Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : SLJB - Sulja Brothers Building Supply, Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rrufff who wrote (889)	11/30/2006 4:55:44 PM
From: Nash363	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1681

There is a big distinction between Canadian and US law. In Canada we have certified cheques and bank drafts. In legal transactions there is an obligation to receive funds into the trust in this form. In this case because the payor and I banked at the same institution, they "cleared" the cheque which in essence means removing the funds from the payor's account and placing it into the payee's account. Had we been at different banks, the cheque would have been certified or made into a draft and then taken to the next bank for deposit. I am advised that had that been the case the bank would have had to absorb the loss. Technically, the bank because it was able to do so made me the loss bearer. I am not sure how the cheque was altered. It was ever so slightly different. I only saw photocopies long after the fraud occurred. There was no alteration of bank stamps. The bank cleared the cheque for deposit to my account after its proper investigation. My resignation had nothing to do with this actual incident. I was not faulted by my Society for what happened with this situtation. My resignation occurred because I borrowed money from clients (albeit to cover the shortfall in my trust account caused by the fraud), because I fell into a depression and was not able to conscientiously serve my clients. Basically this fraud was the starting point. Again I wish to state that because of depression, I violated my Society's code of conduct. I was trying to save myself at the expense of others by borrowing to cover the loss the fraud caused. In fact, the Benchers were very sympathetic with what had occurred. The lawsuit. I retained a lawyer to act on my behalf. PV was not locatable. A decision was made to sue the bank. Had I known where PV was when I commenced action which was in September 2000, PV would have been sued. As far as I am aware if there is a fraud allegation, there is no limitation period and I am consulting with counsel now. Also in a civil suit, there is a much lower threshold. To give an example of an actual case. A man owns a house. That house burns. The source of fire is arson. There is circumstantial evidence that the owner caused the fire (but not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt - criminal threshold)so no criminal charges are laid. The insurance company refuses to pay. Owner loses lawsuit because on a balance of probabilities (civil test) there is enough cicumstantial evidence that owner caused fire. A similar vein could be made out here (possibly). Hence why I am consulting a lawyer. The police simply will not lay criminal charges unless they believe there is more than circumstantial evidence. It is much different for civil liability.