TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief

Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief

DevilsPGD (spamsucks@crazyhat.net)
Fri, 19 Aug 2005 23:07:12 -0600

In message <telecom24.376.9@telecom-digest.org> Dan Lanciani
<ddl@danlan.com> wrote:

> jmcharry@comcast.net (John McHarry) wrote:

>> I had a rather large ACH
>> transfer executed in the wrong direction a while back. The company
>> that screwed it up managed to straighten it out, but the bank that was
>> supposed to receive funds, and instead disbursed them, didn't do
>> squat.

> What was the bank's response when you asked them to reverse the
> unauthorized disbursal?

>> Apparently there is no security in that system beyond trusting
>> those who are admitted, which is pretty much all the big corporations.

> Proponents of the system claim that no further security is required
> because the paying bank is obligated to unwind the transaction upon
> the account owner's statement that the payment was unauthorized. On
> the other hand, some people report significant problems getting their
> money back after unauthorized ACH debits. They can't both be right;
> hence my question. (I realize that unwinding the transaction would
> have solved only half of your particular problem, of course.)

Just because the bank is obligated doesn't mean they'll make it easy
or fun. Ultimately you'll get your money back, but the hassle makes
it sometimes not worth the pain.

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: DevilsPGD: "Re: Not so Fast! 'xxx' Startup Put on Hold"
Go to Previous message: J Kelly: "Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief"
May be in reply to: TELECOM Digest Editor: "An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief"
Next in thread: Dan Lanciani: "Re: An Exciting Weekend With a Sneak Thief"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page