• Rocket@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The problem is that it’s a bank draft, not a cheque.

    It was a certified cheque, not a bank draft. Granted, that poses much the same problem.

    • anachronist@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      certified cheque

      This is US law, maybe Canada has different rules, but:

      https://www.sapling.com/8611754/do-void-certified-check

      But the New York Credit Union Association cites §3-403(2) of the UCC. This section indicates that payment can be stopped on a certified check if ‌90 days‌ have passed since it was issued ‌and‌ the check has been lost, destroyed or stolen. The remitter would have to submit an affidavit to the bank or credit union in this case and request a stop payment order in writing.

      The CP admitting that they lost the check should suffice as evidence that the cheque has been “lost, destroyed or stolen”.

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine a bank robbery and the robbers demand the tellers issue a bank draft / certified check to the robbers actual name.

      At the end of the robbery the bank has, a serial number of the check, the payer name.

      It would be silly to expect this bank to honor this bank draft / certified check. They simply wouldn’t do it.

      So the rest of the “we can’t prevent double spend of this bank draft”, is silly. They can verify the payee, pay the draft and cancel the original draft by serial number.