Salvation Army left short of cash by fake SC check

[mscriv]

CHARLESTON, S.C. – The Salvation Army thought it had received a grand gift ahead of Christmas — a $25,000 check. But the donation turned out to be an expensive hoax that may force the charity to cut back on winter assistance for the needy.

Investigators said Wednesday that more than a dozen Charleston-area charities received fake checks before Christmas purporting to be gifts from a genuine local company.

None of the other charities cashed theirs, but the Salvation Army deposited its check. It went ahead and spent some of the money on food and toys for about 100 families, counting on the check to clear.

The bank called two days before Christmas to say the check had bounced, and the agency was left with less money than planned to help the needy this cold January.

"It's a matter of counting on that so we would have a cushion," said Kiki Cooper, the director of development for the local chapter. She said the single check represented about 10 percent of what the Salvation Army typically raises during the holiday season.

The check and accompanying letter appeared to come from Force Protection Inc., an armored vehicle manufacturer in Ladson. The letter said the company had enjoyed success and wanted to share with local charities.

Other charities called the company about the unsolicited donations and Force Protection sent out a memo Dec. 17 — the same day the Salvation Army deposited their check — saying it had been the victim of a holiday scam.

Officers were investigating but there had been no arrests in the case as of Wednesday, said Maj. John Clark of the Charleston County Sheriff's Department.

Tommy Pruitt, a spokesman for Force Protection, said the checks were written on a company bank account that had been closed months ago. He said he did not want to speculate on who might be responsible.

Cooper said the check arrived at the busiest time of year for the charity.

LINK

Seriously, what kind of schmuck does this?

 

[Drumjim85]

while it's obviously wrong, it's not against the law is it?

 

[ucfgrad93]

Seriously, what kind of schmuck does this?

Agreed, that is just sad.

 

[Consultant]

while it's obviously wrong, it's not against the law is it?

Fake checks are against the law.

 

[Abstract]

The person(s) responsible for this should be forced to pay a donation to the SA and all the other charities it sent cheques to. Too bad they'll probably never be caught.

 

[gnasher729]

while it's obviously wrong, it's not against the law is it?

You'd have to read the appropriate laws carefully, but I think this might fall under fraud. The ****ard made the Salvation Army believe that they received $25,000, which was not the truth, and they acted on that false information by spending money. That is one part of fraud: Making someone act on an information that is false. The other part of fraud would either be "to enrich yourself" or "to harm that party"; that's what you would need to check. If fraud is "harming another party", then this would have been fraud.

 

[Abstract]

I'm sorry, but even prank phone-calls are against the law. How could this not be?

 

[djellison]

It went ahead and spent some of the money on food and toys for about 100 families, counting on the check to clear.

Personally - I would not do that, especially with such a large sum of money.

The guy who did this is clearly a utter bastards and deserves to pay for these actions - but why the assumed it would clear, I do not know - I would not allow myself to be bitten in the same way.

 

[rdowns]

Personally - I would not do that, especially with such a large sum of money.

The guy who did this is clearly a utter bastards and deserves to pay for these actions - but why the assumed it would clear, I do not know - I would not allow myself to be bitten in the same way.

Seriously, who spends money before a check clears? Poor management here.

 

[Don't panic]

even though the SA is not one of my fav charities, it's really, really low to do something like that.

i find surprising not only that they spend the money before the check cleared, but also that they don't have enough cash to buffer it. It doesn't seem like a large amount for such a massive organization.

On the positive side, i am sure that they'll get plenty of sympathy donations just to help them out in this situation which will more than make up for it, even from people -like me- who would not normally consider them as a typical destination for their donations.

 

[Drumjim85]

You'd have to read the appropriate laws carefully, but I think this might fall under fraud. The ****ard made the Salvation Army believe that they received $25,000, which was not the truth, and they acted on that false information by spending money. That is one part of fraud: Making someone act on an information that is false. The other part of fraud would either be "to enrich yourself" or "to harm that party"; that's what you would need to check. If fraud is "harming another party", then this would have been fraud.

But people innocently write checks that bounce all the time. I guess this is where lawyers come into play.

 

[Rodimus Prime]

even though the SA is not one of my fav charities, it's really, really low to do something like that.

i find surprising not only that they spend the money before the check cleared, but also that they don't have enough cash to buffer it. It doesn't seem like a large amount for such a massive organization.

On the positive side, i am sure that they'll get plenty of sympathy donations just to help them out in this situation which will more than make up for it, even from people -like me- who would not normally consider them as a typical destination for their donations.

Well the past 2 years I can understand the buffer being in bad shape. Demand for the services are near record highs but giving is at record lows. A bad combonation. Charity gets double hit during bad times as they loss the money had incoming and have to spend more to help the people they are there to help.

We are 2 years into this bad economy and we have years to go before it will be even close to recovering. 2015 is the new best base number but it already projected that the next 10 years will be pretty bad.

 

[gnasher729]

But people innocently write checks that bounce all the time. I guess this is where lawyers come into play.

It's a matter of intent, and a matter of causing damage. If you pay me by check, the check bounces, and you then give me cash, then there was no intent to damage me and no damage done, therefore no fraud.

If you don't have any money, order a new $2000 TV and pay by check, knowing that the check will bounce and without intent of ever paying, then this is likely fraud.

In this case, there was intent and damage. And giving me a fake check that looks like it comes from some local business is surely fraud.

 

[sysiphus]

What a crappy thing to do. Shame on them.