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: Nash363 who wrote (891)	11/30/2006 5:08:38 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 1681

OK, you stated that you don't know "how the cheque was altered. It was ever so slightly different. I only saw photocopies long after the fraud occurred." Then you stated that "[t]here was no alteration of bank stamps." Can you at least answer what part of the check was altered. You were the payee so that doesn't seem to be what you are claiming was altered. You say the bank certification stamp was not altered. So, what is it that you are claiming was altered ever so "slightly?" If the bank treats a check as certified, the funds are not available for anyone else. You are suggesting that the Canadian rules cancelled out the certification and the check was treated as a regular check. In that case, any alteration of the check with respect to the certification would appear to be immaterial to any loss. Then the issue seems to be the claim that the Payor somehow stopped the funds or did not have the funds to pay the check. But, you say the bank cleared the check, so that means the funds were there. The check was not NSF and was not stopped. So, forget that aspect to claim fraud or even a remedy under the law of negotiable instruments. Now, and I'm guessing a lot here because of the gaps in the story, but the payor claimed something was wrong with the machinery. You said the check was not stopped in your prior post. See where I'm going. The story makes no sense with respect to the law of negotiable instruments. That is the law that would govern the alteration of checks (on the civil side.) Beyond that, it seems you have a civil suit against all parties. From what you are saying, it is impossible to predict if you would win or lose, but it is hard to understand why you have not sued the payor of the check. As for Petar, the fact that you could not locate Petar would not preclude your getting jurisdiction and service by publication, likely resulting in a default judgment, and then giving you supplementary remedies to collect. As an attorney, I would guess that you would know that. Again, I wish you well but you have posted on a board where negative posters really want some hard evidence that the company has somehow scammed. So far, they haven't been able to accomplish that. That's why it is important that your story make more sense. I'm trying to help them out, but, we don't want to accuse someone of fraud or criminality without evidence that makes sense.

To: Nash363 who wrote (891)	11/30/2006 7:42:22 PM
From: rrufff	Respond to of 1681

Quick question - there was someone who was posting on IHub who described your case I believe. Were you that poster? tia:-)

To: Nash363 who wrote (891)	12/1/2006 12:45:02 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1681

To recap the altered cheque story... 1. Petar (PV) allegedly had machinery to sell to G&G Fabricating of Toronto for $143,800. PV deposited a check into your trust account for that amount. Red flag #1: Did you wonder why PV would deposit the check himself instead of present it to you to deposit? In my experience, this is unusual and I would think for you as well. No innuendo here, just wondering. 2. PV allegedly said the cheque was certified, ostensibly so he could get paid before the fraud was uncovered. You, seeing the funds were available in your account, felt comfortable immediately disbursing this money on behalf of Petar. In reality, the cheque was not certified, but because you and G&G had accounts at the same bank it didn't matter since cheques from the same bank clear immediately. It took 2 days for someone at G & G to catch the fraud. Red flag #2: How were these disbursements made? All by writing additional checks? If so, were they certified? By giving people cash? PV got a cheque for $62,000. Checks can often take 3-5 days to clear at other banks. When the fraud was uncovered 2 days later, was any attempt made to stop payment on these cheques, e.g. PV's? 3. "One of the directors in G & G had a bit of a checkered past but he did not have bank signing authority! The altered cheque (if I remember correctly) was payable to that director for expense reimbursement... The cheque (original) has been produced." I'm a bit confused here whether there was one cheque or two. From the above it sounds like said director wrote a petty cash cheque to himself. Red flag #3: But if this director did not have cheque writing privileges, seems to me this is a smoking gun he committed fraud regardless of PV. But it doesn't sound like the company pursued it. Right? Scenario "A" would be that PV got a hold of this cheque (e.g. he was given it by this director or stole it) and somehow altered the payee and the amount. Did said director ever report he had a cheque stolen? Scenario "B" would be that a second cheque was created from the first, hence an original and a copy. Which is correct? Who signed each cheque? 4. PV claims the cheque was legitimate, i.e. for a piece of machinery worth $143,800 that was picked up by someone from G&G. No one has ever found this piece of machinery nor the person who PV says can vouch for the fact it was picked up. So PV claims he was the victim here. Unreal. Thanks! - Jeff