On Sat, 03 Dec 2005 23:14:44 GMT, Han wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote in news:1133643137.529629.98290
:

I read a story in today's Roanoke paper that says a Tampa, FL WalMart
managed to stick its footsies in the fire again. The store staff
checked ID--driver's license, business card, a call to the company
accountant--for a human resources manager for GAF, but decided to hold
on to his $13,600 company check, and the 530+ WM gift cards he'd had
pre-printed for his employees, while they called the cops. When the
cops got there, one of them grabbed the guy, and told them, "We need to
see about that forged check you brought in here."

The HR manager is black. The check is good.


It's probably a bit pre-mature to assume that race was the motivating
factor here. How was the guy dressed? If he was dressed down, is it
possible this was a trigger of suspicion? If a similarly dressed-down
white person had attempted the same thing would the same paranoia have
reigned at Walmart?


It was spent at Target, according to the story.


A fitting twist

I hope the HR manager grabs a large pot of beans off WalMart's legal
stove with this one, and sues the living **** out of the deputy and the
municipality for which acts as a paid thug.


Yep. There had to have been a better way to have handled that situation.
I've been caught in cases in the past where the only company ID I had was
an insurance card when attempting to get a company discount from a
particular retailer (purchase was for items for work). The retailer in
this case did right and I learned a valuable lesson -- make sure that you
take a company badge with you for these kinds of things.

Several things may have led to the WM manager's suspicions. In most
cases, transactions this large are handled via purchase orders, so the fact
someone had shown up with a check that large may have pegged the suspicion
meter. Anybody can have business cards for anything printed up and I
suspect that had the manager accepted the check and it turned out to be
fraudulent, it would have been his backside on the line, so he was in a bad
situation.


I agree with your wish of bewns for the HR manager, but I have a thought:
With a $10K limit above which monetary transactions have to be reported
to thwe Feds somewhere somehow, would it not have been wise to call ahead
and see whether a check would be acceptable payment?

.... snip

My understanding is the $10k reporting requirement is for bank
transactions, not all financial transactions. The purpose is to catch
money laundering.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+