Two American law firms, unable to reach the scammer, now basking in sunny climes foreign to this great land, have taken to suing the banks which -- allegedly, I must say in self-protection -- processed the checks.
What I find particularly fascinating is this:
The client's instructions, two days later, to wire $128,600 to Nassco Korea Co., raised a red flag because a new client in a foreign country was asking the firm to pay money to a third-party foreign entity. So before depositing the check into its trust account at the Glen Rock, N.J., branch, "in an abundance of caution," it sent a copy to Bank of America asking it to contact Citibank to make sure the check was good, the firm alleges.
Bank of America allegedly responded with an e-mail saying "go ahead and deposit the check," adding that it was drawn on Citibank's account, not the customer's, which made it Citibank's obligation to make sure it was funded and that "[i]t would be unheard of for the bank to bounce one of its own checks."
Bank of America has evidently admitted the fact of the email communication, but with a caveat not fully described in the article. An abundance of what passes for ordinary caution, it seems, is not necessarily sufficient. Caveat leguleius!
After each post on this subject, I am flooded by law firm scam emails for several days thereafter. (I've got quite a collection now.) I think the guys read this blog. Welcome! If one would like to post on his methods and successes, let me know. It'd make for scintillating reading.
