Salvation Army left short of cash by fake SC check

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by mscriv, Jan 6, 2010.

  1. mscriv macrumors 601

    mscriv

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    #1
    LINK

    Seriously, what kind of schmuck does this? :mad:
     
  2. Drumjim85 macrumors 68030

    Drumjim85

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Location:
    DFW, TX
    #2
    while it's obviously wrong, it's not against the law is it?
     
  3. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #3
    Agreed, that is just sad.
     
  4. Consultant macrumors G5

    Consultant

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    #4
    Fake checks are against the law.
     
  5. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #5
    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. :eek:
     
  6. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #6
    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.
     
  7. Abstract macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location Location
    #7
    I'm sorry, but even prank phone-calls are against the law. How could this not be?
     
  8. djellison macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Pasadena CA
    #8
    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.
     
  9. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #9

    Seriously, who spends money before a check clears? Poor management here.
     
  10. Don't panic macrumors 603

    Don't panic

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2004
    Location:
    having a drink at Milliways
    #10
    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.
     
  11. Drumjim85 macrumors 68030

    Drumjim85

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2007
    Location:
    DFW, TX
    #11
    But people innocently write checks that bounce all the time. I guess this is where lawyers come into play.
     
  12. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #12
    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.
     
  13. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #13
    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.
     
  14. sysiphus macrumors 6502a

    sysiphus

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006

Share This Page