Complete B of A Holes

So a guy wants to sells his mountain bikes. He goes to Craig's list and deals with someone in Canada for a couple of weeks, and ultimately sells the bikes. Before sending them, he receives a business check on a Bank of America account for more than the agreed amount ("for shipping and his trouble").

Slightly suspicious, he takes the check to the Bank to verify the account is real, and that there are funds to cover the amount. The teller assures him this is the case, so he cashes the check.

Or rather, he tries to. Instead, the B of A branch managers call the cops, they manhandle and cuff him in the branch (no mirandizing, btw), haul him to the police station, strip search him, take his clothes, keep him for four to five hours before he can call his parents, and lock him overnight in a cramped cell built for one with four other people, including violent offenders and drug dealers. There is one john in the corner with someone passed against it. And one bed. He curls up on the filthy floor.

Finally, after his Dad pays the $4,500 bond of the $45,000 bail to get him out the next day, all charges are dismissed by finding of fact-- basically the district attorney said he did nothing wrong and Bank of America reported a "suspected crime" not a real one.

Beyond the repeated huliliation, dehumanization, and suffering this young man edured, the 48 hours also cost this retail clerk $14,000 to clear his name.

All because he suspected a check may have been fraudulent, checked with the bank, who checked on the check, told him it was legit when it was in fact fraudulent, and called for the police and reported a crime to have him arrested him as part of the fraud, which he clearly was not.

This guy has been seriously abused, and as for the $14 grand, he thinks B of A should pay for their mistake. I am inclined to agree with him.

But a 2004 Supreme Court which removes all protections to this victim: "the court ruled that all reports to the police are absolutely privileged. In other words, no liability can be connected to telling police of a suspected crime, whether real or not."

B of A is saying it only "suspected" a crime, not they did any real checking or asked the guy. And the police way over-reacted. Where was the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing. By all reports, he was hauled away and incarcerated, then there was an investigation, which apparently took all of five minutes when they got around to it the next day, to show it was completely baseless.

And B of A? What are they saying to this poor customer they humilates, abused, and incarcerated.

Basically it ssems they are saying, "We are not paying you for the trouble we caused. And by the way, fuck off."

Because of the 2004 ruling, B of A has no legal liability in the case and warned the customer that "litigation would not prove financially beneficial" to him.

SF Chronicle story here.

What was the old slogan? Worth changing banks for...