In my humble opinion, there is no such thing as "victim of a Nigerian scam".

I know quite a bit about how these things work.....now. If you would've asked me 6 years ago about counterfeit cashier's checks, etc., I'd have had no idea. The public is becoming more and more educated about these things, and we have many bringing the letters, envelopes and checks in to see if they are legit. About half of our exposure to these scams is caught by the customer themselves as they point out to the tellers that they don't think the checks are real.

One year ago, the sentiment was that "if the checks isn't real, the bank should know." With that in mind, the public simply leaned on the banks, not telling their suspicions and not completely answering questions like "Where did you get the check". There were/are people who are simply ignorant to the fact that this happens and are genuinely shocked when you tell them that the check is counterfeit. You can't tell me that the 80 year old man SHOULD know better. In his day, a cashier's check was "guaranteed funds", so there is nothing to worry about when one is presented.

There are victims.

I'm proud to say that over the last month, my bank has seen well over $200k in scam checks and took a loss of $100 (recovered). Not only is the public becoming more aware, the tellers are learning everything that we investigators know. It's all about training!

Nice post.

I respect your post FraudPup and you make some valid points, but how much training is enough? Our local task force puts things in the paper, on the news, anywhere we can to educate the public, but things still get through the cracks.

The 80 year old man, wasn't his generation taught that you don't get something for nothing? You work hard for an honest dollar? I'm sorry, but I've had some experience with this type of scam as well, and it's just plain GREED.

Yes, it's greed...along with just plain ignorance. But, ignorance and greed do not a criminal make. Greed or not, I'm talking about educating WITHIN the bank. I do a pretty good job of that. My tellers can catch this stuff better than many, and it shows when I compare our success rate against that of other banks in the same market.

Training/educating the public is much more difficult to do and more difficult to measure.

As far as your "80 year old man" theory: In his day, a cashier's check was unquestionable. Also, this sort of thing didn't happen on this kind of scale (technology is wonderful, isn't it?) back in 1956, when he was 30.

So here's a question:

If the minister's wife was ignorant to the fact that what she fell for was a scam, and the teller was ignorant for the fact that he/she didn't identify the fraudulent check, who is liable for the loss?

IMHO the customer is in the best position to identify the scam and prevent the loss.

The loss always belongs to the person who negotiated the check; i.e. the customer. There's no suggestion to the contrary in Fraud Pup's post. The bank only ends up with the loss when the customer is gone, the customer is judgment proof, or the bank makes a business decision not to pursue the matter.

I think Fraud Pup's point was on a higher, moral plane to the effect that banks oftentimes assume the customer to be dishonest, primarily because the customer doesn't know what the banker knows. That's a tad arrogant, but I would have to plead "guilty as charged" on several occasions over the course of my career.

Noting that greed is generally a major portion of the customer's motivation is akin to noting that the sun rises in the east. However, greed is a despicably human trait that lives in all of us. Many, not all, of the people who pass these items are capable of believing that mana from heaven is a reality, not a metaphor. Their siblings and first cousins, the people who allocate a portion of their weekly earnings to buy lottery tickets, number in the millions. While some rightly question their intelligence, their integrity isn't brought in issue.

One of my grandfather's best, most often used gifts to me was this expression: "Never assume dishonesty when stupidity is an equally plausible excuse." Whenever I remember to apply it I generally reach the correct conclusion.