Personal Finance

double cashing pay cheque

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 19th, 2017 11:16 pm
Tags:
Deal Expert
Feb 11, 2009
15655 posts
1733 upvotes
Toronto
Chickinvic wrote:
Apr 18th, 2017 11:37 pm
Both banks I use for mobile deposit explicitly tell you to write for "deposit only to account #..." on the back of the cheque (before you take the photo obviously), and for you to sign the cheque.
hvwozq wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 4:27 am
They tell you to do it, but no one actually checks if you did it or not.
Fair enough, I'll pay more attention next time, but regardless I guess my point was I've never had issues not doing it
Selling Grizzly Privy Maple Leafs - $33 ea - PM!
Member
May 22, 2007
358 posts
61 upvotes
Mississauga, Ontario
luvorange wrote:
Apr 18th, 2017 1:13 am
well this happened in January and the employee's LONG LONG GONE!!! of course I wouldn't keep that kind of person.
the reason I post it up this just today is, the phone call from apparent law firm called me today in the afternoon
Report ex employee to the police.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Dec 4, 2007
2466 posts
459 upvotes
Quebec
coolintheshade wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 11:40 am
If the employer wrote 10 cheques to the employee, I guess he'd be responsible for 10 cheques.
But he didn't. He wrote one cheque, and is only responsible to pay out that one cheque one time.
If you pay your rent this month with a cheque, and your landlord deposits it through mobile deposit at 4 different banks, then finally takes it to a cheque cashing joint to be cashed a final time, are you responsible to pay out the value of that cheque 5 times because of what your landlord did?
Common sense. There is no way this particular incident would fly in court.
looks like common sense doesnt work in the cbc report with that particular case and many others case that money mart won...sometime, some law are just awfull
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2016
2201 posts
1113 upvotes
HyperTech wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 5:53 pm
looks like common sense doesnt work in the cbc report with that particular case and many others case that money mart won...sometime, some law are just awfull
I tend to not believe anything the media reports.
Show me real court documents, and that will convince me.
Deal Expert
User avatar
Jan 27, 2004
36678 posts
2543 upvotes
Toronto
coolintheshade wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 6:16 pm
I tend to not believe anything the media reports.
Show me real court documents, and that will convince me.
Should be public record. Feel free to order them. I'd be interested in looking @ such a case too...
I believe its freedom of information act.
Member
Nov 1, 2010
389 posts
49 upvotes
luvorange wrote:
Apr 18th, 2017 1:13 am
well this happened in January and the employee's LONG LONG GONE!!! of course I wouldn't keep that kind of person.
the reason I post it up this just today is, the phone call from apparent law firm called me today in the afternoon
You could always invite the apparent law firm to put down their claim and basis for it in writing at which point you might look into it. Phone requests are not worth much.
Deal Addict
Feb 29, 2012
2662 posts
1395 upvotes
Richmond
Phone calls from parties who identify themselves as a "law firm" or "collection agency" on the phone mean nothing. Wait until you get something specific in writing, by registered mail, from a party whose identity can be verified, citing a specific transaction and applicable law. Then you can investigate whether there is any likelihood of them having a successful claim.

Common sense would dictate that any party accepting a written promise of payment (i.e., a cheque) would be responsible for verifying its validity. If they accept it without sufficient verification, and it proves to be fraudulent, that should be entirely their responsibility and the fraudster's. That's why banks will only accept cheque deposits from clients with verified identities, and then they hold the cheque funds until verified. Anyone else who wants to be sure of payment requests a certified cheque, or calls the bank to have the cheque certified themselves, or requires other surety such as placing a lien on property. It shouldn't be up to the rest of us to support Money Mart's flawed business model. They just don't want to take the time or incur the cost to verify cheques.

But the law sometimes belongs to whoever can buy the interpretation they want, so don't assume that common sense applies. Wait for something in writing, and then check it out.
Newbie
Jun 6, 2014
81 posts
17 upvotes
Toronto, ON
I started wondering about this issue when I first saw the commercials for mobile deposits. What happens if the someone mobile deposits in two different banks?
Deal Expert
User avatar
Aug 18, 2005
16978 posts
1859 upvotes
GTA West
icedtea365 wrote:
Apr 23rd, 2017 2:52 pm
I started wondering about this issue when I first saw the commercials for mobile deposits. What happens if the someone mobile deposits in two different banks?
Banks aren't stupid. You might get double-money at first but banks talk to each other and one transaction will be reversed. And if you have a pattern of things like this, your accounts will be closed. Then you might hear a knock at your door from your friendly local police dept. ;)
- Not Collecting AIR MILES Since 2016/07 -
- Casual Gastronomist -
Sr. Member
User avatar
Mar 3, 2005
622 posts
268 upvotes
Mississauga
coolintheshade wrote:
Apr 19th, 2017 6:16 pm
I tend to not believe anything the media reports.
Show me real court documents, and that will convince me.
http://canlii.ca/t/1qnwr

http://canlii.ca/t/fvs3n

http://canlii.ca/t/4vjt

http://canlii.ca/t/1f80f

"... The post-dated cheque was a bill of exchange and thus the stop payment was not effective against a holder in due course. "


http://canlii.ca/t/1mg7w
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2016
2201 posts
1113 upvotes
hopetindall wrote:
Oct 18th, 2017 1:36 pm
http://canlii.ca/t/1qnwr

http://canlii.ca/t/fvs3n

http://canlii.ca/t/4vjt

http://canlii.ca/t/1f80f

"... The post-dated cheque was a bill of exchange and thus the stop payment was not effective against a holder in due course. "


http://canlii.ca/t/1mg7w
Am I missing something here?
There was more than one cheque issued, not one cheque cashed more than once.
Different situation.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Mar 3, 2005
622 posts
268 upvotes
Mississauga
coolintheshade wrote:
Oct 18th, 2017 2:05 pm
Am I missing something here?
There was more than one cheque issued, not one cheque cashed more than once.
Different situation.

Hi @coolintheshade

Yes - you are correct - in the cases mentioned it is where multiple cheques have been issued.

In cases where someone deposits something twice into their bank account - the bank will surely charge the depositor back.

The CBC article [that I thought you were responding to; apologies if I misunderstood] gave a case of employer replacing a pay cheque and putting stop payment on the lost cheque. The employee then cashes the 'lost' cheque at a cheque cashing place. [effectively being paid twice].

But - the 'holder in due course' silliness means that the writer of the cheque (even though it's cancelled) is liable to compensate any cheque cashing place like Money Mart that in good faith becomes a 'holder in due course'.

I'll bet that many folks aren't aware of these clauses in the Bills of Exchange Act (they come from 100s of years ago when commerce around the world was driven by bits of paper being negotiated (Bills of Lading, Bills of Exchange, etc. on timelines driven by sailing ships.

Money Mart for one has been successful in suing a number of cheque writers who did nothing wrong.

I don't think we've seen a similar 'holder in due course' case yet for double-depositing (or depositing once and then cashing at Money Mart once) - but I'm sure we will.

We pay rent monthly and for the last 2 years I've been stamping the cheques on the front near the top with 'For deposit to account of named payee only' to reduce the risk of the cheques being misused/stolen, etc.

PHT
Sr. Member
Oct 6, 2015
809 posts
413 upvotes
Employee that needs to use Money Mart = untrustworthy, financially irresponsible, and hence, not worthy of your employ. Even if you can't put together a case for "for cause" dismissal, having an employee of such nature on your staff will be a risk, not just for repeats of the same, but also for employee theft and other sorts of misconduct.

And you're only liable to pay on the instrument once.
Sr. Member
User avatar
Mar 3, 2005
622 posts
268 upvotes
Mississauga
burnt69 wrote:
Oct 18th, 2017 3:34 pm
And you're only liable to pay on the instrument once.
But - the courts have held (see the links I posted) that if the instrument is lost and replaced - EVEN if you put a stop payment against the cheque - you can still be liable as the writer of the cheque to a cheque-cashing place who is a 'holder in due course'. In effect you may end up paying twice.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Sep 9, 2012
1967 posts
936 upvotes
Oakville, ON
A Stop Payment request is executed on a best efforts basis. It almost always works as expected, but when it doesn’t the cheque writer is still responsible for the cheque.

Top