-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
Kipp Hagaman, an Ivins, Utah man, enters a Chase branch with $3 in his pocket and withdraws $2000, in cash, from his account. He takes the twenty $100 notes and goes to America First Credit Union to pay bills. A teller and the assistant branch manager at America First Credit Union tell Hagaman that one of his $100 bills is counterfeit.
America First Credit Union then confiscates the allegedly counterfeit $100 bill and gives Hagaman a photocopy of the front and back of the bill and tells him that Chase would probably “make it right.”
The Chase Bank branch manager informs him “it’s Chase’s policy that once you leave the building, it’s on you and you should check your money.” Hagaman decided to camp out in front of the Chase Bank branch with a sign reading “Chase Bank Passed Me A Counterfeit $100 Bill!”
I would have thought that banks would have some sophisticated counterfeit detection devices. If the bank is unable to detect a counterfeit bill, is a customer likely to detect it? I never look carefully at those twenties that come from the ATM. How throughly have they been screened?
For a lousy $100, you’d think that Chase Bank would have wanted to avoid the spectacle outside their branch.
H/T: St. George News, Legal Blog Watch.
This is another example of the big corporate lie. Picketing becomes extortion in their greedy world. I guess 1 person picketing against corporate unfairness is criminal while 200 Teapublicans marching is a patriotic protest.
Try a little experiment.
Go to 4 different banks and 4 different stores. Tell them you were in earlier and you got a counterfeit $100 bill from them and ask them to replace it. See if any hands you money.
Ask 4 people to make change for a $100 bill. Go to them later on and tell them one of the $20’s they gave was counterfeit see if any hands you another $20.
Would the fact that none of these people would likely give you money make them all greedy SOBs?
That is my point. I am not apologizing for anyone. I am simply pointing out the reasonable behavior on the part of the bank. Behavior which you or anyone else would do.
Instead of pointing out errors in my definitions, answer some of my questions. Turn the situation in a 180 degree. Think if someone told you you gave them counterfeit would you be greedy for not taking them at their word?
Also legal definitions often have flexible definitions. Most have seen change over the years. Usually there is an expansion of what falls under the definition.
Extortion can have a thin line between it and expressing your opinions. I feel that intentionally causing enough grief that they’ll give you $100 crosses that line. If his intention was just be heard, it would be more difficult to show extortion. When his intent is to interrupt their business and hurt them until they pay up it crosses the line.
As an example. If a homeless person wants to use a public library to rest, read, learn, hang out, interact, use a computer or anything similar he is doing nothing wrong. If he smells bad and is offensive to people throwing him out can get a public library in trouble for violating his civil rights. The homeless person has not committed a crime.
However what if the homeless person deliberately gets as foul as possible. What if he goes out of his way to be as obnoxious and troublesome as the law allows and offers to leave for $20? His intention is what is different.
What if a homeless shelter brings over their entire client base and offers to take them elsewhere for a donation to the shelter? Sure he’s exercising civil rights and using a public library that his tax dollars pay for. The problem is his “intention” is to disrupt their business until they pay him to go away. Does that make it extortion or some other crime?
Legal question: If the man turned out to be lying about Chase giving him the money would his actions than be extortion? This isn’t a rhetorical question. It is a serious question.
“when Hsgaman did not commit a crime.”
Jeff,
Chase, one of the biggest banks in the world, should have top-of-the-line equipment to detect counterfeit currency. So automatically, because the bank screwed up, the customer is at fault? Isn’t the first credo of customer service that “the customer’s always right?”
And, sitting in front of the bank with a sign is not extortion, nor is it a threat. If that were the case, most teabaggers should be arrested for threatening for the filth they put on their signs.
Again, with no ability to debate honestly and with correct definitions, you resort to argument by verbosity, Apologist.
Mr. Hagaman committed no crime and was in fact exercising his 1st Amendment rights in public. If you don’t like that? Tough shit, greed boy. Extortion is a word with very specific legal meaning. Meaning that does not encompass the behavior of Mr. Hagaman. No threats were made. No intimidation used. Mr. Hagaman was well within his rights as a citizen.
You’ll have to do better than that, amateur.
And if you want my opinion about banks and bankers?
Banks and bankers suck.
As exemplified by the contortions and intellectually dishonest argument you are willing to make by accusing a man of crime when did not commit a crime.
Over $100.
That the bank was initially negligent in catching coming into their system and/or (even worse for your lil’ apologetic) possibly criminally trying to pass off on to customers.
Yep.
Banks and bankers suck.
Have a nice day.
Again, with no ability to debate as an adult you resort to names and personal attacks. The threats/extortion was made when he was protesting outside until they decided to give him $100 to go away. As was STATED in the article. The idea was he felt if he hurt their business he could get his way and they would pay him to go away.
Are you saying that if I felt you owed me money I could make it difficult for you to work and earn a living? No, you would have me up on charges. He can make a lawsuit if he wishes. That would be the non-threatening, non-extorting way. Same as if some contractor claimed you owed him money. His legal option would be to sue you, put a lien on your property etc. Him camping outside your home or office carrying a sign accusing you of a crime is not the method allowed by the courts.
Nor do you know that Chase was acting as selfish incompetent pricks. The only thing we KNOW is a man claims the bank gave him counterfeit. Where is the proof? Is this man a regular customer known to them or is he just some guy who came in to cash a check?
Chase’s payment of $100 has nothing to do with “being caught”. As so often happens it is cheaper to give him the $100 than to suffer a PR hit from people such as yourselves and others who ignore logic and fairness and only see “the evil banker”.
Just for once ignore that it was a bank. Imagine it as some mom & pop store that is barely making it and someone makes a claim without proof of being given a counterfeit bill. Imagine as if someone claimed you gave them such a bill. If you or the mom&pop store didn’t automatically hand over $100 would you be evil as you think all banks are? As I’ve also asked and been ignored would it be fair for the bank to do all that the man did if they felt he gave them counterfeit? No, you wouldn’t think it was okay.
Are you really proposing that because some banks were given bailout money that they should give out $100 bills to anyone and everyone who claims they were given counterfeit?
See that is what it all comes down to. How can you feel entity ‘a’ is Evil and Greedy just because they don’t automatically believe entity ‘b’?
Of course that isn’t how you see it. You see it as bank = automatically bad and crooks.
I am not a Bank Apologist. I am just a man who believes in fairness and doesn’t think that someone who is doing better than I am got that way by cheating.
Proof that you don’t know what the Hell you are talking about from a legal standpoint comes from your misuse of the term extort.
extort \ik-‘stôrt\
: to obtain (as money) from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or unlawful use of authority or power
The “threat” in question here was a citizen, on public property, exercising his 1st Amendment rights. No one was threatened, intimidated nor was this exercise of power unlawful. Was Chase embarrassed because they acted like selfish incompetent pricks? Sure. But that reaction on Chase’s part is simply that: their reaction based on their failings being made public, not Mr. Hagaman’s legitimate use of his civil rights in doing so.
See, Jeff, when you misuse words on purpose? Especially words with very specific meaning? Let alone legal meaning in the context of a legal blog?
It tends to make people think you’re either a liar or an idiot.
Personally, I just think you’re an apologist for bankers with a weak vocabulary and understanding of what actually constitutes extortion. And given the nature of our economic malaise and its roots in the manifestly greedy banking industry? Good luck selling that.
Claiming all bankers are liars, insulting me, talking about bailouts and what not just prove that some of you are unable to have an adult-level discussion.
Facts are these:
1. He did threaten and extort them. It was even stated in the article. “For a lousy $100, you’d think that Chase Bank would have wanted to avoid the spectacle outside their branch.” In other words “give me $100 or suffer the consequences”. In fact since he can’t prove they gave him counterfeit a case could be made for slander/libel.
There is zero proof the bill was from them. As I said, twist it around. What if the bank claimed he gave it to them but they didn’t catch it at first? Even if true, the man wouldn’t believe them. And would it be equally reasonable for the bank to camp outside his home, or just to post a sign saying he gave them counterfeit? No. Even if it did come from him, they would have to eat it as there would be no proof.
Is the bank supposed to take anyone’s word they received counterfeit? What if he claimed it was $200? $500? When would you think it was reasonable for a bank to say that “without proof it came from us we can not give you the money you’re asking for?”
Do a little experiment. Go to your local bank, grocery store, coffee shop and wherever. Claim they gave you a counterfeit bill and see if they just automatically say sorry and hand you money.
Are you saying that if you ran a small business and someone left, then came back claiming you gave them a counterfeit bill you would automatically believe them and give them their money? No you wouldn’t. Attacking others for doing what you would do is rather hypocritical.
What is good for “a” is good for “b”. The fact that the bank is a successful business has no bearing on the situation – other then it makes them vulnerable to extortion and threats to a point where it is cheaper to just give him $100 to go away.
Jeff
1, April 2, 2011 at 10:22 am
So Mr. Hagaman was able to use extortion and threats to get his $100 back. $100 that may or may not have came from the bank. The bank has no way of knowing if it did or didn’t. They only have his word. ….
======================================================
Nobody believes a word a banker says, except another banker … get an honest job, Jeff.
i’ve always wondered what you do if an atm gives you a counterfeit bill.
i have a friend who was upset because she said she was given a counterfeit 20 and had to pay her power bill and was going to be 20 short because of the bill. i checked the bill and told her it was not counterfeit but was a 1964 series and did not have the security bar on the left of the bill.
the point of the story being, do atm machines automatically reject older bills for deposit and are people being told falsely that their bills are counterfeit?
I think you have a typo in your title. Didn’t you mean to write:
Chase Increase Profits With Currency Innovation
So Mr. Hagaman was able to use extortion and threats to get his $100 back. ~Jeff
————————————————————–
what makes bringing something to light threatening?
‘extortion’ and ‘threat’ … you mean the banks…right?
For damming up the bail-out money? for hostaging for the current state of mortgage affairs? for exhorbitant fees? for a whole lot of other crap that they still do?
http://video.answers.com/the-bank-bailout-as-a-hostage-situation-514836258
http://embed.5min.com/514836258/&sid=813/
I know this is off,off topic but who would have thought this to be true ? Art imitating life or vice versa?
AEL S. JAMES
April 2, 2011
WATCH: Emergency Landing
WATCH: FBI Investigates Bullet Hole in Plane
WATCH: Controller Suspended Over Airline Near-Miss
“My husband who was sitting right underneath this could look up and see a hole in the roof of the plane, and could see the sky up there, which was a little disconcerting,” passenger Sandra Haros told KTAR, an ABC News Radio affiliate in Phoenix.**LIFE**.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/southwest-airlines-planes-ceiling-phoenix-sacramento/story?id=13280499
**ART**:
Thank God for the modern day printer….so long as you keep the bill away from water, humidity…..and bake it for a while….you can give the government competition…..However, the above is just a belief….never tried it….have read about it….still never tried it….anybody got change for the $100.00?
Jeff, a peacefull public protest is neither extortion nor a threat. Mr. Hagaman provided information to the public about how he was treated by Chase Bank. If Chase chose to change its conduct because he publicized its conduct, perhaps it would be wise to re-think the policy involved.
Awwww.
Those po’ old banks.
Posting record profits after a bailout for their incompetence and greed after getting bailed out by the taxpayers.
Cry me river over them eating $100 instead of a customer eating $100 because their cashiers and counters were again incompetent; this time in catching counterfeits as the entered their system.
So Mr. Hagaman was able to use extortion and threats to get his $100 back. $100 that may or may not have came from the bank. The bank has no way of knowing if it did or didn’t. They only have his word.
I wonder how he would react if the bank had called him and said he gave them a counterfeit $100 bill the other day and that they are deducting it from his account. I expect he’d blow a gasket. He expects the bank to take his word but it is doubtful he’d take their word that he gave them a phony bill.
I see by the updates of the origianal article, he was reimbursed his $100.00, finally. Some of the comments are interesting and the Hagamans respond to most or all of the comments. The pompous self-righteousness of some comments is breathtaking. One commenter claims that when some banks get a counterfeit bill, rather than eat the loss, they deliberately put if back into circulation by passing it off to an unsuspecting customer. I have no idea if that claim is true or not, but it seems that we should not be quite so trusting of what a teller hands us. Before leaving the bank lobby, inspect the bills and if any are suspicious, call your local Secret Service office. They will come and evaluate the money, tell you if it is real or not and you are in a much better position to get reimbursed.
If you hand funny money back to to the bank, keep in mind if they are willing to do it once, they will do it again to another unsuspecting customer.
Government has created trillions in counterfeit fiat money to pay for the US empire through inflation of the money supply. That’s all legitimate and legal, of course, because the government says it is.
Now people who print counterfeit money for a living are trying to run down the printer that the bill was printed on.