Lawyer Sues Citibank For Not Stopping Him From Losing Money In Nigerian Scam

[Malcontent]

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090127/0159093545.shtml
-{ Quote: "
A lawyer in Houston is suing Citibank after he got scammed (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202427717175) in a variation on the classic Nigerian email scam. There are a few interesting tidbits here that are worth discussing. First, the details: the lawyer, who does collections work, was contacted via email by a company that claimed to be a Japanese company that was trying to collect money from four clients in the US -- offering a contingency fee to the lawyer for help in getting the customers to pay up. Soon after that, the "Japanese company" claimed that one client had agreed to pay some of what it owed -- and it sent the law firm a check for $367,500. Citibank said the check cleared, and the law firm wired $182,500 to the company. Of course, it later turned out that the check was fraudulent, and the law firm was out the $182,500. " }-

[dw426]

Lesson #1: NEVER hire this guy as a lawyer.

Lesson #2: The bank is NOT responsible for YOUR stupidity. This lawyer will be learning this lesson shortly.

[Mrkvonic]

If they cleared the cheque ... well, then he's got every right to sue them.
Otherwise, if the bank did not do such a thing, then ... well ...
Mrk

[JRViejo]

I agree with dw426's Lesson #1, however, in the law.com link, the article states "the firm alleges, it received a "Citibank Official Check" for $367,000, and the firm deposited it into its Interest on Lawyers Trust Account at Sterling Bank in Houston." That check must have been an exact duplicate of the real thing for someone at the bank to say that the check was "paid" on the same day of its deposit and there lies the rub.

Paid is not the same as Cleared. If a bank account's information disclosure states that funds are available when a check clears, then this lawyer doesn't have a prayer but if it doesn't, the law firm might get something out of the lawsuit. According to the court's petition, the bank informed the law firm that it was a counterfeit check, 3 days after deposit, which is fast, considering that it was a Hong Kong check (the petition doesn't say if it was). The law firm should have waited a reasonable amount of time before acting on the proposal and I'm sure that is what the bank's lawyers will argue, based on receipt of a foreign check.

I have to agree with dw426's "Stupidity" argument though. Just because one gets a check, it doesn't mean one wire transfer funds. I get a check from you, I send you a check. I get a wire transfer, you get the same. Tit for Tat. Yet, to top it all, the wire transfer is sent to a supplier of the Hong Kong company, not to the company itself! :wacko: Hello... it's anybody up there? Insane in the membrane!