You can't just stack up open checking accounts like they're trading cards, whether it's at one bank or spread across several different ones.
The account your scholarship provider sets up belongs entirely to you; it isn't some kind of power of attorney arrangement. When you sign that scholarship agreement, you're essentially authorizing the provider to open an account on your behalf, which means you really ought to have informed them about any existing accounts you already hold, unless, of course, you plan on closing the old one first.
I’ve got a ton of tattoos covering my back, and while those areas can get pretty itchy sometimes, there isn't a single spot on this specific patch of skin that bothers me at all...
I’ve got this intermittent itching on one side of my back, right under my left shoulder blade, covering an area about the size of my palm, but it isn't an itch you feel on the surface of the skin—it’s deeper, more internal. I can’t even scratch it to get any relief because the whole area just feels numb to the touch. There’s absolutely nothing visible on the skin itself, no rash or redness or anything. It’s starting to worry me since it hasn't cleared up in two or three months and the intensity is actually ramping up. On top of the itching, I'm now getting this mild aching and stinging sensation too. What could be causing this, and what are the odds it just goes away on its own without me having to see a doctor?
restlessscout5 said:What exactly does it mean when they say they aren't being circulated anymore? The reality is—if we look back five or ten years—notes featuring $1.75 were everywhere. Nowadays, I see people offloading them online for $6.75 just to get rid of them. You used to be able to pick these up at any local corner store, but those days are long gone.
My take is that out of roughly 150 million bills currently in circulation, nearly 50 million are being replaced by newer ones every single year. Even though a $1.75 bill remains perfectly legal tender, once a worn-out one hits the Federal Reserve, they don't bother swapping it for a fresh banknote; they just issue a coin instead because the production costs are significantly lower.
boldfalcon13 said:Hey there!
So, I just had a complete disaster on my hands... I was trying to pull a $500 bill out of this metal box (and please, don't ask me why my grandmother keeps her cash stashed in there 🤦), and the damn thing got snagged on a sharp edge and ripped right down the middle.
Is there any way to swap a torn bill for a fresh one? Anywhere at all? Is there even a chance?
It’s the exact same process as it is for that Canadian dollar bill mentioned earlier... just head to a bank and handle it through a teller.
I’m fairly certain this bill still counts as legal tender regardless of how old it is, though banks and exchange bureaus absolutely have the right to turn it away if it lacks the necessary security features or looks too worn out...
Your best bet is to go through a process called redemption. Essentially, the bank takes the bill from you, but instead of handing you cash on the spot, they send it back to the issuer—in this case, the Federal Reserve—on your behalf. The issuer then pays the bank the equivalent value, depending on the situation: if it's legal tender, you get the full amount; if it's damaged, the value might be slashed by a certain percentage; if it's been decommissioned, there's some kind of buyback value; and if it's invalid or a counterfeit, they aren't paying you a dime. Keep in mind, the final payout might also be slightly reduced to cover the issuer's processing costs. When you submit a bill for redemption, your bank will typically charge you a fee—usually a flat rate per note—to cover the hassle of handling it.
The big prerequisite for any of this is having an active US dollar account set up so the bank can actually deposit the funds once they receive them.
Paul Jackson61 said:And what exactly would be the grounds for a lawsuit here? Maybe the guy just gave that employee a ride from New York to Miami and they settled the payment via direct deposit? Or maybe he was just paying back an old loan? It's all speculation.
If that were the case, the payment wouldn't be processed as an official business transaction, but rather as a private transfer from an individual using their own name.
The transactions on that account are clear as day, and there’s security footage showing a cash withdrawal took place rather than a deposit, so I really don't see why there's any debate about whether the official is going to lose this case. It really just comes down to whether someone actually wants to spend the time and legal fees fighting over that specific amount. If it were me, I'd file suit for much less than this, especially if the person knows they messed up but refuses to make it right. And naturally, you'd be looking at interest on top of it all. 😁
Look, a bank clerk can easily fix a transaction without needing a customer's signature—and I’m fairly certain they’ve done it plenty of times before—to smooth things over quietly without making a scene. All that's left for the "aggrieved" party is to file a claim for a transaction they supposedly didn't make, which honestly just sets them up for a fraud charge given the evidence already on the table.
Look, this isn't some systemic failure at Bank of America; it’s just a human error by an employee. The bank isn't losing a dime because that staffer is going to have to settle those $667 differences out of their own pocket. At the end of the day, you still have to live with the fact that you basically pocketed someone else's money, even if they were the ones who slipped up.
Bank of America isn't going to come after you, but that individual clerk certainly could if they decide to take legal action since there's a paper trail.
Honestly, I'm betting a reversal transaction has already been initiated and just needs a signature to be finalized. My advice? Just go down there and handle it; you aren't gaining anything by keeping it, and you're definitely not losing anything by doing the right thing.
With JPMorgan Chase, you can just install their token app right on your phone, which means you don't have to lug around some extra hardware because everything you need is always right there in your pocket.
Look, I work in banking, and before you start, I’m not trying to play devil's advocate for the industry—this kind of thing can happen to any of us—but there are a few realities you just have to grasp. First off, a bank isn't some detective agency capable of launching an investigation beyond the technical data they actually have access to. They look at the transaction mechanics: does the payment info match the cardholder's details? A bank isn't the FBI; they aren't going to go knocking on doors at retail locations, and no Hilton or Delta isn't going to hand over their customer data without a court order. Besides, the person making the payment doesn't necessarily have to be the one receiving the service. Secondly, a bank can't just "undo" a charge whenever they feel like it. They can't just call up a Marriott and say, "Sorry, we've reversed this transaction because our client claims they didn't make it." Once the expense is incurred, it has to be settled. What the bank *can* do is indemnify you, which basically means they cover the cost on your account, but you have to prove there was a security failure on the bank's part to trigger that. And that's definitely not what's happening here. Skimming is a legitimate security breach, sure, but making online purchases is a matter of personal responsibility. We've talked about this before: when you signed those cardholder agreements, you accepted the terms stating you are liable for all charges until the moment you report the card as lost or blocked. As for how these things get exploited... You claim nobody else in your household could have used the card, fine. But it's simply not true that you're the only person with access to that information; literally every merchant where you've swiped that card has had access. Every cashier at a grocery store, if you want to put it that way. Not to mention every website where you've entered your details. Sure, there are security protocols designed to encrypt data and protect online transactions from third-party hackers, but you're always ultimately relying on the integrity of the recipient—hoping they won't misuse your data or leak it to someone else. Personally, I avoid using my card online as much as humanly possible, even with supposedly reputable retailers. If there's an option to use PayPal or a similar service, I'll take it every single time.
Look, this is a bit of a mess. Typically, these kinds of disputes don't fly. For these charges to happen, someone either had to have the physical card in their hand or they managed to snag the details during one of your previous online purchases. Since there’s no way to distinguish between legitimate spending and these fraudulent hits, your only real move is to appeal to their sense of basic decency, though let's be honest—that’s rarely enough to get Chase to just hand over $2000.
It sounds harsh, but about 99% of what people call "skimming" or card fraud actually turns out to be family members who had access to the card.
The updated version of the act (effective Jan 1, 2010):
Excerpt from the Amendment: "(2) As of January 1, 2010, the following sections of this Act are repealed: Section 14, paragraph 3; Section 18, paragraphs 2 and 3; Section 28, paragraph 4; Section 29.; Section 34, paragraph 1; Sections 36, 37, 38, and 42, paragraph 6; Section 63, paragraph 1, items 8.a, 9, 11, and 15; and Section 68."
Original Act Text: Section 29. — The Federal Reserve dictates the specific conditions under which residents—excluding banking institutions—are permitted to open accounts and maintain funds in foreign jurisdictions.
Thomas Fowler84 said:Naturally, the greatest toll in time and sanity is taken by the one who was careless.
I am no legal expert, but I believe the article you cited doesn't apply here. If that were the case, one could simply send money to the wrong people with intent and then sue them, unfairly targeting innocent bystanders.
What would you even stand to gain from that? You’d be inviting endless legal battles and courtroom drama, all for a payout that might never materialize. If that individual spends the money before realizing it isn't theirs, you're left with nothing but an empty hand. The article is perfectly clear and works flawlessly in Germany. I am unfamiliar with how such laws apply in America, so I cannot say exactly why this specific point in the piece is being contested. To summarize the text: "Whoever finds a movable object belonging to someone else..." Just how far did he go? Misappropriation requires intent. If someone comes into possession of an item without any proactive effort, it is purely accidental. In such cases, there was neither the knowledge nor the specific intent required to constitute a crime. Legally speaking, the title should be considered clear.
In this instance, nobody simply "stumbled upon" someone else's property. Rather, that property found them; someone effectively tossed it into their backyard through sheer carelessness.
What do you mean by "it wasn't an accident that he took someone else's property"? Are you suggesting his actions were premeditated?
I consider this a significant gray area. If I send funds to the wrong individual and request a reversal, the bank will refuse, as they cannot withdraw money from someone else's account without explicit authorization. Furthermore, due to privacy laws, the bank is prohibited from disclosing the recipient's identity. They would likely face a lawsuit for violating consumer privacy. It is frustrating that these complications arise simply because someone was careless with a transaction. 😲
There is no doubt that this involves dragging things through the courts, filing endless motions, and playing games with the banks. I haven't bothered getting involved in those tactics because we all know how that game is played. I am simply stating what the law dictates regarding this situation, based on my understanding of how these processes actually work in Germany.
Don't mistake my position for defending reckless spending; I am not. One simply must exercise caution when handling capital, as a single misstep can trigger unpleasant consequences for both the banks and the unintended recipient.
To is simply human error. We are looking at a case of mild negligence that happens to be shielded by legal technicalities. An extreme example would be someone throwing their entire life savings at a heart transplant hospital just to pay off a debtor who refuses to settle up. In America, the person at fault would likely pass away before they ever see a cent returned. 🙄
That argument falls apart on several fronts. First off, money doesn't just "accidentally" land in a specific account; it happens because of someone’s mistake or sheer negligence. Furthermore, if coming into possession without active effort counts as "accidental," then we could technically classify every single deposit as accidental. By that logic, a company could sue its employees for receiving their salary, or I could sue T-Mobile because I paid my monthly bill and they "accidentally" accepted the payment. Look, it’s certainly debatable and ambiguous, but the law is anything but clear on this matter. But the thing that immediately caught my eye is where this clause is most easily dismantled: "A movable object belonging to another..." Money isn't a movable object. Aside from maybe physical cash in some very specific context, digital wire transfers aren't tangible property. So, while such a law might apply to finding a wad of cash on the sidewalk, it certainly shouldn't apply to bank transfers.
Theoretically speaking, these types of issues would be handled through a private lawsuit here in the States. As for actual practice, I'm not entirely sure since I haven't heard of anyone actually initiating one like that. Then there is the lingering issue of bank secrecy, where the bank is not only under no obligation but is actually prohibited from disclosing information about the account holder who received the transfer. There might be a way to file a suit against a "John Doe," and then potentially use a court order to uncover those details 🤷
Typically, banks handle these situations by contacting the recipient on behalf of the sender, but without the recipient's cooperation, they are essentially powerless.
Can we please just stop spreading this nonsense about some phantom "tax" on bank accounts? It’s fundamentally impossible to tax an account itself. What gets taxed are income streams—actual deposits. Honestly, even if you were worried about it, the tax on those earnings should have already been settled before the money ever hit your balance in the first place. The only reason certain business checking accounts get flagged differently than personal ones is because they're subject to IRS scrutiny, which still doesn't mean you'll be slapped with a tax bill for a deposit that isn't even taxable income, like a simple transfer or a gift. The bottom line is that business accounts are specifically designed for receiving professional fees and freelance payments, so you really shouldn't be using them for anything else, like personal transfers or whatever. And for heaven's sake, definitely don't use them for gambling sites or anything of that nature.
neonhound10 said:So, there might actually be a chance?!
I think I'll definitely walk over to the local JP Morgan Chase branch and explain my specific situation to them, since you usually only get a sensible answer if you lay it all out clearly in black and white...
Yeah, the number is a little different than usual, but honestly, a deposit is a deposit... You just enter the bank details and the account number, and then they handle the rest by crediting it to the right account, right?...
Well, you did get a sensible answer regarding how to actually make the payment, 😁
And the fact that you can't just punch in an account number and hit send isn't a failure of online banking, nor is it the fault of your bank or the receiving bank—it’s simply how the entire payment system works, based on HUB standards that facilitate transactions for verified checking and savings accounts rather than just some random string of digits.