on like page 6 (http://www.goodthink.com/writing/view_stories.cfm?id=11&...). Good read though. I really liked the part where he goes and asks the teller if it would be possible to get $95,000 in cash:

How I learned those boxes would be too small to hold that much cash is kinda funny. I asked a teller if the bank could get me a hundred thousand dollars in cash if I needed it. The teller broke out in a chuckle and said, "Nobody's ever done that in the 15 years I've been working." "But if I wanted to, can you get me that much cash?" I reasserted. The teller's chuckle turned to a touch of nervousness and she replied, "We'd have to tell the IRS and order it four days in advance. But nobody's ever done that." "You'd have to order it four days in advance and notify the IRS?" I asked for clarification. "Yes because we don't keep that much cash on hand. The largest bill in circulation now is the $100 bill-- there are no more $500 bills in circulation. And we have to report any cash withdrawals in excess of $10,000." I left contemplating just how much money $95,000 was and I arrived at this: one thousand dollars a month for eight years.

Ten part story with two ads. Well worth the hour it took to read. I must have missed this story back when it originally happened.

As an aside, I read this story years ago when it was posted on slashdot.org. I read some of Patrick Combs other articles and eventually bought his book Major in Success. The book is a "life how-to guide" for undergraduates. It had a big influence in how I approached my time in college and I feel it helped me get the most out of it. I now buy the book for anyone I know who is about to head that way. Highly recommended.

I enjoyed reading that, if not for the story, then for the author's writing style. It's funny that even with all of the social stuff going on these days, the web seems to be getting much more impersonal.

Does anyone know if the laws have changed since? Is this still an issue?

If it was a real check, legally, then the bank should've been able to collect from the get-rich-quick company. So if he had kept the "bank's" money, wouldn't he really have been keeping the spammer's money, being that the bank would just have collected from the spammer?

I took the hour to read all ten parts in the hopes of being able to summarize for HN readers, only to come back and find several others had beaten me to it.

The story is well-written, and if you're looking to spend an hour reading an entertaining story, I suggest you do. Otherwise...

tldr: Patrick did not get to keep the money. He gave the check back in exchange for a settlement letter explaining the bank's mistakes. Advertisements for a DVD version of the story and tip requests appear before and after part 9, as well as at the bottom of the first page.

Where did the money come from though? I suppose I wouldn't care much if it happened to me, but I can't imagine the bank ate it. That get-rich-quick group must've been sitting on some cash.

Almost missed the tiny link to page 2.

The part that confuses me is my knowledge of cheques runs like this

1) You deposit a cheque into your account 2) The bank debits the account on the cheque 3) The bank credits the money to the account of the receiver. 4) Cheque clears.

Surely step 2 has been missed out here? The account number on the cheque was probably fake so this sort of thing should have been nipped in the bud straight away.

I wonder if someone got fired over this?

It's not particularly well written, and in the end he gives the money back to the bank. Hardly a "noble" result (he could have given it to a charity). Now he's got the audacity to shamelessly plug his crap and tip jar. Lame.

I remember this article distinctly. Hard to believe I was 9 years old when it came out..

After reading the full story I read all the comments here on HN. I didn't see mentioned several thoughts I had while reading the story, so I thought I'd share them here.

1) Transparency. I thought it was really interesting how candid and transparent the author was with his story. And this was in 1995. In many ways this was an experiment of its time, as he was willing to let all parties involved know about what he was thinking and what others were thinking as well (by republishing the public's opinion letters). You don't see this much of a "black box" in people's activities these days, even with all the social networking status updates. People simply leave out a lot of detail in fear of what others will think, or how it might affect them in some way (personally, professionally, etc...)

2) Big corporations often forget how to relate to their customers. This story exemplifies how nasty and out of touch big corporations often are, even when a loyal customer (10 years is a long time for anything) attempts to negotiate a reasonable outcome. Big companies simply "feel" bigger and stronger than individuals; and they generally are. Millions of people feel insignificant when they're treated so systematically unappreciated. These problems are likely worse today.

3) Insider details revealed. It is interesting to note that he revealed a lot of details that only someone in his position (or work for a bank, news agency, or television studio) would know. That really makes the story interesting because you feel like you're learning about how things work behind the scenes. In particular, it was interesting to follow the route of the check and hear about the clearinghouse bank, as well as how quickly the check landed in the hands of the Fed. Additionally, it was really valuable to see how the media works, specifically for how stories have to be pitched/approved/edited all across a large organization such as the WSJ before it's printed. Also notable was how the radio seemed to take a back seat to television, and would only really come in after national press already covered the story. You walk away from this story thinking you have a better idea of how these systems work.

4) Social engineering / social influence. His approach to getting information, or changing a person's attitude is evident in his anecdotes. He was social engineering in several instances, whether he realized it in those terms or not. It was interesting how he was able to change a person's negative attitude by simply sticking to his guns, but then phrasing things in a way that comforted the other person. There is likely a lot of value in his approaches for all of life's situations (business, friends, etc).

It's hard to imagine that I missed this story when it was originally happening. I certainly remember the OJ trial, and I was very active on BBSes and the Internet in the 80s/90s. Quite awesome that a 15 year old story resurfaced and I got a chance to feel it out now.

Great story. I read it back when it came out, but lost the link somewhere along the way. Thanks for posting it!