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

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by Malcontent, Jan 29, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Malcontent

    Malcontent Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Posts:
    451
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090127/0159093545.shtml
     
  2. dw426

    dw426 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Posts:
    5,543
    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.
     
  3. Mrkvonic

    Mrkvonic Linux Systems Expert

    Joined:
    May 9, 2005
    Posts:
    8,694
    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
     
  4. JRViejo

    JRViejo Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Posts:
    20,907
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    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! o_O Hello... it's anybody up there? Insane in the membrane!
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.