Personal Finance

double cashing pay cheque

  • Last Updated:
  • Apr 23rd, 2017 7:24 pm
Tags:
[OP]
Newbie
Apr 23, 2012
5 posts
4 upvotes
NORTH YORK

double cashing pay cheque

Hey guys,

Just want to share a story hear what you guys think.

I recently got a call from law firm about cheque one of my formal employee cashed.
She cashed a cheque through mobile bank app and later went to money mart or similar and cashed same cheque. Taking money right away.
The branch manager at money mart or similar called me and told me that I owed them money for duplicate payment, where I find this weird. Because it's their fault for cashing a cheque that have already been cashed.
Anyways, we figured that out and settled that it wasn't my fault. That was about a month ago, now as I mentioned, got a call from law firm saying I'm responsible as well as the employee who did it.
Does anyone know if this is true? If in fact I(my company is responsible to pay it up) am responsible? This is freaking hilarious, in my point of view.
38 replies
Deal Guru
Aug 22, 2011
12612 posts
2705 upvotes
Ottawa
Fraud commited by an employee, is not your problem.
[OP]
Newbie
Apr 23, 2012
5 posts
4 upvotes
NORTH YORK
vkizzle wrote:
Apr 17th, 2017 4:51 pm
Fraud commited by an employee, is not your problem.
Yep thats what i thought but this dumb law firm that called me saying other wise
Will fight to the end of the world
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jul 17, 2008
6610 posts
928 upvotes
https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-cons ... .html#toc6

There was also a page where it said to write on the back of the cheque "For deposit only to account of payee". This prevents cheques getting cashed at money mart and the like

But yea, tell them to take a hike. It's your employee who is going to be charged with fraud. They probably think it's easier to claim from you than from her.
Member
User avatar
Dec 21, 2007
263 posts
43 upvotes
Scarborough
Time to fire that employee too.
I am the Stig's brother's cousin's friend's former roommate.
Deal Guru
Aug 22, 2011
12612 posts
2705 upvotes
Ottawa
luvorange wrote:
Apr 17th, 2017 4:57 pm
Yep thats what i thought but this dumb law firm that called me saying other wise
Will fight to the end of the world
There's not much fighting required from your end.
Might be a good idea to report this law firm to the Law Society of Upper Canada.
Sr. Member
Aug 24, 2016
787 posts
362 upvotes
luvorange wrote:
Apr 17th, 2017 4:57 pm
Yep thats what i thought but this dumb law firm that called me saying other wise
Will fight to the end of the world
It probably wasn't even a law firm. Probably Money Mart or whoever cashed it the second time, trying to scare you into paying.
When you write a cheque, you're only obligation is to pay the face value of the cheque one time.
If the payee cashes it 15 times, that's not your problem.
Deal Guru
Aug 22, 2011
12612 posts
2705 upvotes
Ottawa
M8Rxmjsik wrote:
Apr 17th, 2017 6:57 pm
OP, some info for you.

https://www.payments.ca/about-us/news/c ... ems-part-3
https://www.payments.ca/about-us/news/w ... ems-part-4

Your case is clearly a duplicate cheque that shouldn't be paid twice. However, Payments Canada said (in 2015) that the law for holders in due course for this scenario was untested in the courts.

YMMV, IANAL.
"...the cheque cashing store can seek, and may be able to obtain, the funds from you, under the Bills of Exchange Act."
[OP]
Newbie
Apr 23, 2012
5 posts
4 upvotes
NORTH YORK
vkizzle wrote:
Apr 17th, 2017 8:34 pm
"...the cheque cashing store can seek, and may be able to obtain, the funds from you, under the Bills of Exchange Act."
So you are saying it is possible for them to charge us the fund my ex employee got by commiting fraud?
Wow thats insane
Member
Nov 13, 2013
306 posts
98 upvotes
Moneymart seems to win all sorts of weird check cashing cases. It may seem illogical but definitely check with a lawyer.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 12, 2006
4019 posts
392 upvotes
Just screw ex-employee...do a cancel check on it, as there deposit by mobile will get bounced back on them.....when they call, say hey you already cashed check at money mart and got paid!
Deal Addict
Sep 30, 2008
1268 posts
293 upvotes
I am not a lawyer. In my view, an employer is not responsible for an employee's illegal action (double cheque cashing in this case) unless the employee did so at the direction of the employer (principal agency relationship) and/or the employer benefits from the proceeds of crime. This is no different from the employee does other crimes like robbing a bank or sleeping with a minor.
Deal Addict
Jan 30, 2012
1173 posts
387 upvotes
TORONTO
vkizzle wrote:
Apr 17th, 2017 8:34 pm
"...the cheque cashing store can seek, and may be able to obtain, the funds from you, under the Bills of Exchange Act."
You're quoting a part of the article which does NOT apply to OP's situation. Here is the complete paragraph containing the bit you quoted:
For example, say you hire a fraudster posing as a contractor to replace the tiles on your kitchen floor. He needs to purchase materials in advance of the job, and asks you to write him a $1000 cheque to cover the cost. He then vanishes with your cheque and never returns, so you call your bank and put a stop payment on it. The fraudster takes the cheque to a cheque cashing store, which has no idea there's any issue with the payment. He signs the back of the cheque and gives it to them. The store becomes a holder in due course. The store gives him the funds (minus the fee they charge for providing their cheque-cashing service) and deposits the cheque at its own bank to collect payment from yours. When your bank returns the cheque to the store's bank for the reason "payment stopped", the cheque cashing store can seek, and may be able to obtain, the funds from you, under the Bills of Exchange Act.
The parts that are relevant to the OP are:
In the cheque imaging world, the risk associated with the holder in due course provisions becomes even more pronounced. A fraudster could deposit cheque images at multiple FIs via RDC before taking the paper cheque to the cheque cashing store. How will the holder in due course provisions apply?
and
The BEA was written in the age of paper payment transactions. Under its current "holder in due course" provisions 2, cheque writers may be exposed to increased risk as image capture and payment exchange gain traction in Canada. How will Canadian courts interpret the "holder in due course" provisions in terms of responsibility and liability for duplicates in the imaging environment? Is further clarification required?
and
Under current CPA rules1, "Duplicate Payment" means an item that has been paid more than once. This may occur in situations where:

an original and either an image, image printout or a photocopy have been paid;
an original item has been paid more than once; or
an image, image printout or a photocopy has been paid more than once.

A cheque writer's FI can reject and return a duplicate to the depositor's FI via the clearing for up to 90 calendar days.
× < >
Rotate image Save Cancel

Top