<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_03_21_0818202</id>
	<title>US Law Firms Targeted By Cyberscams</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1269172740000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://hughpickens.com/" rel="nofollow">Hugh Pickens</a> writes <i>"The San Francisco Chronicle reports that last year a Long Beach law firm received an e-mail from a Hong Kong businessman seeking help collecting debts from American customers. After a month of signing paperwork and exchanging telephone calls, the attorney received word that one debtor had sent a $200,000 cashier's check to pay off his balance. The attorney deposited it in his firm's account, subtracted his $10,000 fee and wired the remaining $190,000  to his Hong Kong client. Then the attorney's bank called and told him the $200,000 check had bounced. 'They send me a nice, big, worthless check,' says the attorney. In this case, the bank was able to prevent the wire transfer from reaching its destination, but <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/19/BU3E1CIIGE.DTL">attorneys say they are on the receiving end of sophisticated scams with increasing frequency</a> that include attacks to steal client data that can be sold or used to learn the details of future litigation."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hugh Pickens writes " The San Francisco Chronicle reports that last year a Long Beach law firm received an e-mail from a Hong Kong businessman seeking help collecting debts from American customers .
After a month of signing paperwork and exchanging telephone calls , the attorney received word that one debtor had sent a $ 200,000 cashier 's check to pay off his balance .
The attorney deposited it in his firm 's account , subtracted his $ 10,000 fee and wired the remaining $ 190,000 to his Hong Kong client .
Then the attorney 's bank called and told him the $ 200,000 check had bounced .
'They send me a nice , big , worthless check, ' says the attorney .
In this case , the bank was able to prevent the wire transfer from reaching its destination , but attorneys say they are on the receiving end of sophisticated scams with increasing frequency that include attacks to steal client data that can be sold or used to learn the details of future litigation .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hugh Pickens writes "The San Francisco Chronicle reports that last year a Long Beach law firm received an e-mail from a Hong Kong businessman seeking help collecting debts from American customers.
After a month of signing paperwork and exchanging telephone calls, the attorney received word that one debtor had sent a $200,000 cashier's check to pay off his balance.
The attorney deposited it in his firm's account, subtracted his $10,000 fee and wired the remaining $190,000  to his Hong Kong client.
Then the attorney's bank called and told him the $200,000 check had bounced.
'They send me a nice, big, worthless check,' says the attorney.
In this case, the bank was able to prevent the wire transfer from reaching its destination, but attorneys say they are on the receiving end of sophisticated scams with increasing frequency that include attacks to steal client data that can be sold or used to learn the details of future litigation.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31564558</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269249540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Or just to drive the point home: <em>Cashier's Checks are worthless.</em> They somehow feel justified in charging you a lot of money for them when in fact they mean <em>absolutely nothing</em>. Therefore, use wire transfer for large amounts. The transfer either occurs or it doesn't.</p></div><p>No they aren't. They are issued by the bank, they are not drawn on any individual or corporate account. They are only valid for a short period of time, and generally require multiple signatures and additional safety features. And when you're talking large dollar amounts, since most cashier checks are flat rate they are a better deal than wire transfers which are typically a percentage based fee.</p><p>If you're working with cashier's checks, you can just call the bank &amp; they'll tell you if it's valid or not. If you're really paranoid (worried about fraud, as in someone getting a valid check and forging copies) then just deposit the item, and once the 30 or 60 day period of validity is over you're in the clear.<br>At this point it's just as much a sure thing as a wire transfer or cash deposit... in any of those cases the only way for them to come after the money is to pursue charges for fraud, criminal activity, etc.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just to drive the point home : Cashier 's Checks are worthless .
They somehow feel justified in charging you a lot of money for them when in fact they mean absolutely nothing .
Therefore , use wire transfer for large amounts .
The transfer either occurs or it does n't.No they are n't .
They are issued by the bank , they are not drawn on any individual or corporate account .
They are only valid for a short period of time , and generally require multiple signatures and additional safety features .
And when you 're talking large dollar amounts , since most cashier checks are flat rate they are a better deal than wire transfers which are typically a percentage based fee.If you 're working with cashier 's checks , you can just call the bank &amp; they 'll tell you if it 's valid or not .
If you 're really paranoid ( worried about fraud , as in someone getting a valid check and forging copies ) then just deposit the item , and once the 30 or 60 day period of validity is over you 're in the clear.At this point it 's just as much a sure thing as a wire transfer or cash deposit... in any of those cases the only way for them to come after the money is to pursue charges for fraud , criminal activity , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just to drive the point home: Cashier's Checks are worthless.
They somehow feel justified in charging you a lot of money for them when in fact they mean absolutely nothing.
Therefore, use wire transfer for large amounts.
The transfer either occurs or it doesn't.No they aren't.
They are issued by the bank, they are not drawn on any individual or corporate account.
They are only valid for a short period of time, and generally require multiple signatures and additional safety features.
And when you're talking large dollar amounts, since most cashier checks are flat rate they are a better deal than wire transfers which are typically a percentage based fee.If you're working with cashier's checks, you can just call the bank &amp; they'll tell you if it's valid or not.
If you're really paranoid (worried about fraud, as in someone getting a valid check and forging copies) then just deposit the item, and once the 30 or 60 day period of validity is over you're in the clear.At this point it's just as much a sure thing as a wire transfer or cash deposit... in any of those cases the only way for them to come after the money is to pursue charges for fraud, criminal activity, etc.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558230</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>aaarrrgggh</author>
	<datestamp>1269193500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even if thr check is good, there are other scams involving money laundering, et al. The money is confirmed one day as an ACH transfer, but later reversed by the authorities or frozen.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even if thr check is good , there are other scams involving money laundering , et al .
The money is confirmed one day as an ACH transfer , but later reversed by the authorities or frozen .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even if thr check is good, there are other scams involving money laundering, et al.
The money is confirmed one day as an ACH transfer, but later reversed by the authorities or frozen.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559754</id>
	<title>Re:Also been a problem for regular people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269163260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>He said <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashier's\_check" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow"> <b>cashier's</b> check</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>He said cashier 's check [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He said  cashier's check [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557210</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556680</id>
	<title>Oh nice</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269176460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>that's cool</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>that 's cool</tokentext>
<sentencetext>that's cool</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556880</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious answer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269179220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only accept cash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only accept cash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only accept cash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31562814</id>
	<title>Re:Also been a problem for regular people</title>
	<author>Technician</author>
	<datestamp>1269185280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A version of this is an overpayment is made by mistake.</p><p>1 check is deposited<br>2 excess funds are sent by Western Union to scammer.  This prevents the scammed from holding and returning the check.  For more info on this look up "flash money" in google inregards to cashing checks.  Many scams use this flash money to convince the victim they got the money.<br>3 small item is shipped to scammer or the sale is canceled.<br>4 check comes back as fake to the victims bank<br>5 victim lost the money sent and possibly the cell phone or other item sold.</p><p>More info is here. The important part is this;  <a href="http://banking.about.com/od/securityandsafety/a/cashierscheckfd.htm" title="about.com">http://banking.about.com/od/securityandsafety/a/cashierscheckfd.htm</a> [about.com] </p><blockquote><div><p>The trick of the cashier's check fraud is that the payee's bank credits the seller's account before the funds have actually arrived from the paying bank. Therefore, it looks like the funds have cleared and everything is OK.</p></div></blockquote><p>When the funds don't arrive due to the fake check, the flash funds in your account that you wired off to the scammer is reversed in the victim's account.  Now you get bounced check fees, possibly fake check fraud charges, overdraft fees, etc.  Basicaly you're screwed.</p><p>Visit a scambaiting site where these scum are baited to see the scam in action, but knowing the check is fake.  Baiters use the fake checks for wallpaper and as trophies of scammers they baited.</p><p>Google scambaiting.  Not all results are safe for work.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A version of this is an overpayment is made by mistake.1 check is deposited2 excess funds are sent by Western Union to scammer .
This prevents the scammed from holding and returning the check .
For more info on this look up " flash money " in google inregards to cashing checks .
Many scams use this flash money to convince the victim they got the money.3 small item is shipped to scammer or the sale is canceled.4 check comes back as fake to the victims bank5 victim lost the money sent and possibly the cell phone or other item sold.More info is here .
The important part is this ; http : //banking.about.com/od/securityandsafety/a/cashierscheckfd.htm [ about.com ] The trick of the cashier 's check fraud is that the payee 's bank credits the seller 's account before the funds have actually arrived from the paying bank .
Therefore , it looks like the funds have cleared and everything is OK.When the funds do n't arrive due to the fake check , the flash funds in your account that you wired off to the scammer is reversed in the victim 's account .
Now you get bounced check fees , possibly fake check fraud charges , overdraft fees , etc .
Basicaly you 're screwed.Visit a scambaiting site where these scum are baited to see the scam in action , but knowing the check is fake .
Baiters use the fake checks for wallpaper and as trophies of scammers they baited.Google scambaiting .
Not all results are safe for work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A version of this is an overpayment is made by mistake.1 check is deposited2 excess funds are sent by Western Union to scammer.
This prevents the scammed from holding and returning the check.
For more info on this look up "flash money" in google inregards to cashing checks.
Many scams use this flash money to convince the victim they got the money.3 small item is shipped to scammer or the sale is canceled.4 check comes back as fake to the victims bank5 victim lost the money sent and possibly the cell phone or other item sold.More info is here.
The important part is this;  http://banking.about.com/od/securityandsafety/a/cashierscheckfd.htm [about.com] The trick of the cashier's check fraud is that the payee's bank credits the seller's account before the funds have actually arrived from the paying bank.
Therefore, it looks like the funds have cleared and everything is OK.When the funds don't arrive due to the fake check, the flash funds in your account that you wired off to the scammer is reversed in the victim's account.
Now you get bounced check fees, possibly fake check fraud charges, overdraft fees, etc.
Basicaly you're screwed.Visit a scambaiting site where these scum are baited to see the scam in action, but knowing the check is fake.
Baiters use the fake checks for wallpaper and as trophies of scammers they baited.Google scambaiting.
Not all results are safe for work.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556670</id>
	<title>Tagged.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269176400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Tagged Sharks V. Sharks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Tagged Sharks V. Sharks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tagged Sharks V. Sharks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558962</id>
	<title>Re:Lawyer is stupid</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269200100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He did wait till it hit his account, that's where the scammer (almost) got him.  Banks will release the funds for a cashier's check before the check clears, allowing to you go about your business as usual.  This is generally a safe practice, but if the limbo period is a long time there is the potential to be scammed.</p><p>Cashier's checks are practically safer than cash.  The bank teller will check to see if it is counterfeit, and if it is not (or if it is a very good counterfeit) the bank will release the funds immediately and then send the check (actually an image of the check) off to the issuing bank to complete the transfer.  The only reason this fails is if the cashier's check itself was either stolen or a very good forgery.  Insufficient funds is impossible unless the bank somehow went bankrupt in the time the check was issued to the time it was redeemed.  The anti-counterfeit measures are as good or better than those used for cash, so counterfeiting is very hard to pull off.</p><p>If it is a large sum of money (and large is relative to your situation) and you haven't done business with the individual before, it's a good idea to put a hold on the check until it actually clears instead of assuming the money in your account is good.  99.99\% of the time it will be, but that 0.01\% could be a check large enough to bankrupt you.  So put a hold on the check so the bank doesn't release the funds until the check clears, and you are completely safe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He did wait till it hit his account , that 's where the scammer ( almost ) got him .
Banks will release the funds for a cashier 's check before the check clears , allowing to you go about your business as usual .
This is generally a safe practice , but if the limbo period is a long time there is the potential to be scammed.Cashier 's checks are practically safer than cash .
The bank teller will check to see if it is counterfeit , and if it is not ( or if it is a very good counterfeit ) the bank will release the funds immediately and then send the check ( actually an image of the check ) off to the issuing bank to complete the transfer .
The only reason this fails is if the cashier 's check itself was either stolen or a very good forgery .
Insufficient funds is impossible unless the bank somehow went bankrupt in the time the check was issued to the time it was redeemed .
The anti-counterfeit measures are as good or better than those used for cash , so counterfeiting is very hard to pull off.If it is a large sum of money ( and large is relative to your situation ) and you have n't done business with the individual before , it 's a good idea to put a hold on the check until it actually clears instead of assuming the money in your account is good .
99.99 \ % of the time it will be , but that 0.01 \ % could be a check large enough to bankrupt you .
So put a hold on the check so the bank does n't release the funds until the check clears , and you are completely safe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He did wait till it hit his account, that's where the scammer (almost) got him.
Banks will release the funds for a cashier's check before the check clears, allowing to you go about your business as usual.
This is generally a safe practice, but if the limbo period is a long time there is the potential to be scammed.Cashier's checks are practically safer than cash.
The bank teller will check to see if it is counterfeit, and if it is not (or if it is a very good counterfeit) the bank will release the funds immediately and then send the check (actually an image of the check) off to the issuing bank to complete the transfer.
The only reason this fails is if the cashier's check itself was either stolen or a very good forgery.
Insufficient funds is impossible unless the bank somehow went bankrupt in the time the check was issued to the time it was redeemed.
The anti-counterfeit measures are as good or better than those used for cash, so counterfeiting is very hard to pull off.If it is a large sum of money (and large is relative to your situation) and you haven't done business with the individual before, it's a good idea to put a hold on the check until it actually clears instead of assuming the money in your account is good.
99.99\% of the time it will be, but that 0.01\% could be a check large enough to bankrupt you.
So put a hold on the check so the bank doesn't release the funds until the check clears, and you are completely safe.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556740</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559720</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is "cashier's check" ??</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1269163080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In British English, it is called a Bank Draft or a Building Society Cheque.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In British English , it is called a Bank Draft or a Building Society Cheque .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In British English, it is called a Bank Draft or a Building Society Cheque.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556796</id>
	<title>Sophisticated Scams</title>
	<author>presspass</author>
	<datestamp>1269178380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>" attorneys say they are on the receiving end of sophisticated scams with increasing frequency"</p><p>It took some real genius to plan and execute this scam, I see why a lawyer would fall for this.</p><p>Should we tell them about Nigeria?<br>Nah.</p><p>--</p><p>My other sig is at the cleaners</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" attorneys say they are on the receiving end of sophisticated scams with increasing frequency " It took some real genius to plan and execute this scam , I see why a lawyer would fall for this.Should we tell them about Nigeria ? Nah.--My other sig is at the cleaners</tokentext>
<sentencetext>" attorneys say they are on the receiving end of sophisticated scams with increasing frequency"It took some real genius to plan and execute this scam, I see why a lawyer would fall for this.Should we tell them about Nigeria?Nah.--My other sig is at the cleaners</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558788</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269198720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, he didn't wait.</p><p>Banks will go ahead and transfer money into the depositor's account before the cashier's check clears if the check appears to be valid (i.e. is not obviously counterfeit), because 99.99\% of the time they do clear and it's just efficient business.</p><p>You can, however, request a hold on the check and have the bank wait until the check actually clears before the bank transfers the money to your account.  If you've never done business with an individual who is issuing you a $200k check, a hold is just plain smart.</p><p>All you have to do is say "And as soon as the check clears, we can wrap this up!"  Your ass is now covered, and you are 100\% guaranteed not to be screwed out of your money.  That's what makes cashier's checks so great, as long as the check is legitimate it will not bounce.  Only a counterfeit or stolen cashier's check will bounce.  The same is not true for personal or business checks, which may have insufficient funds, or credit cards which may be stolen.</p><p>If you are willing to wait for the check to clear, cashier's checks are the safest form of money transfer.  They are like a slow version of bank-to-bank wire transfers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , he did n't wait.Banks will go ahead and transfer money into the depositor 's account before the cashier 's check clears if the check appears to be valid ( i.e .
is not obviously counterfeit ) , because 99.99 \ % of the time they do clear and it 's just efficient business.You can , however , request a hold on the check and have the bank wait until the check actually clears before the bank transfers the money to your account .
If you 've never done business with an individual who is issuing you a $ 200k check , a hold is just plain smart.All you have to do is say " And as soon as the check clears , we can wrap this up !
" Your ass is now covered , and you are 100 \ % guaranteed not to be screwed out of your money .
That 's what makes cashier 's checks so great , as long as the check is legitimate it will not bounce .
Only a counterfeit or stolen cashier 's check will bounce .
The same is not true for personal or business checks , which may have insufficient funds , or credit cards which may be stolen.If you are willing to wait for the check to clear , cashier 's checks are the safest form of money transfer .
They are like a slow version of bank-to-bank wire transfers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, he didn't wait.Banks will go ahead and transfer money into the depositor's account before the cashier's check clears if the check appears to be valid (i.e.
is not obviously counterfeit), because 99.99\% of the time they do clear and it's just efficient business.You can, however, request a hold on the check and have the bank wait until the check actually clears before the bank transfers the money to your account.
If you've never done business with an individual who is issuing you a $200k check, a hold is just plain smart.All you have to do is say "And as soon as the check clears, we can wrap this up!
"  Your ass is now covered, and you are 100\% guaranteed not to be screwed out of your money.
That's what makes cashier's checks so great, as long as the check is legitimate it will not bounce.
Only a counterfeit or stolen cashier's check will bounce.
The same is not true for personal or business checks, which may have insufficient funds, or credit cards which may be stolen.If you are willing to wait for the check to clear, cashier's checks are the safest form of money transfer.
They are like a slow version of bank-to-bank wire transfers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556870</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557398</id>
	<title>Mr. Gump</title>
	<author>m0s3m8n</author>
	<datestamp>1269185100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ha ha - And that's all have to say about that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ha ha - And that 's all have to say about that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ha ha - And that's all have to say about that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556844</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>Registered Coward v2</author>
	<datestamp>1269178740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The first time I get payment from a client I always wait to see if it clears before moving forward on a project. It's one of the reasons we require deposits before starting work.</p></div><p>Do you wait for it to actually clear, i.e. be verified as a valid check by the issuing bank, or for the funds to be available?  One classic hallmark of these scams is relying on people to think a check is good because the banks release the funds after a few days (as required by law); the scammers then get insistent on getting payment wired or via money transfer so they get their funds before the check actually bounces.  Local clients may not be an issue because you can find them, but the scammers are probably untraceable; and even if you could find them the chances of getting money back are pretty slim.</p><p>As pointed out above, it's a variant of the old overpayment scam.  Lawyers may be a good target because they may be used to helping non-local clients and are smart so they may think the are too smart to be scammed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first time I get payment from a client I always wait to see if it clears before moving forward on a project .
It 's one of the reasons we require deposits before starting work.Do you wait for it to actually clear , i.e .
be verified as a valid check by the issuing bank , or for the funds to be available ?
One classic hallmark of these scams is relying on people to think a check is good because the banks release the funds after a few days ( as required by law ) ; the scammers then get insistent on getting payment wired or via money transfer so they get their funds before the check actually bounces .
Local clients may not be an issue because you can find them , but the scammers are probably untraceable ; and even if you could find them the chances of getting money back are pretty slim.As pointed out above , it 's a variant of the old overpayment scam .
Lawyers may be a good target because they may be used to helping non-local clients and are smart so they may think the are too smart to be scammed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first time I get payment from a client I always wait to see if it clears before moving forward on a project.
It's one of the reasons we require deposits before starting work.Do you wait for it to actually clear, i.e.
be verified as a valid check by the issuing bank, or for the funds to be available?
One classic hallmark of these scams is relying on people to think a check is good because the banks release the funds after a few days (as required by law); the scammers then get insistent on getting payment wired or via money transfer so they get their funds before the check actually bounces.
Local clients may not be an issue because you can find them, but the scammers are probably untraceable; and even if you could find them the chances of getting money back are pretty slim.As pointed out above, it's a variant of the old overpayment scam.
Lawyers may be a good target because they may be used to helping non-local clients and are smart so they may think the are too smart to be scammed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558778</id>
	<title>"Sophisticated"?</title>
	<author>The Angry Mick</author>
	<datestamp>1269198660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How many stories of Nigerian scams have we seen in the press over the years?  Just because a lawyer fell for one, the scams have suddenly become "sophisticated"?
</p><p>Methinks the victim has a higher opinion of his intelligence than reality has demonstrated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How many stories of Nigerian scams have we seen in the press over the years ?
Just because a lawyer fell for one , the scams have suddenly become " sophisticated " ?
Methinks the victim has a higher opinion of his intelligence than reality has demonstrated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many stories of Nigerian scams have we seen in the press over the years?
Just because a lawyer fell for one, the scams have suddenly become "sophisticated"?
Methinks the victim has a higher opinion of his intelligence than reality has demonstrated.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559168</id>
	<title>Re:Just pay the fee</title>
	<author>innocent\_white\_lamb</author>
	<datestamp>1269201900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most debt collectors collect the debt, deducts his commission from the amount that he receives, and then sends the rest to the client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most debt collectors collect the debt , deducts his commission from the amount that he receives , and then sends the rest to the client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most debt collectors collect the debt, deducts his commission from the amount that he receives, and then sends the rest to the client.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31561902</id>
	<title>Cash is king.</title>
	<author>ImYourVirus</author>
	<datestamp>1269178680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's why you meet and your bank or his and get the cash then and there with him, if not tell him to fuck him self the deals off.
<br> <br>
Cash is king.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's why you meet and your bank or his and get the cash then and there with him , if not tell him to fuck him self the deals off .
Cash is king .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's why you meet and your bank or his and get the cash then and there with him, if not tell him to fuck him self the deals off.
Cash is king.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556684</id>
	<title>Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269176520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Your a lawyer.... go sue 'em boy!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Your a lawyer.... go sue 'em boy !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your a lawyer.... go sue 'em boy!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558960</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1269200100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is still a substantial impact from banks being allowed to unwind a transaction at their leisure.  In the day and age when people can download a newly released movie from halfway around the world and have it on a DVD before it hits the store shelves (and occasionally before it even hits a public theater screen), there is no good excuse for not being able to say once and for all if a check is good or not within 24 hours.</p><p>There is no reason to accommodate the long gone need to send checks to the main branch via stagecoach and hear back a week or two later in the modern age. Banks should be required to verify and reserve the funds within a very short time and should at that point be unable to pull it back. If they are unwilling to join us here in the 21st century, let them assume the risks. So far, the only 19th century trappings they have cast off is their air of respectability and their drive to avoid any behavior that even looks like it might be improper. By charging more and more for less and less, they are becoming a big drag on the economy (which they have recently wrecked with little consequence to themselves).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is still a substantial impact from banks being allowed to unwind a transaction at their leisure .
In the day and age when people can download a newly released movie from halfway around the world and have it on a DVD before it hits the store shelves ( and occasionally before it even hits a public theater screen ) , there is no good excuse for not being able to say once and for all if a check is good or not within 24 hours.There is no reason to accommodate the long gone need to send checks to the main branch via stagecoach and hear back a week or two later in the modern age .
Banks should be required to verify and reserve the funds within a very short time and should at that point be unable to pull it back .
If they are unwilling to join us here in the 21st century , let them assume the risks .
So far , the only 19th century trappings they have cast off is their air of respectability and their drive to avoid any behavior that even looks like it might be improper .
By charging more and more for less and less , they are becoming a big drag on the economy ( which they have recently wrecked with little consequence to themselves ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is still a substantial impact from banks being allowed to unwind a transaction at their leisure.
In the day and age when people can download a newly released movie from halfway around the world and have it on a DVD before it hits the store shelves (and occasionally before it even hits a public theater screen), there is no good excuse for not being able to say once and for all if a check is good or not within 24 hours.There is no reason to accommodate the long gone need to send checks to the main branch via stagecoach and hear back a week or two later in the modern age.
Banks should be required to verify and reserve the funds within a very short time and should at that point be unable to pull it back.
If they are unwilling to join us here in the 21st century, let them assume the risks.
So far, the only 19th century trappings they have cast off is their air of respectability and their drive to avoid any behavior that even looks like it might be improper.
By charging more and more for less and less, they are becoming a big drag on the economy (which they have recently wrecked with little consequence to themselves).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556758</id>
	<title>Obvious answer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269177720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Obvious answer is for the lawyers to stop accepting personal cheques and insist on money orders, bank cheques, cash, credit cards, wire transfer or other methods that cant bounce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obvious answer is for the lawyers to stop accepting personal cheques and insist on money orders , bank cheques , cash , credit cards , wire transfer or other methods that cant bounce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obvious answer is for the lawyers to stop accepting personal cheques and insist on money orders, bank cheques, cash, credit cards, wire transfer or other methods that cant bounce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556816</id>
	<title>What the fuck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269178500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who the fuck still uses cheques? 1950 called, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who the fuck still uses cheques ?
1950 called , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who the fuck still uses cheques?
1950 called, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558218</id>
	<title>Re:So, why expose yourself like that?</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1269193440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, it seems the attorney covered the debtor's ability to pay.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , it seems the attorney covered the debtor 's ability to pay .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, it seems the attorney covered the debtor's ability to pay.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556852</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>veganboyjosh</author>
	<datestamp>1269178860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think the problem is that the check is a cashier's check. I've heard of marks in this scam going to the bank with the check in hand, suspecting it's a scam, but the bank teller/manager telling them that it's a good check, it doesn't need to clear in order to be valid/valuable. The check makes its way through the system, until eventually it reaches a dead end where the bank it's written "from" declines it, or says "no such account" or whatever. The cashing bank has no way of knowing at the time that it's a fake check (although details of the transaction should raise some flags) so they just go with precedent: cashier's checks are always good.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the problem is that the check is a cashier 's check .
I 've heard of marks in this scam going to the bank with the check in hand , suspecting it 's a scam , but the bank teller/manager telling them that it 's a good check , it does n't need to clear in order to be valid/valuable .
The check makes its way through the system , until eventually it reaches a dead end where the bank it 's written " from " declines it , or says " no such account " or whatever .
The cashing bank has no way of knowing at the time that it 's a fake check ( although details of the transaction should raise some flags ) so they just go with precedent : cashier 's checks are always good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the problem is that the check is a cashier's check.
I've heard of marks in this scam going to the bank with the check in hand, suspecting it's a scam, but the bank teller/manager telling them that it's a good check, it doesn't need to clear in order to be valid/valuable.
The check makes its way through the system, until eventually it reaches a dead end where the bank it's written "from" declines it, or says "no such account" or whatever.
The cashing bank has no way of knowing at the time that it's a fake check (although details of the transaction should raise some flags) so they just go with precedent: cashier's checks are always good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734</id>
	<title>How About ...</title>
	<author>WrongSizeGlass</author>
	<datestamp>1269177420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>... no one sends anyone else any money until they verify that the check they've received is good? <br> <br>
The first time I get payment from a client I always wait to see if it clears before moving forward on a project. It's one of the reasons we require deposits before starting work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... no one sends anyone else any money until they verify that the check they 've received is good ?
The first time I get payment from a client I always wait to see if it clears before moving forward on a project .
It 's one of the reasons we require deposits before starting work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... no one sends anyone else any money until they verify that the check they've received is good?
The first time I get payment from a client I always wait to see if it clears before moving forward on a project.
It's one of the reasons we require deposits before starting work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558508</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269196020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Or just to drive the point home: Cashier's Checks are worthless. They somehow feel justified in charging you a lot of money for them when in fact they mean absolutely nothing. </i></p><p>They're not completely worthless.</p><p>With a genuine regular check, if the check writer doesn't have funds in the account, it will bounce.</p><p>On the other hand, with a genuine cashier's check, the payee is guaranteed to receive their money.</p><p>But both cashier's checks and regular checks can be forged, and most of us are not trained in detection of fake cashier's/regular checks.</p><p>What would be handy would be a quick &amp; easy system to contact the issuing bank to determine if the cashier's check is genuine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just to drive the point home : Cashier 's Checks are worthless .
They somehow feel justified in charging you a lot of money for them when in fact they mean absolutely nothing .
They 're not completely worthless.With a genuine regular check , if the check writer does n't have funds in the account , it will bounce.On the other hand , with a genuine cashier 's check , the payee is guaranteed to receive their money.But both cashier 's checks and regular checks can be forged , and most of us are not trained in detection of fake cashier 's/regular checks.What would be handy would be a quick &amp; easy system to contact the issuing bank to determine if the cashier 's check is genuine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just to drive the point home: Cashier's Checks are worthless.
They somehow feel justified in charging you a lot of money for them when in fact they mean absolutely nothing.
They're not completely worthless.With a genuine regular check, if the check writer doesn't have funds in the account, it will bounce.On the other hand, with a genuine cashier's check, the payee is guaranteed to receive their money.But both cashier's checks and regular checks can be forged, and most of us are not trained in detection of fake cashier's/regular checks.What would be handy would be a quick &amp; easy system to contact the issuing bank to determine if the cashier's check is genuine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557196</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557196</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269182880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or just to drive the point home: <em>Cashier's Checks are worthless.</em> They somehow feel justified in charging you a lot of money for them when in fact they mean <em>absolutely nothing</em>. Therefore, use wire transfer for large amounts. The transfer either occurs or it doesn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or just to drive the point home : Cashier 's Checks are worthless .
They somehow feel justified in charging you a lot of money for them when in fact they mean absolutely nothing .
Therefore , use wire transfer for large amounts .
The transfer either occurs or it does n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or just to drive the point home: Cashier's Checks are worthless.
They somehow feel justified in charging you a lot of money for them when in fact they mean absolutely nothing.
Therefore, use wire transfer for large amounts.
The transfer either occurs or it doesn't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558188</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>ceoyoyo</author>
	<datestamp>1269193140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed.  It doesn't seem like that sophisticated a scam.  Just regular old cheque fraud.</p><p>I guess you feel better about it if you say the scam that got you was "sophisticated."  Particularly if you're a lawyer and should know better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
It does n't seem like that sophisticated a scam .
Just regular old cheque fraud.I guess you feel better about it if you say the scam that got you was " sophisticated .
" Particularly if you 're a lawyer and should know better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
It doesn't seem like that sophisticated a scam.
Just regular old cheque fraud.I guess you feel better about it if you say the scam that got you was "sophisticated.
"  Particularly if you're a lawyer and should know better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559246</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>inject\_hotmail.com</author>
	<datestamp>1269202680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> cashier's checks are always good</p> </div><p>Unless the cashier's check is a fake...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>cashier 's checks are always good Unless the cashier 's check is a fake.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> cashier's checks are always good Unless the cashier's check is a fake...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556852</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558482</id>
	<title>This scam has been tried on me for years.</title>
	<author>alex\_guy\_CA</author>
	<datestamp>1269195840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a wedding photographer. We call this one the pay forwarding scam.
<p>
It starts with an email from a potential "client." They say they want to book you from overseas. Offer to send you a check, send a check for more than your fees, and ask you to pay for the invitation printer (or whatever) for them.
</p><p>
On my end, more small potatoes then the case ITA, this scam is easy to spot. The people don't act like a real wedding client, they don't want to talk on the phone, they don't know how to discuss wedding packages, they make have bad grammar etc... You can spot this long before they get to the ask.</p><p>
For a long time, as soon as I had two or more tale-tale signs, I would quit the conversation. Then I got a PO Box. Now, I drag it on as long as possible (unless I'm extra busy that week). I like to see the look of the fake checks, and I like to waste their time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a wedding photographer .
We call this one the pay forwarding scam .
It starts with an email from a potential " client .
" They say they want to book you from overseas .
Offer to send you a check , send a check for more than your fees , and ask you to pay for the invitation printer ( or whatever ) for them .
On my end , more small potatoes then the case ITA , this scam is easy to spot .
The people do n't act like a real wedding client , they do n't want to talk on the phone , they do n't know how to discuss wedding packages , they make have bad grammar etc... You can spot this long before they get to the ask .
For a long time , as soon as I had two or more tale-tale signs , I would quit the conversation .
Then I got a PO Box .
Now , I drag it on as long as possible ( unless I 'm extra busy that week ) .
I like to see the look of the fake checks , and I like to waste their time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a wedding photographer.
We call this one the pay forwarding scam.
It starts with an email from a potential "client.
" They say they want to book you from overseas.
Offer to send you a check, send a check for more than your fees, and ask you to pay for the invitation printer (or whatever) for them.
On my end, more small potatoes then the case ITA, this scam is easy to spot.
The people don't act like a real wedding client, they don't want to talk on the phone, they don't know how to discuss wedding packages, they make have bad grammar etc... You can spot this long before they get to the ask.
For a long time, as soon as I had two or more tale-tale signs, I would quit the conversation.
Then I got a PO Box.
Now, I drag it on as long as possible (unless I'm extra busy that week).
I like to see the look of the fake checks, and I like to waste their time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559836</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is "cashier's check" ??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269163860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Are you really going to put a 200,000 purchase on credit for someone you've never done business with? Seriously? Are you that stupid? Do you really think Visa is going to eat that much money?</i></p><p>Visa has no inherent limits to payments. If you go to Cartier to buy high-end jewelry, do you expect to bring 100k in cash? Of course not.</p><p>Some merchants don't want to accept credit cards for larger amounts though.</p><p>I recall once negotiating to buy a car, and at one point the salesman said that I should be grateful that the dealership was willing to finance the car. I took out my credit card and said, "Really? I have very good credit. I can charge the entire car purchase to my credit card. Why don't we do that?"</p><p>Salesman goes to the back to talk to the manager, and comes back and declines to do so. Why? They dealership would be dinged a credit card percentage on the entire price, which is a sizable amount. Also, if you pay for an entire purchase with a Visa card, then Visa's rules on the transaction take precedence over any other contract. Visa's rules prohibit repossession, and the dealership really wants to be able to repossess the car in the event of a dispute.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are you really going to put a 200,000 purchase on credit for someone you 've never done business with ?
Seriously ? Are you that stupid ?
Do you really think Visa is going to eat that much money ? Visa has no inherent limits to payments .
If you go to Cartier to buy high-end jewelry , do you expect to bring 100k in cash ?
Of course not.Some merchants do n't want to accept credit cards for larger amounts though.I recall once negotiating to buy a car , and at one point the salesman said that I should be grateful that the dealership was willing to finance the car .
I took out my credit card and said , " Really ?
I have very good credit .
I can charge the entire car purchase to my credit card .
Why do n't we do that ?
" Salesman goes to the back to talk to the manager , and comes back and declines to do so .
Why ? They dealership would be dinged a credit card percentage on the entire price , which is a sizable amount .
Also , if you pay for an entire purchase with a Visa card , then Visa 's rules on the transaction take precedence over any other contract .
Visa 's rules prohibit repossession , and the dealership really wants to be able to repossess the car in the event of a dispute .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are you really going to put a 200,000 purchase on credit for someone you've never done business with?
Seriously? Are you that stupid?
Do you really think Visa is going to eat that much money?Visa has no inherent limits to payments.
If you go to Cartier to buy high-end jewelry, do you expect to bring 100k in cash?
Of course not.Some merchants don't want to accept credit cards for larger amounts though.I recall once negotiating to buy a car, and at one point the salesman said that I should be grateful that the dealership was willing to finance the car.
I took out my credit card and said, "Really?
I have very good credit.
I can charge the entire car purchase to my credit card.
Why don't we do that?
"Salesman goes to the back to talk to the manager, and comes back and declines to do so.
Why? They dealership would be dinged a credit card percentage on the entire price, which is a sizable amount.
Also, if you pay for an entire purchase with a Visa card, then Visa's rules on the transaction take precedence over any other contract.
Visa's rules prohibit repossession, and the dealership really wants to be able to repossess the car in the event of a dispute.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558682</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Gorobei</author>
	<datestamp>1269197640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>So then there comes this question - why didn't they check if the check bounced before they wired back the excess?</p></div></blockquote><p>Because retail banking is based on medieval rules.  A check can bounce weeks after the fact: it's just a promise that X will pay $Y, not a real financial instrument that generically pays $Y.</p><p>The US has banking laws that require banks to make deposited funds available to you after N days, but that is NOT the same as you actually having completed the underlying transaction:  unwinds happen, the money is removed from your account, and you are back at square one, possibly with a fee to boot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So then there comes this question - why did n't they check if the check bounced before they wired back the excess ? Because retail banking is based on medieval rules .
A check can bounce weeks after the fact : it 's just a promise that X will pay $ Y , not a real financial instrument that generically pays $ Y.The US has banking laws that require banks to make deposited funds available to you after N days , but that is NOT the same as you actually having completed the underlying transaction : unwinds happen , the money is removed from your account , and you are back at square one , possibly with a fee to boot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then there comes this question - why didn't they check if the check bounced before they wired back the excess?Because retail banking is based on medieval rules.
A check can bounce weeks after the fact: it's just a promise that X will pay $Y, not a real financial instrument that generically pays $Y.The US has banking laws that require banks to make deposited funds available to you after N days, but that is NOT the same as you actually having completed the underlying transaction:  unwinds happen, the money is removed from your account, and you are back at square one, possibly with a fee to boot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557022</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious answer...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269180900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Obvious answer is for the lawyers to stop accepting personal cheques</i> </p><p>What's even more obvious is that you are incapable of reading the summary with comprehension. The second sentence states clearly that it was a cashier's check, not a personal check.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Obvious answer is for the lawyers to stop accepting personal cheques What 's even more obvious is that you are incapable of reading the summary with comprehension .
The second sentence states clearly that it was a cashier 's check , not a personal check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Obvious answer is for the lawyers to stop accepting personal cheques What's even more obvious is that you are incapable of reading the summary with comprehension.
The second sentence states clearly that it was a cashier's check, not a personal check.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31564468</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269291240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You should know then that checks never clear. They just fail to bounce. That may not seem like much of a distinction but it is precisely the reason many of these frauds work. In the US the law specifies a maximum hold time on deposits before the bank must make funds available to you. So, as long as the check fails to bounce during that period of time the fraudster usually gets away with their scam. But eventually it does bounce, and that's when the bank comes back to the person who made the deposit and they take their money back - if there isn't enough cash in his account, they sue him for the difference.</p></div><p>Which is completely irrelevant for a cashier's check, since it's issued by the BANK and not drawn from an individual account. Once the issuing bank has transferred the funds to your bank, the money is good. You can also just call the issuing bank &amp; they'll tell you point blank if the item is valid or not.<br>The ONLY way this can bite your ass is if it ends up being a forgery (i.e. two copies of the same exact item). Which is why typically on large amount cashier's checks they are only valid for 30 or 60 days from issue date... as a business you should deposit immediately, &amp; hold the funds until the item would have expired. That way even if someone made a duplicate you'll know within a month or two for sure.<br>There is still the possiblity that later on in life the bank might come back and say there was fraud, etc. but hey, that's why businesses have insurance policies.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should know then that checks never clear .
They just fail to bounce .
That may not seem like much of a distinction but it is precisely the reason many of these frauds work .
In the US the law specifies a maximum hold time on deposits before the bank must make funds available to you .
So , as long as the check fails to bounce during that period of time the fraudster usually gets away with their scam .
But eventually it does bounce , and that 's when the bank comes back to the person who made the deposit and they take their money back - if there is n't enough cash in his account , they sue him for the difference.Which is completely irrelevant for a cashier 's check , since it 's issued by the BANK and not drawn from an individual account .
Once the issuing bank has transferred the funds to your bank , the money is good .
You can also just call the issuing bank &amp; they 'll tell you point blank if the item is valid or not.The ONLY way this can bite your ass is if it ends up being a forgery ( i.e .
two copies of the same exact item ) .
Which is why typically on large amount cashier 's checks they are only valid for 30 or 60 days from issue date... as a business you should deposit immediately , &amp; hold the funds until the item would have expired .
That way even if someone made a duplicate you 'll know within a month or two for sure.There is still the possiblity that later on in life the bank might come back and say there was fraud , etc .
but hey , that 's why businesses have insurance policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should know then that checks never clear.
They just fail to bounce.
That may not seem like much of a distinction but it is precisely the reason many of these frauds work.
In the US the law specifies a maximum hold time on deposits before the bank must make funds available to you.
So, as long as the check fails to bounce during that period of time the fraudster usually gets away with their scam.
But eventually it does bounce, and that's when the bank comes back to the person who made the deposit and they take their money back - if there isn't enough cash in his account, they sue him for the difference.Which is completely irrelevant for a cashier's check, since it's issued by the BANK and not drawn from an individual account.
Once the issuing bank has transferred the funds to your bank, the money is good.
You can also just call the issuing bank &amp; they'll tell you point blank if the item is valid or not.The ONLY way this can bite your ass is if it ends up being a forgery (i.e.
two copies of the same exact item).
Which is why typically on large amount cashier's checks they are only valid for 30 or 60 days from issue date... as a business you should deposit immediately, &amp; hold the funds until the item would have expired.
That way even if someone made a duplicate you'll know within a month or two for sure.There is still the possiblity that later on in life the bank might come back and say there was fraud, etc.
but hey, that's why businesses have insurance policies.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557236</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269183240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My what what a lawyer??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My what what a lawyer ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My what what a lawyer?
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31566544</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269268080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As interesting as all the minutia of EFT's and modern banking can be, how about the law firm's responsibilities?  It's not like they are a bunch of dottering-but-golden-hearted pensioners.  The banks were largely automated processors of transactions in this case.  The law firm spent hours (presumably) and sought substantial profit from a "professional" business engagement.</p><p>I'm just surprised it took the scammers this long to recognize the easy pickings offered by the legal trade.  Smartest guys in the room, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As interesting as all the minutia of EFT 's and modern banking can be , how about the law firm 's responsibilities ?
It 's not like they are a bunch of dottering-but-golden-hearted pensioners .
The banks were largely automated processors of transactions in this case .
The law firm spent hours ( presumably ) and sought substantial profit from a " professional " business engagement.I 'm just surprised it took the scammers this long to recognize the easy pickings offered by the legal trade .
Smartest guys in the room , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As interesting as all the minutia of EFT's and modern banking can be, how about the law firm's responsibilities?
It's not like they are a bunch of dottering-but-golden-hearted pensioners.
The banks were largely automated processors of transactions in this case.
The law firm spent hours (presumably) and sought substantial profit from a "professional" business engagement.I'm just surprised it took the scammers this long to recognize the easy pickings offered by the legal trade.
Smartest guys in the room, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557314</id>
	<title>WTF is "cashier's check" ??</title>
	<author>citizenr</author>
	<datestamp>1269184260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>rest of the civilized world wants to know.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>rest of the civilized world wants to know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>rest of the civilized world wants to know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31565228</id>
	<title>Re:Late news and less salacious</title>
	<author>spartacus\_prime</author>
	<datestamp>1269260700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This happens when a lot of attorneys are ill-versed in the ways of the Internet.  Things will get better once the old dinosaurs die out or retire and this generation starts practicing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This happens when a lot of attorneys are ill-versed in the ways of the Internet .
Things will get better once the old dinosaurs die out or retire and this generation starts practicing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This happens when a lot of attorneys are ill-versed in the ways of the Internet.
Things will get better once the old dinosaurs die out or retire and this generation starts practicing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557326</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556740</id>
	<title>Lawyer is stupid</title>
	<author>heffrey</author>
	<datestamp>1269177480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Clearly you wait until the money hits your account before paying out!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Clearly you wait until the money hits your account before paying out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Clearly you wait until the money hits your account before paying out!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558284</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1269193980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>FWIW, his car insurance eventually paid out because the car was essentially stolen</p></div><p>Lucky that he didn't cancelled the insurance when he "sold" the car...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>FWIW , his car insurance eventually paid out because the car was essentially stolenLucky that he did n't cancelled the insurance when he " sold " the car.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FWIW, his car insurance eventually paid out because the car was essentially stolenLucky that he didn't cancelled the insurance when he "sold" the car...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557058</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1269181380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You should know then that checks never clear. They just fail to bounce. (...) I know a guy who was scammed out of an exotic car - the 'buyer' gave him a bogus cashiers check. His bank took nearly three weeks before notifying him that they were "having difficulties" processing the check.</p></div><p>Trying to google around, there seems to normally be a 30 day limit for the customer to notify the bank of fraudulent checks towards their account and a 60 day limit for the banking system to bounce checks so it's not entirely unlimited. But who waits two months to see if the money is *really* good? And even so that is not a protection that you won't be sued for cashing a fraudulent check, only that they can't take it from your account anymore.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You should know then that checks never clear .
They just fail to bounce .
( ... ) I know a guy who was scammed out of an exotic car - the 'buyer ' gave him a bogus cashiers check .
His bank took nearly three weeks before notifying him that they were " having difficulties " processing the check.Trying to google around , there seems to normally be a 30 day limit for the customer to notify the bank of fraudulent checks towards their account and a 60 day limit for the banking system to bounce checks so it 's not entirely unlimited .
But who waits two months to see if the money is * really * good ?
And even so that is not a protection that you wo n't be sued for cashing a fraudulent check , only that they ca n't take it from your account anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should know then that checks never clear.
They just fail to bounce.
(...) I know a guy who was scammed out of an exotic car - the 'buyer' gave him a bogus cashiers check.
His bank took nearly three weeks before notifying him that they were "having difficulties" processing the check.Trying to google around, there seems to normally be a 30 day limit for the customer to notify the bank of fraudulent checks towards their account and a 60 day limit for the banking system to bounce checks so it's not entirely unlimited.
But who waits two months to see if the money is *really* good?
And even so that is not a protection that you won't be sued for cashing a fraudulent check, only that they can't take it from your account anymore.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558460</id>
	<title>All The Time !</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269195660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a law office which is purely local.  I have no "international" interests.  I get a lot of these "offers".  Sometimes, they even spell all the words correctly.  It always seems to be from Hong Kong.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a law office which is purely local .
I have no " international " interests .
I get a lot of these " offers " .
Sometimes , they even spell all the words correctly .
It always seems to be from Hong Kong .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a law office which is purely local.
I have no "international" interests.
I get a lot of these "offers".
Sometimes, they even spell all the words correctly.
It always seems to be from Hong Kong.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557034</id>
	<title>I must be a bad person...</title>
	<author>ibsteve2u</author>
	<datestamp>1269181080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>The combination of debt collector and lawyer seems to have removed my ability to sympathize.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The combination of debt collector and lawyer seems to have removed my ability to sympathize .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The combination of debt collector and lawyer seems to have removed my ability to sympathize.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556730</id>
	<title>So, why expose yourself like that?</title>
	<author>Securityemo</author>
	<datestamp>1269177360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, basically, the attorney/law firm covered for the client's ability to pay? I guess things like this is necessary to make things run smoothly in business, but it still seems a bit... naive, especially when you've never met the client in person. And especially when it's a check. Instant wire transfers would have made this particular problem moot (obviously), but since the client just assumed they would accept a check they did it out of professional courtesy?</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , basically , the attorney/law firm covered for the client 's ability to pay ?
I guess things like this is necessary to make things run smoothly in business , but it still seems a bit... naive , especially when you 've never met the client in person .
And especially when it 's a check .
Instant wire transfers would have made this particular problem moot ( obviously ) , but since the client just assumed they would accept a check they did it out of professional courtesy ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, basically, the attorney/law firm covered for the client's ability to pay?
I guess things like this is necessary to make things run smoothly in business, but it still seems a bit... naive, especially when you've never met the client in person.
And especially when it's a check.
Instant wire transfers would have made this particular problem moot (obviously), but since the client just assumed they would accept a check they did it out of professional courtesy?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557180</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>tuomoks</author>
	<datestamp>1269182700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Correct - especially in US where the laws are missing / very lax for banks, not for consumers! The checks as any other money transfers, payments, etc in banks can / could be checked in seconds, happens and has happened since early 80's in some countries which don't depend on "clearing houses", etc but banks have to work their own money management. It is kind of funny in a sad way - the banks complain the cost of processing electronically - used to work with zero or very small cost using phone / people / wire / even ponies a long time ago? Of course all the banks have been in "real time" since late 70's (my customers were)?</p><p>I once got a claim from a bank in California clearing an European check - three months? In reality - it cleared immediately (sorry, banking network &amp; that bank in Europe was my current customer - so!) but the US bank wanted to keep the money that long for their own use - no laws against it?</p><p>You think the "big business" (or governments) would / could work if there would be such delays in money transfers? It's all artificial - or are the networks (as SWIFT) / computer systems not used anymore? Of course they are, just push your bank to skip the b.s.!</p><p>The strange thing - it's a while I have done this but Hong Kong used to have some of the most strict banking laws and rules in the world, very stiff penalties in bank / stock transaction mismanagement / failure / etc - has that changed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Correct - especially in US where the laws are missing / very lax for banks , not for consumers !
The checks as any other money transfers , payments , etc in banks can / could be checked in seconds , happens and has happened since early 80 's in some countries which do n't depend on " clearing houses " , etc but banks have to work their own money management .
It is kind of funny in a sad way - the banks complain the cost of processing electronically - used to work with zero or very small cost using phone / people / wire / even ponies a long time ago ?
Of course all the banks have been in " real time " since late 70 's ( my customers were ) ? I once got a claim from a bank in California clearing an European check - three months ?
In reality - it cleared immediately ( sorry , banking network &amp; that bank in Europe was my current customer - so !
) but the US bank wanted to keep the money that long for their own use - no laws against it ? You think the " big business " ( or governments ) would / could work if there would be such delays in money transfers ?
It 's all artificial - or are the networks ( as SWIFT ) / computer systems not used anymore ?
Of course they are , just push your bank to skip the b.s .
! The strange thing - it 's a while I have done this but Hong Kong used to have some of the most strict banking laws and rules in the world , very stiff penalties in bank / stock transaction mismanagement / failure / etc - has that changed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Correct - especially in US where the laws are missing / very lax for banks, not for consumers!
The checks as any other money transfers, payments, etc in banks can / could be checked in seconds, happens and has happened since early 80's in some countries which don't depend on "clearing houses", etc but banks have to work their own money management.
It is kind of funny in a sad way - the banks complain the cost of processing electronically - used to work with zero or very small cost using phone / people / wire / even ponies a long time ago?
Of course all the banks have been in "real time" since late 70's (my customers were)?I once got a claim from a bank in California clearing an European check - three months?
In reality - it cleared immediately (sorry, banking network &amp; that bank in Europe was my current customer - so!
) but the US bank wanted to keep the money that long for their own use - no laws against it?You think the "big business" (or governments) would / could work if there would be such delays in money transfers?
It's all artificial - or are the networks (as SWIFT) / computer systems not used anymore?
Of course they are, just push your bank to skip the b.s.
!The strange thing - it's a while I have done this but Hong Kong used to have some of the most strict banking laws and rules in the world, very stiff penalties in bank / stock transaction mismanagement / failure / etc - has that changed?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269178620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The first time I get payment from a client I always wait to see if it clears before moving forward on a project.</p></div><p>You should know then that checks never clear.  They just fail to bounce.  That may not seem like much of a distinction but it is precisely the reason many of these frauds work.  In the US the law specifies a maximum hold time on deposits before the bank must make funds available to you.  So, as long as the check fails to bounce during that period of time the fraudster usually gets away with their scam.  But eventually it does bounce, and that's when the bank comes back to the person who made the deposit and they take their money back - if there isn't enough cash in his account, they sue him for the difference.</p><p>I know a guy who was scammed out of an exotic car - the 'buyer' gave him a bogus cashiers check.  His bank took nearly three weeks before notifying him that they were "having difficulties" processing the check.  By then, the car was half way across the country and had already been resold to a used-car dealer.  FWIW, his car insurance eventually paid out because the car was essentially stolen, albeit through fraud rather than the more common ways.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The first time I get payment from a client I always wait to see if it clears before moving forward on a project.You should know then that checks never clear .
They just fail to bounce .
That may not seem like much of a distinction but it is precisely the reason many of these frauds work .
In the US the law specifies a maximum hold time on deposits before the bank must make funds available to you .
So , as long as the check fails to bounce during that period of time the fraudster usually gets away with their scam .
But eventually it does bounce , and that 's when the bank comes back to the person who made the deposit and they take their money back - if there is n't enough cash in his account , they sue him for the difference.I know a guy who was scammed out of an exotic car - the 'buyer ' gave him a bogus cashiers check .
His bank took nearly three weeks before notifying him that they were " having difficulties " processing the check .
By then , the car was half way across the country and had already been resold to a used-car dealer .
FWIW , his car insurance eventually paid out because the car was essentially stolen , albeit through fraud rather than the more common ways .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The first time I get payment from a client I always wait to see if it clears before moving forward on a project.You should know then that checks never clear.
They just fail to bounce.
That may not seem like much of a distinction but it is precisely the reason many of these frauds work.
In the US the law specifies a maximum hold time on deposits before the bank must make funds available to you.
So, as long as the check fails to bounce during that period of time the fraudster usually gets away with their scam.
But eventually it does bounce, and that's when the bank comes back to the person who made the deposit and they take their money back - if there isn't enough cash in his account, they sue him for the difference.I know a guy who was scammed out of an exotic car - the 'buyer' gave him a bogus cashiers check.
His bank took nearly three weeks before notifying him that they were "having difficulties" processing the check.
By then, the car was half way across the country and had already been resold to a used-car dealer.
FWIW, his car insurance eventually paid out because the car was essentially stolen, albeit through fraud rather than the more common ways.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556870</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1269179040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He did wait. His bank reported it as valid, and only after that did he send along the $190,000 to his client. Then the first check was bounced, \_after\_ his bank reported it valid. That's the root of a whole set of fiscal scams going on right now, the fact that banks report checks as "valid" that can still be voided by a malicisious check user after that point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He did wait .
His bank reported it as valid , and only after that did he send along the $ 190,000 to his client .
Then the first check was bounced , \ _after \ _ his bank reported it valid .
That 's the root of a whole set of fiscal scams going on right now , the fact that banks report checks as " valid " that can still be voided by a malicisious check user after that point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He did wait.
His bank reported it as valid, and only after that did he send along the $190,000 to his client.
Then the first check was bounced, \_after\_ his bank reported it valid.
That's the root of a whole set of fiscal scams going on right now, the fact that banks report checks as "valid" that can still be voided by a malicisious check user after that point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557210</id>
	<title>Re:Also been a problem for regular people</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1269183060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>2. Scammer sends false cashier's check to client</p></div><p>FAIL! The 70s called. They want their method of payment back.</p><p>A check? Really? On first buy? WTF?<br>If someone new buys from me, he pays 100\% upfront, or he can GTFO.<br>Bank transfer, cash, or equivalent (where the money is in my hands and won&rsquo;t go back without me saying to). That&rsquo;s it.</p><p>Check-equivalents are for people that you trust.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>2 .
Scammer sends false cashier 's check to clientFAIL !
The 70s called .
They want their method of payment back.A check ?
Really ? On first buy ?
WTF ? If someone new buys from me , he pays 100 \ % upfront , or he can GTFO.Bank transfer , cash , or equivalent ( where the money is in my hands and won    t go back without me saying to ) .
That    s it.Check-equivalents are for people that you trust .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>2.
Scammer sends false cashier's check to clientFAIL!
The 70s called.
They want their method of payment back.A check?
Really? On first buy?
WTF?If someone new buys from me, he pays 100\% upfront, or he can GTFO.Bank transfer, cash, or equivalent (where the money is in my hands and won’t go back without me saying to).
That’s it.Check-equivalents are for people that you trust.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558018</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Z00L00K</author>
	<datestamp>1269191400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So then there comes this question - why didn't they check if the check bounced before they wired back the excess?</p><p>If it didn't bounce then all would be fine and if it did bounce they would just have wasted some time.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So then there comes this question - why did n't they check if the check bounced before they wired back the excess ? If it did n't bounce then all would be fine and if it did bounce they would just have wasted some time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So then there comes this question - why didn't they check if the check bounced before they wired back the excess?If it didn't bounce then all would be fine and if it did bounce they would just have wasted some time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728</id>
	<title>Also been a problem for regular people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269177300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Classic scam:<br>1, Scammer pretends to be a buyer for some fairly expensive product, e.g. a car<br>2. Scammer sends false cashier's check to client<br>3. Scammer asks to cancel the deal because of some crisis, offers to cover any expenses he's had and a compensation for wasting their time<br>4. Many people will have compassion for their situation and agree to undo the sale<br>5. They wire the reminder - maybe 90\% of the purchase price - back<br>6. The check sent in #2 bounces, the money returned in #5 gone and they're out a ton of money<br>7. Profit, for the scammer. No ??? here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Classic scam : 1 , Scammer pretends to be a buyer for some fairly expensive product , e.g .
a car2 .
Scammer sends false cashier 's check to client3 .
Scammer asks to cancel the deal because of some crisis , offers to cover any expenses he 's had and a compensation for wasting their time4 .
Many people will have compassion for their situation and agree to undo the sale5 .
They wire the reminder - maybe 90 \ % of the purchase price - back6 .
The check sent in # 2 bounces , the money returned in # 5 gone and they 're out a ton of money7 .
Profit , for the scammer .
No ? ? ?
here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Classic scam:1, Scammer pretends to be a buyer for some fairly expensive product, e.g.
a car2.
Scammer sends false cashier's check to client3.
Scammer asks to cancel the deal because of some crisis, offers to cover any expenses he's had and a compensation for wasting their time4.
Many people will have compassion for their situation and agree to undo the sale5.
They wire the reminder - maybe 90\% of the purchase price - back6.
The check sent in #2 bounces, the money returned in #5 gone and they're out a ton of money7.
Profit, for the scammer.
No ???
here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557958</id>
	<title>Professional Courtesy</title>
	<author>Frosty Piss</author>
	<datestamp>1269190800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...but since the client just assumed they would accept a check they did it out of professional courtesy?</p></div><p>Yes, a Professional Courtesy. <i>One slimy shark to another.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...but since the client just assumed they would accept a check they did it out of professional courtesy ? Yes , a Professional Courtesy .
One slimy shark to another .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...but since the client just assumed they would accept a check they did it out of professional courtesy?Yes, a Professional Courtesy.
One slimy shark to another.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556914</id>
	<title>Re:Also been a problem for regular people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269179700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stop acting like a 3rd world county and stop using checks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop acting like a 3rd world county and stop using checks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop acting like a 3rd world county and stop using checks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556904</id>
	<title>Re:Also been a problem for regular people</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269179580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another scam: cashier's cheques.</p><p>Here in the UK a cashier's cheque will cost you &pound;25.  What do you get for your money?</p><ul> <li>If you're the purchaser of the cheque you don't need any guarantee; you already know that your personal cheque is good (even if the person you're giving it to doesn't).  So you get nothing.</li><li>If you're the recipient of the cheque, it's only guaranteed if it was properly issued by the bank.  So if the cheque is a genuine cheque stolen from the bank, the bank won't honour it.  Of course, you can't distinguish between a properly issued cheque and a stolen cheque, so you're getting no guarantee of payment.</li></ul><p>Cashier's cheques are a scam for extracting money from dimwits.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another scam : cashier 's cheques.Here in the UK a cashier 's cheque will cost you   25 .
What do you get for your money ?
If you 're the purchaser of the cheque you do n't need any guarantee ; you already know that your personal cheque is good ( even if the person you 're giving it to does n't ) .
So you get nothing.If you 're the recipient of the cheque , it 's only guaranteed if it was properly issued by the bank .
So if the cheque is a genuine cheque stolen from the bank , the bank wo n't honour it .
Of course , you ca n't distinguish between a properly issued cheque and a stolen cheque , so you 're getting no guarantee of payment.Cashier 's cheques are a scam for extracting money from dimwits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another scam: cashier's cheques.Here in the UK a cashier's cheque will cost you £25.
What do you get for your money?
If you're the purchaser of the cheque you don't need any guarantee; you already know that your personal cheque is good (even if the person you're giving it to doesn't).
So you get nothing.If you're the recipient of the cheque, it's only guaranteed if it was properly issued by the bank.
So if the cheque is a genuine cheque stolen from the bank, the bank won't honour it.
Of course, you can't distinguish between a properly issued cheque and a stolen cheque, so you're getting no guarantee of payment.Cashier's cheques are a scam for extracting money from dimwits.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558456</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is "cashier's check" ??</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269195660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The rest of the civilized world uses cashier's checks all the time, you're just a dumbass who has no idea what he's talking about.</p><p>Are you really going to put a 200,000 purchase on <i>credit</i> for someone you've never done business with?  Seriously?  Are you that stupid?  Do you really think Visa is going to eat that much money?</p><p>Cashier's checks are safe provided you allow the check to clear before doing anything with the money.  They are much harder to counterfeit (though certainly not impossible) than personal or business checks, and will ultimately always be proven true or fake.  That's how the scammers get you though, it's not that the system didn't work flawlessly, it's that it worked slowly and people are impatient.</p><p>The classic con is to send the check, feign a crisis and have the seller cancel the order and send back the cash <i>before the initial check clears</i>.  The seller sees the cash in his account, thinks he's safe, and when your bogus check bounces, the seller is out the entire (or at least most, you can sweeten the pot by offering to compensate for their wasted time and effort) value of the check because they've just legitimately transferred all that money back to you.  Meanwhile the bank pulls the money out of your account and says "Sorry, that money was never really yours, you got scammed."</p><p>Cashier's checks are generally safer than personal checks because it must be either a fake check (chance of being caught by the teller) or a stolen check from the bank (gotta be in a position of trust at bank) in order to do the scam.  That's because you pay the money up front for the check, instead of waiting for it to be pulled from your account when the recipient redeems it.</p><p>It still has to be transferred from the issuing bank though, and that can take up to a month, during which time the receiving bank will treat the money as though it has already been received.</p><p>The moral of the story is:</p><p>If you don't personally know the individual sending the check (cashier's or otherwise), or otherwise have a strong reason to trust the sender, <b>always</b> wait for the check to clear before assuming that money is yours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The rest of the civilized world uses cashier 's checks all the time , you 're just a dumbass who has no idea what he 's talking about.Are you really going to put a 200,000 purchase on credit for someone you 've never done business with ?
Seriously ? Are you that stupid ?
Do you really think Visa is going to eat that much money ? Cashier 's checks are safe provided you allow the check to clear before doing anything with the money .
They are much harder to counterfeit ( though certainly not impossible ) than personal or business checks , and will ultimately always be proven true or fake .
That 's how the scammers get you though , it 's not that the system did n't work flawlessly , it 's that it worked slowly and people are impatient.The classic con is to send the check , feign a crisis and have the seller cancel the order and send back the cash before the initial check clears .
The seller sees the cash in his account , thinks he 's safe , and when your bogus check bounces , the seller is out the entire ( or at least most , you can sweeten the pot by offering to compensate for their wasted time and effort ) value of the check because they 've just legitimately transferred all that money back to you .
Meanwhile the bank pulls the money out of your account and says " Sorry , that money was never really yours , you got scammed .
" Cashier 's checks are generally safer than personal checks because it must be either a fake check ( chance of being caught by the teller ) or a stolen check from the bank ( got ta be in a position of trust at bank ) in order to do the scam .
That 's because you pay the money up front for the check , instead of waiting for it to be pulled from your account when the recipient redeems it.It still has to be transferred from the issuing bank though , and that can take up to a month , during which time the receiving bank will treat the money as though it has already been received.The moral of the story is : If you do n't personally know the individual sending the check ( cashier 's or otherwise ) , or otherwise have a strong reason to trust the sender , always wait for the check to clear before assuming that money is yours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The rest of the civilized world uses cashier's checks all the time, you're just a dumbass who has no idea what he's talking about.Are you really going to put a 200,000 purchase on credit for someone you've never done business with?
Seriously?  Are you that stupid?
Do you really think Visa is going to eat that much money?Cashier's checks are safe provided you allow the check to clear before doing anything with the money.
They are much harder to counterfeit (though certainly not impossible) than personal or business checks, and will ultimately always be proven true or fake.
That's how the scammers get you though, it's not that the system didn't work flawlessly, it's that it worked slowly and people are impatient.The classic con is to send the check, feign a crisis and have the seller cancel the order and send back the cash before the initial check clears.
The seller sees the cash in his account, thinks he's safe, and when your bogus check bounces, the seller is out the entire (or at least most, you can sweeten the pot by offering to compensate for their wasted time and effort) value of the check because they've just legitimately transferred all that money back to you.
Meanwhile the bank pulls the money out of your account and says "Sorry, that money was never really yours, you got scammed.
"Cashier's checks are generally safer than personal checks because it must be either a fake check (chance of being caught by the teller) or a stolen check from the bank (gotta be in a position of trust at bank) in order to do the scam.
That's because you pay the money up front for the check, instead of waiting for it to be pulled from your account when the recipient redeems it.It still has to be transferred from the issuing bank though, and that can take up to a month, during which time the receiving bank will treat the money as though it has already been received.The moral of the story is:If you don't personally know the individual sending the check (cashier's or otherwise), or otherwise have a strong reason to trust the sender, always wait for the check to clear before assuming that money is yours.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557314</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559184</id>
	<title>Re:WTF is "cashier's check" ??</title>
	<author>inject\_hotmail.com</author>
	<datestamp>1269202020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> always wait for the check to clear before assuming that money is yours.</p></div><p>Thing is, there's no way to know when the funds clear without calling the bank every day...

Banks should have a customer level query system whereby a customer can determine which funds are truly theirs...sort of a cash caching system -- a "side" account that shows money not-yet-cleared, providing full details.  It'd be relatively easy for a bank to set it up for their websites...what year are we in boys?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>always wait for the check to clear before assuming that money is yours.Thing is , there 's no way to know when the funds clear without calling the bank every day.. . Banks should have a customer level query system whereby a customer can determine which funds are truly theirs...sort of a cash caching system -- a " side " account that shows money not-yet-cleared , providing full details .
It 'd be relatively easy for a bank to set it up for their websites...what year are we in boys ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> always wait for the check to clear before assuming that money is yours.Thing is, there's no way to know when the funds clear without calling the bank every day...

Banks should have a customer level query system whereby a customer can determine which funds are truly theirs...sort of a cash caching system -- a "side" account that shows money not-yet-cleared, providing full details.
It'd be relatively easy for a bank to set it up for their websites...what year are we in boys?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558456</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557326</id>
	<title>Late news and less salacious</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269184320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>The American Bar Association reported on this <a href="http://www.abanet.org/media/youraba/200811/article12.html" title="abanet.org">mere 17 months ago.</a> [abanet.org]  I think it's less remarkable that some California firm got bilked as much as they got swindled while ignorant of a direct warning from their prime industry trade journal. <br> <br>A more compelling version of the scam, to me, is overpayment of retainer fees as a new client.  Fortunately, only idiot California firms are vulnerable as the ABA <a href="http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/honolulu\_law\_firms\_swindled\_out\_of\_500k\_in\_e-mail\_scam/" title="abajournal.com">has warned about this variation as well.</a> [abajournal.com]   Interestingly, though, the tab appears to have been $500K in that one.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The American Bar Association reported on this mere 17 months ago .
[ abanet.org ] I think it 's less remarkable that some California firm got bilked as much as they got swindled while ignorant of a direct warning from their prime industry trade journal .
A more compelling version of the scam , to me , is overpayment of retainer fees as a new client .
Fortunately , only idiot California firms are vulnerable as the ABA has warned about this variation as well .
[ abajournal.com ] Interestingly , though , the tab appears to have been $ 500K in that one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The American Bar Association reported on this mere 17 months ago.
[abanet.org]  I think it's less remarkable that some California firm got bilked as much as they got swindled while ignorant of a direct warning from their prime industry trade journal.
A more compelling version of the scam, to me, is overpayment of retainer fees as a new client.
Fortunately, only idiot California firms are vulnerable as the ABA has warned about this variation as well.
[abajournal.com]   Interestingly, though, the tab appears to have been $500K in that one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558580</id>
	<title>Re:How About ...</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269196920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's not true, because money is actually transferred.  The "bounce" happens when the recipient's bank contacts the issuer's bank and the issuer's bank says "Who'sajiggawhat? We never issued that check (or the account doesn't exist, or whatever else the scam may be), we aren't transferring the money."  The check did not clear, it bounced.</p><p>It's a verification process - if it passes the process the money is transferred, if it does not the money is not transferred.  If the money is not transferred to the receiving bank, then the check "bounced" and the bank pulls the money back out of the account of the guy who deposited the check.</p><p>Depending on where the banks are located in relation to each other, this process can take anywhere from 30 seconds to 23 days.</p><p>Checks most certainly do "clear", they clear when the bank to bank transfer is made, and not before.  There is no such thing as "failing to bounce".  You bounce, or you clear, one or the other, the only limbo state is in the time it takes to verify the check and transfer the money.  In fact, the only correct way to say it would be "failing to clear" because the "bounce" is actually a failure to pass the verification process and a failure to transfer the money from bank to bank.</p><p>Now, the bank may not notify you that the check cleared, only that it bounced.  That's an entirely different matter, and you can put a hold on the deposit with instructions for the bank to wait until the check clears before depositing the money.</p><p>That's what your friend should have done.  The fraudster used a routing trick to delay the verification process as long as possible, letting the check go through bank after bank before the recipient's bank realizes the issuing bank is bogus, or the check itself is bogus.  So you put a hold on the deposit and wait for the check to clear before handing over the keys to the car.  When you do this, the fraudster will immediately get out of dodge ASAP, because they know they'll be caught red handed.</p><p>This is the way you should ALWAYS handle transactions with an individual or company you have no good reason to trust.  Just because the money is in your account doesn't mean it's yours yet, if the check bounces the bank takes that money back.  The same can be done with credit on expensive items, and you're actually at a bigger risk taking credit, because if that card is stolen you're screwed, and you don't get the option to wait for credit to clear after the initial acceptance.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's not true , because money is actually transferred .
The " bounce " happens when the recipient 's bank contacts the issuer 's bank and the issuer 's bank says " Who'sajiggawhat ?
We never issued that check ( or the account does n't exist , or whatever else the scam may be ) , we are n't transferring the money .
" The check did not clear , it bounced.It 's a verification process - if it passes the process the money is transferred , if it does not the money is not transferred .
If the money is not transferred to the receiving bank , then the check " bounced " and the bank pulls the money back out of the account of the guy who deposited the check.Depending on where the banks are located in relation to each other , this process can take anywhere from 30 seconds to 23 days.Checks most certainly do " clear " , they clear when the bank to bank transfer is made , and not before .
There is no such thing as " failing to bounce " .
You bounce , or you clear , one or the other , the only limbo state is in the time it takes to verify the check and transfer the money .
In fact , the only correct way to say it would be " failing to clear " because the " bounce " is actually a failure to pass the verification process and a failure to transfer the money from bank to bank.Now , the bank may not notify you that the check cleared , only that it bounced .
That 's an entirely different matter , and you can put a hold on the deposit with instructions for the bank to wait until the check clears before depositing the money.That 's what your friend should have done .
The fraudster used a routing trick to delay the verification process as long as possible , letting the check go through bank after bank before the recipient 's bank realizes the issuing bank is bogus , or the check itself is bogus .
So you put a hold on the deposit and wait for the check to clear before handing over the keys to the car .
When you do this , the fraudster will immediately get out of dodge ASAP , because they know they 'll be caught red handed.This is the way you should ALWAYS handle transactions with an individual or company you have no good reason to trust .
Just because the money is in your account does n't mean it 's yours yet , if the check bounces the bank takes that money back .
The same can be done with credit on expensive items , and you 're actually at a bigger risk taking credit , because if that card is stolen you 're screwed , and you do n't get the option to wait for credit to clear after the initial acceptance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's not true, because money is actually transferred.
The "bounce" happens when the recipient's bank contacts the issuer's bank and the issuer's bank says "Who'sajiggawhat?
We never issued that check (or the account doesn't exist, or whatever else the scam may be), we aren't transferring the money.
"  The check did not clear, it bounced.It's a verification process - if it passes the process the money is transferred, if it does not the money is not transferred.
If the money is not transferred to the receiving bank, then the check "bounced" and the bank pulls the money back out of the account of the guy who deposited the check.Depending on where the banks are located in relation to each other, this process can take anywhere from 30 seconds to 23 days.Checks most certainly do "clear", they clear when the bank to bank transfer is made, and not before.
There is no such thing as "failing to bounce".
You bounce, or you clear, one or the other, the only limbo state is in the time it takes to verify the check and transfer the money.
In fact, the only correct way to say it would be "failing to clear" because the "bounce" is actually a failure to pass the verification process and a failure to transfer the money from bank to bank.Now, the bank may not notify you that the check cleared, only that it bounced.
That's an entirely different matter, and you can put a hold on the deposit with instructions for the bank to wait until the check clears before depositing the money.That's what your friend should have done.
The fraudster used a routing trick to delay the verification process as long as possible, letting the check go through bank after bank before the recipient's bank realizes the issuing bank is bogus, or the check itself is bogus.
So you put a hold on the deposit and wait for the check to clear before handing over the keys to the car.
When you do this, the fraudster will immediately get out of dodge ASAP, because they know they'll be caught red handed.This is the way you should ALWAYS handle transactions with an individual or company you have no good reason to trust.
Just because the money is in your account doesn't mean it's yours yet, if the check bounces the bank takes that money back.
The same can be done with credit on expensive items, and you're actually at a bigger risk taking credit, because if that card is stolen you're screwed, and you don't get the option to wait for credit to clear after the initial acceptance.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559752</id>
	<title>Re:So, why expose yourself like that?</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1269163260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In England, the Law Society rules require solicitors to wait for the cheque to clear before they send payments out.  I would be surprised if the rules weren't similar in the US.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In England , the Law Society rules require solicitors to wait for the cheque to clear before they send payments out .
I would be surprised if the rules were n't similar in the US .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In England, the Law Society rules require solicitors to wait for the cheque to clear before they send payments out.
I would be surprised if the rules weren't similar in the US.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556892</id>
	<title>Re:Obvious answer...</title>
	<author>Florian Weimer</author>
	<datestamp>1269179400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of stuff can bounce in practice if fraud is involved, even if there are supposed to be guarantees.  I think the lesson here is that you better leave the money laundering to the big guys who can better deal with the risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of stuff can bounce in practice if fraud is involved , even if there are supposed to be guarantees .
I think the lesson here is that you better leave the money laundering to the big guys who can better deal with the risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of stuff can bounce in practice if fraud is involved, even if there are supposed to be guarantees.
I think the lesson here is that you better leave the money laundering to the big guys who can better deal with the risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556758</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557456</id>
	<title>awww poor lawyers</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1269185580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>so smart...er STUPID</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>so smart...er STUPID</tokentext>
<sentencetext>so smart...er STUPID</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556684</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558324</id>
	<title>Re:Well...</title>
	<author>Bigjeff5</author>
	<datestamp>1269194400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know if you understand how checks work, but they do take a little time to clear (i.e. for the money to be transferred from the issuer's bank to the receiver's bank).  It's a hell of a lot faster than it used to be, but it still takes time.</p><p>If the check was generated in the same city then it will only take a few seconds to a few minutes to clear.  Checks generated outside your region might take an hour or two, but it can take up to several days for these checks to clear.  International checks and cashier's checks can take up to a month to clear. Do you realize the economic impact there would be if banks withheld cash for a month waiting for a check to clear?  It would be insane, the damage done to the economy would be far worse than the damage done by fraudsters.  Your response is a typical over-reaction to fraud.  Because of the way checks work, if a check bounces the bank has the right to pull that money back - that way the fraudster screwed you over, not the bank.</p><p>In this case I'm guessing it only took a day or two at most, because the wire transfer was still in-progress to his Hong-Kong bank when the check bounced.</p><p>Go rent the movie "Catch Me If You Can", it's a very entertaining movie based on the life story of Frank Abignali - one of the most famous check fraudsters of all time.  They do a very good job explaining how checks work and how a guy can run off with loads of cash if his fake check passes initial muster.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know if you understand how checks work , but they do take a little time to clear ( i.e .
for the money to be transferred from the issuer 's bank to the receiver 's bank ) .
It 's a hell of a lot faster than it used to be , but it still takes time.If the check was generated in the same city then it will only take a few seconds to a few minutes to clear .
Checks generated outside your region might take an hour or two , but it can take up to several days for these checks to clear .
International checks and cashier 's checks can take up to a month to clear .
Do you realize the economic impact there would be if banks withheld cash for a month waiting for a check to clear ?
It would be insane , the damage done to the economy would be far worse than the damage done by fraudsters .
Your response is a typical over-reaction to fraud .
Because of the way checks work , if a check bounces the bank has the right to pull that money back - that way the fraudster screwed you over , not the bank.In this case I 'm guessing it only took a day or two at most , because the wire transfer was still in-progress to his Hong-Kong bank when the check bounced.Go rent the movie " Catch Me If You Can " , it 's a very entertaining movie based on the life story of Frank Abignali - one of the most famous check fraudsters of all time .
They do a very good job explaining how checks work and how a guy can run off with loads of cash if his fake check passes initial muster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know if you understand how checks work, but they do take a little time to clear (i.e.
for the money to be transferred from the issuer's bank to the receiver's bank).
It's a hell of a lot faster than it used to be, but it still takes time.If the check was generated in the same city then it will only take a few seconds to a few minutes to clear.
Checks generated outside your region might take an hour or two, but it can take up to several days for these checks to clear.
International checks and cashier's checks can take up to a month to clear.
Do you realize the economic impact there would be if banks withheld cash for a month waiting for a check to clear?
It would be insane, the damage done to the economy would be far worse than the damage done by fraudsters.
Your response is a typical over-reaction to fraud.
Because of the way checks work, if a check bounces the bank has the right to pull that money back - that way the fraudster screwed you over, not the bank.In this case I'm guessing it only took a day or two at most, because the wire transfer was still in-progress to his Hong-Kong bank when the check bounced.Go rent the movie "Catch Me If You Can", it's a very entertaining movie based on the life story of Frank Abignali - one of the most famous check fraudsters of all time.
They do a very good job explaining how checks work and how a guy can run off with loads of cash if his fake check passes initial muster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558018</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558712</id>
	<title>No surprise</title>
	<author>BigSlowTarget</author>
	<datestamp>1269197940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why do you rob lawyers?  Because that's where all the money is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you rob lawyers ?
Because that 's where all the money is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you rob lawyers?
Because that's where all the money is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558524</id>
	<title>Just pay the fee</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1269196200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Weren't they suspicious that they received the $200,000 rather than $10,000?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Were n't they suspicious that they received the $ 200,000 rather than $ 10,000 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Weren't they suspicious that they received the $200,000 rather than $10,000?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556892
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31564468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559184
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558508
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558230
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31562814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559168
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558524
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557236
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559752
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31564558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557058
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556870
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556852
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558682
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557958
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558962
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31566544
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558324
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556758
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31565228
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559836
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558456
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557314
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31561902
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_03_21_0818202_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557210
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0818202.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557958
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559752
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0818202.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558962
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0818202.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556758
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556880
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556892
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0818202.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558524
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559168
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0818202.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556734
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558230
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556870
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558788
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556826
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558580
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557058
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31564468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558284
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557180
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557196
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558508
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31564558
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31561902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556852
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559246
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0818202.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558460
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0818202.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557236
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558018
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558682
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558324
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558960
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31566544
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557456
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0818202.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556728
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556904
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31562814
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31556914
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557314
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31558456
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559836
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559184
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557210
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31559754
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_03_21_0818202.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31557326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_03_21_0818202.31565228
</commentlist>
</conversation>
