overdraft
Jerry Trumball
He deposited another $150.
Then he wrote checks totaling $60.
He got overdraft notices for those checks.
He didn't understand. Neither did his mother. She went to the bank
with him. The teller said they'd let it go this time, but next time he
would have to pay because it's bank policy. He and his mother still
don't understand.
What's the bank doing?
John A. Weeks III
Jerry Trumball <J...@privacy.com> wrote:
Was the $80 marked as "available funds"? You see, once you put
a check in, it takes a while for it to get through the banking
system, back to the bank where it was written, and confirmed that
it is indeed a good check. If he put the $80 in as a check, then
the next day wrote a $60 check, it very well could bounce.
BOth your nephew and his mum need to ask about the available
balance, not the gross balance.
-john-
--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 jo...@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================
max
"John A. Weeks III" <jo...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> In article <Ni_%k.6438$nD1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> Jerry Trumball <J...@privacy.com> wrote:
>
> > My nephew had $80 in his checking account.
> > He deposited another $150.
> >
> > Then he wrote checks totaling $60.
> > He got overdraft notices for those checks.
> >
> > He didn't understand. Neither did his mother. She went to the bank
> > with him. The teller said they'd let it go this time, but next time he
> > would have to pay because it's bank policy. He and his mother still
> > don't understand.
> >
> > What's the bank doing?
>
> Was the $80 marked as "available funds"? You see, once you put
> a check in, it takes a while for it to get through the banking
> system, back to the bank where it was written, and confirmed that
> it is indeed a good check. If he put the $80 in as a check, then
> the next day wrote a $60 check, it very well could bounce.
>
> BOth your nephew and his mum need to ask about the available
> balance, not the gross balance.
>
> -john-
in addition to the above excellent advice...
It might be worth it to _remove_ overdraft protection from the account.
Note that debit card transactions can generate overdrafts too; even
those made from an ATM.
Here <http://consumerist.com/search/overdraft/> is a great deal of
information about overdrafts. Consumerist does not like overdraft
protection. Read the links to understand why.
Your nephew is lucky to have learned the lesson so cheaply; it could
have cost him hundreds of dollars!
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
clams_casino
Assuming he didn't deposit cash, just because he made a deposit doesn't
mean the funds have cleared for withdrawal. Consider the case where a
deposit is made on Friday evening. It'll be Monday morning before that
deposit is even processed, assuming Monday is not a legal holiday (next
business day). Then, it will likely take several days (up to a week,
but typically 3-4 days) for the checks to clear the source banks before
the funds are available for withdrawal.
JR Weiss
"Jerry Trumball" <J...@privacy.com> wrote in message
news:Ni_%k.6438$nD1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
JR Weiss
Where is the bank? Where are the banks on which the deposited checks were
written?
What was the time frame for his check writing?
What is the bank's written policy regarding availability of funds?
Zuke
Ripping you off. It's a billion dollar business. Other posters are
correct about when a check clears but in this day and age, these
things could be done a lot quicker. I bet it doesn't take two or
three days for the bank's funds to be turning around.
Their favorite move is to pay off large amounts first and then hit
you with multiple overdrafts on any smaller amounts. This is why they
are happy to reverse the charges when you complain, figuring about
95% of people are not going to complain.
But you shouldn't be asking that question here. We are frugal and
do not have overdrafts.
Jerry Trumball
protection is bad. What's wrong with it?
Jerry Trumball
> In article <Ni_%k.6438$nD1....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>,
> Jerry Trumball <J...@privacy.com> wrote:
>
>> My nephew had $80 in his checking account.
>> He deposited another $150.
>>
>> Then he wrote checks totaling $60.
>> He got overdraft notices for those checks.
>>
>> He didn't understand. Neither did his mother. She went to the bank
>> with him. The teller said they'd let it go this time, but next time he
>> would have to pay because it's bank policy. He and his mother still
>> don't understand.
>>
>> What's the bank doing?
>
> Was the $80 marked as "available funds"? You see, once you put
> a check in, it takes a while for it to get through the banking
> system, back to the bank where it was written, and confirmed that
> it is indeed a good check. If he put the $80 in as a check, then
> the next day wrote a $60 check, it very well could bounce.
>
> BOth your nephew and his mum need to ask about the available
> balance, not the gross balance.
>
> -john-
>
overdraft if he had not made the $150 deposit. Apparently the $80 was
available before he deposited more money. Why wouldn't it cover $60 in
checks?
max
Jerry Trumball <J...@privacy.com> wrote:
read the material.
max
Jerry Trumball <J...@privacy.com> wrote:
??? The only possible way to answer this question with authority is a
painstaking reading of that specific banks account and clearing rules.
But on first blush, it sounds like nonsense.
The Real Bev
> ??? The only possible way to answer this question with authority is a
> painstaking reading of that specific banks account and clearing rules.
>
> But on first blush, it sounds like nonsense.
I was once told that the bank puts a hold on the amount of the new
deposit until it clears or their policy takes it off, whichever comes
first. Accordingly, since he didn't already have $150 in the account,
they held as much of it as they could.
People with only small amounts of money in their checking accounts get
hosed badly, probably because they're deemed to be easier to fleece. In
most cases, a correct assumption.
--
Cheers, Bev
==============================
All bleeding eventually stops.
Jerry Trumball
..
>>>
>>> It might be worth it to _remove_ overdraft protection from the account.
>>> Note that debit card transactions can generate overdrafts too; even
>>> those made from an ATM.
>>>
>>> Here <http://consumerist.com/search/overdraft/> is a great deal of
>>> information about overdrafts. Consumerist does not like overdraft
>>> protection. Read the links to understand why.
>>>
>>>
>> I don't see anything at the cosumerist link that says overdraft
>> protection is bad. What's wrong with it?
>
> read the material.
>
Naturally I read the material. Did you?
All I found was this:
"An insider tells us the US Bank will let customer opt-out of courtesy
overdraft protection. This would mean that if you bounce a charge, you
just get charged an NSF fee instead of your account going negative,
incurring additional fees, and increasing the likelihood of more checks
and charges bouncing. Other banks may offer this already, call to find out."
That sounds like the overdraft protection I have. Instead of letting my
account go negative, they move some money and charge me fifty cents.
Jerry Trumball
> max wrote:
>
>> ??? The only possible way to answer this question with authority is
>> a painstaking reading of that specific banks account and clearing rules.
>>
>> But on first blush, it sounds like nonsense.
>
> I was once told that the bank puts a hold on the amount of the new
> deposit until it clears or their policy takes it off, whichever comes
> first. Accordingly, since he didn't already have $150 in the account,
> they held as much of it as they could.
>
> People with only small amounts of money in their checking accounts get
> hosed badly, probably because they're deemed to be easier to fleece. In
> most cases, a correct assumption.
>
gasoline, for example, with a debit card. I don't see any point except
to rob customers with overdraft charges.
Suppose my nephew deposited a paycheck that bounced because the company
was insolvent. Besides losing the value of the check, would the
depositor have to pay the bank a fee? At all banks?
So maybe it's bank policy to charge a depositor $50 if a deposited check
bounces, and maybe they put that $50 on hold for a week even if the
check clears in six hours. There's nothing about that on their website,
but I guess crooks don't warn their intended victims.
Jim Prescott
max <beta...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It might be worth it to _remove_ overdraft protection from the account.
Or at least understand how it works. At my credit union they will
attempt to satisfy an overdraft by taking funds from your savings
account. If you have established a line of credit they go to that
first, then savings. There are no fees other than daily interest on
the LOC.
This credit union also makes the funds from check deposits immediately
available.
There are good places to do banking. It is worth finding one.
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group j...@seas.rochester.edu
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY
max
Jerry Trumball <J...@privacy.com> wrote:
> max wrote:
> ..
> >>>
> >>> It might be worth it to _remove_ overdraft protection from the account.
> >>> Note that debit card transactions can generate overdrafts too; even
> >>> those made from an ATM.
> >>>
> >>> Here <http://consumerist.com/search/overdraft/> is a great deal of
> >>> information about overdrafts. Consumerist does not like overdraft
> >>> protection. Read the links to understand why.
> >>>
>
> >>>
> >> I don't see anything at the cosumerist link that says overdraft
> >> protection is bad. What's wrong with it?
> >
> > read the material.
> >
>
> Naturally I read the material. Did you?
>
> All I found was this:
>
> "An insider tells us the US Bank will let customer opt-out of courtesy
> overdraft protection. This would mean that if you bounce a charge, you
> just get charged an NSF fee instead of your account going negative,
> incurring additional fees, and increasing the likelihood of more checks
> and charges bouncing. Other banks may offer this already, call to find out."
READ THE MATERIAL. HERE ARE SUMMARIES OF THE FIRST 10.
There are 127 articles in the search i did for you:
Show: ALL Today Last Week Last Month
Sort: RELEVANCE Date Popularity
Results 1-10 of 127 for "overdraft" (0.021 second)
Banks Earned $19 Billion From Overdraft Fees This Year
Overdrafting makes the Consumerist very sad, and banks very happy.
12:56 PM on Thu Oct 11 2007, by Meg Marco, 9,569 views, 52 comments
New Bill Would Require Banks To Warn You If Your ATM Or Debit
Transaction Will Result In An Overdraft Fee
If you perform an ATM or debit card transaction that results in your
account being overdrafted, many banks will now simply authorize the
transaction and slap you with an overdraft fee. A new bill, HR946, would
"require banks to give consumers a...
12:56 PM on Mon Oct 1 2007, by Chris Walters, 2,904 views, 79 comments
US Bank To Let You Opt-Out Of Courtesy Overdraft Protection
An insider tells us the US Bank will let customer opt-out of courtesy
overdraft protection. This would mean that if you bounce a charge, you
just get charged an NSF fee instead of your account going negative,
incurring additional fees, and...
11:22 AM on Fri Oct 12 2007, by Ben Popken, 2,879 views, 18 comments
"Courtesy Overdraft Fees" Are Bad For Consumers
Bankrate has an extensive article on "courtesy overdraft" services tied
to debit cards. These services prevent your debit card transactions from
being denied, but have the unpleasant effect of charging you anywhere
from $20-$35 for this "courtesy."
9:50 PM on Thu Dec 20 2007, by Meg Marco, 3,896 views, 40 comments
Banks Cash Big Checks First, Maximizing Overdrafts
USATODAY research indicates banks typically process checks in order of
highest balance, maximizing overdraft fees charged to the customer,
critics contend.
2:37 PM on Wed Nov 22 2006, by Ben Popken, 1,197 views, 11 comments
Kid Get $120 In Wells Fargo Overdrafts Refunded After Rich Dad Calls VP
DM reports that he was able to get Wells Fargo to reverse all his
overdrafts... because his dad has a big Wells Fargo account and was able
to call up some company Vice President. Ahem. Three cheers for the power
of escalating issues outside of the...
5:23 PM on Wed Sep 26 2007, by Ben Popken, 5,571 views, 34 comments
Stop Overdrafting!
Our tip box is organized by complaint category. In the "banks" section,
email after email starts roughly the same way, "I overdrafted my account
and then a series of horrible events ensued."
1:06 PM on Tue Jun 19 2007, by Ben Popken, 1,743 views, 28 comments
Would You Like To "Opt-In" To Your Bank's Overdraft Fees? Tell The
Federal Reserve!
The Federal Reserve has proposed some new regulations that would, among
other things, require banks to let you opt-out of the "overdraft
protection" services that often result in consumers being charged large
fees for buying one too many (or 6 too...
10:30 AM on Thu Jun 26 2008, by Meg Marco, 6,971 views, 93 comments
FDIC Criticizes Banks' Overdraft Fees
It took 18 months for the FDIC to figure out that banks' practice of
clearing checks largest to smallest makes banks a lot of money.
9:04 PM on Wed Dec 3 2008, by Ben Popken, 14,670 views, 115 comments
National City Bank Loves Inexplicable Overdraft Fees
Let's play a game. Can you spot the problem below?
1:00 PM on Fri Sep 29 2006, by Ben Popken, 7,066 views, 84 comments
Jerry Trumball
were wrong, but the principle is the same.
He had $60 in his account.
He deposited $300.
He made several purchases totaling $45.
He was charged $150 in overdraft fees.
The bank refunded those fees as a one-time courtesy.
Before writing to the bank, she checked their literature. The only
mention of overdraft fees is for returned checks. There was no returned
check.
I can imagine what happened. I'll bet he used a debit card. At one
time, a debit card would be refused for insufficient funds. The banking
industry quietly switched over, approving such purchases in order to
charge hefty overcharge fees.
Still, how did he overcharge by spending $45 from an account with $360?
Banks cheat you by keeping a deposit on hold even after the check
clears. Still, there was $60. But if he bought $1 worth of gasoline,
they may have put $100 on hold for 48 hours or so, resulting in an
overdraft charge for every purchase made in that period. I wonder of
money is put on hold for purchases besides gasoline.
Crooks. Is it the same bunch who got $700 billion for bringing down
Wall Street?
clams_casino
You never stated when the $60 was deposited - how many days before the
debit card charges were made, including non business days. Example - A
deposit at 5pm on Friday might be available as soon as the following
Wednesday, but may not be available until the following Monday or
Tuesday (if either Monday is a legal holiday) or longer.
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> max wrote:
>>
>>> ??? The only possible way to answer this question with authority is
>>> a painstaking reading of that specific banks account and clearing rules.
>>>
>>> But on first blush, it sounds like nonsense.
>> I was once told that the bank puts a hold on the amount of the new
>> deposit until it clears or their policy takes it off, whichever comes
>> first. Accordingly, since he didn't already have $150 in the account,
>> they held as much of it as they could.
>>
>> People with only small amounts of money in their checking accounts get
>> hosed badly, probably because they're deemed to be easier to fleece. In
>> most cases, a correct assumption.
>>
> I have heard about putting money on hold for matter of days if you buy
> gasoline, for example, with a debit card. I don't see any point except
> to rob customers with overdraft charges.
The float, while insignificant on an individual basis, adds up to big
bucks when taken over the entire customer base. They may even lose
monty with negative rates now, but I find that difficult to believel
> Suppose my nephew deposited a paycheck that bounced because the company
> was insolvent. Besides losing the value of the check, would the
> depositor have to pay the bank a fee? At all banks?
Yes. Yes. He'd have to pay a fee and if he wrote a check based on that
amount, the casher of that check would have to pay a fee. It's what,
$25 now? No longer chickenfeed.
> So maybe it's bank policy to charge a depositor $50 if a deposited check
> bounces, and maybe they put that $50 on hold for a week even if the
> check clears in six hours. There's nothing about that on their website,
> but I guess crooks don't warn their intended victims.
Hey, nobody reads the small light-grey print anyway.
Rod Speed
> Jerry Trumball wrote:
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>> max wrote:
>>>
>>>> ??? The only possible way to answer this question with authority
>>>> is a painstaking reading of that specific banks account and clearing
>>>> rules. But on first blush, it sounds like nonsense.
>>> I was once told that the bank puts a hold on the amount of the new
>>> deposit until it clears or their policy takes it off, whichever
>>> comes first. Accordingly, since he didn't already have $150 in the
>>> account, they held as much of it as they could.
>>>
>>> People with only small amounts of money in their checking accounts
>>> get hosed badly, probably because they're deemed to be easier to
>>> fleece. In most cases, a correct assumption.
>>>
>> I have heard about putting money on hold for matter of days if you
>> buy gasoline, for example, with a debit card. I don't see any point
>> except to rob customers with overdraft charges.
>
> The float, while insignificant on an individual basis, adds up to big bucks when taken over the entire customer base.
> They may even lose
> monty with negative rates now, but I find that difficult to believel
They cant lose monty, they have him changed to the wall, silly.
>> Suppose my nephew deposited a paycheck that bounced because the company was insolvent. Besides losing the value of
>> the check, would the depositor have to pay the bank a fee? At all banks?
> Yes. Yes. He'd have to pay a fee and if he wrote a check based on that amount, the casher of that check would have
> to pay a fee. It's what, $25 now? No longer chickenfeed.
>> So maybe it's bank policy to charge a depositor $50 if a deposited
>> check bounces, and maybe they put that $50 on hold for a week even if the check clears in six hours. There's nothing
>> about that on
>> their website, but I guess crooks don't warn their intended victims.
> Hey, nobody reads the small light-grey print anyway.
Specially those in their dotage with coke bottle end glasses they got cheap from china.
The Real Bev
My last ones came from Mexico. My friend gets glasses whenever he goes
to China and his are MUCH nicer than mine.
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ive been hosed by several major banks on such scams...
I need an account to cash my clients checks..
but have no
credit, or debit card on the account and no checks. I buy money
orders when I need to.
they try real hard to get me to sign up for a credit card or
checks...these over draft charges of 35 dollars are a pure rip off,
especially on a 5 dollar check... they set up the deposit timing,
holds and the order of processing your checks so that it maxes the
number that will bounce.
that was a news story a few years ago.
Phil scott
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
yes, thats the scam alright....
Phil scott
phil scott
I gotts my reading glasses from the 99 cent store... they work great,
I have 20 pair now,
The Real Bev
> On Dec 11, 6:28 pm, The Real Bev <bashley10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> The Real Bev <bashley10...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hey, nobody reads the small light-grey print anyway.
>>> Specially those in their dotage with coke bottle end glasses they got cheap from china.
>> My last ones came from Mexico. My friend gets glasses whenever he goes
>> to China and his are MUCH nicer than mine.
>
> I have 20 pair now,
I probably have almost that many, but I can only wear them with my
contacts. Astigmatism is a bitch -- if I didn't have it I could
probably use +3 readers for distance glasses.
I love the 99-Cents-Only Store.
Bill
Was this because he frequently checks his available balance, keeps records
of all purchases and keeps a running balance, and knows the banks rules on
placing holds on checks?
Or did he know this just from memory?
"Jerry Trumball" wrote in message
Jerry Trumball
I've read up on authorization holds. Besides gas stations, hotels and
car rentals use holds that are higher than known charges. So do
restaurants, in case you put a tip on your card.
Authorization holds can last several days. When they don't last long,
that can also cause overdrafts. Monday morning, you go to a store and
buy $29.95 worth of stuff with a debit card. Initially, that's an
authorization hold, which may be listed as a pending transaction. The
merchant still has to submit the transaction for payment.
Suppose the bank has a 24 hour limit for holds. If he hasn't submitted
the transaction for payment Tuesday morning, the hold comes off.
Tuesday afternoon you go to an ATM, check your balance, and withdraw
money, leaving less than $29.95. If the merchant then submits the
transaction for payment, that's an overdraft.
tmc...@searchmachine.com
>
> Ive been hosed by several major banks on such scams...
>
> I need an account to cash my clients checks..
> but have no
>
> credit, or debit card on the account and no checks. I buy money
> orders when I need to.
>
> they try real hard to get me to sign up for a credit card or
> checks...these over draft charges of 35 dollars are a pure rip off,
> especially on a 5 dollar check... they set up the deposit timing,
> holds and the order of processing your checks so that it maxes the
> number that will bounce.
>
> that was a news story a few years ago.
>
Good god. How is not releasing funds immediately a "scam"? Get a
credit card and use that for all purchases and no more overdrafts. If
you have a problem with people giving you bad checks, cash all checks
at the issuing bank, and again, no more overdrafts. Buying a money
order when you could just use a check or a credit card? You're
kidding, right?
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
> you have a problem with people giving you bad checks, cash all checks
> at the issuing bank, and again, no more overdrafts. Buying a money
> order when you could just use a check or a credit card? You're
> kidding, right?
I don't know where you live, but sad to say, many banks in my community
will not cash a check if you don't have an account at that bank.
Ridiculous (except for the fact that maybe the checks could be excellent
forgeries) but true.
clams_casino
I've never known a bank to cash a check without an account - even when
the check is drawn from their bank.
phil scott
> On Dec 11, 10:24 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ive been hosed by several major banks on such scams...
>
> > I need an account to cash my clients checks..
> > but have no
>
> > credit, or debit card on the account and no checks. I buy money
> > orders when I need to.
>
> > they try real hard to get me to sign up for a credit card or
> > checks...these over draft charges of 35 dollars are a pure rip off,
> > especially on a 5 dollar check... they set up the deposit timing,
> > holds and the order of processing your checks so that it maxes the
> > number that will bounce.
>
> > that was a news story a few years ago.
>
> Good god. How is not releasing funds immediately a "scam"?
That aspect is NOT a scam...the scam comes in when they HOLD a
deposit, a deposit that they USUALLY clear instantly.. they hold it,
then WAIT until you have a batch of checks coming in, THEN they pick
the BIGGEST of that batch and run it through, so that the rest of the
small ones will bounce. THEN they deposit that lil ol deposit, a
deposit they usually credit right away...a batch of business checks
from known customers. HOLDING checks until they clear is
generally only done with larger checks, unknown or out of state
accounts as a rule. but they CHANGE the rules on occasion, such as
when the glorious bank is low on money ...in order to collect a net 19
billion dollars in over draft charges (national estimate last year or
whatever).... this is criminal FRAUD... its not news, its not the
first time US banks have been involved in such fraudulent
practices. There are books and news articles available on the
subject, some have posted links.
Phil scott
>Get a
> credit card and use that for all purchases and no more overdrafts. If
> you have a problem with people giving you bad checks, cash all checks
> at the issuing bank, and again, no more overdrafts. Buying a money
> order when you could just use a check or a credit card? You're
> kidding, right?- Hide quoted text -
tmc...@searchmachine.com
<samh...@sonic.net> wrote:
Umm, they HAVE to, if it's drawn on their bank and you have photo ID.
If it's not drawn on their bank, then they can refuse, but again, not
if it's "their" check.
tmc...@searchmachine.com
wrote:
> Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply wrote:
>
Again, THEY HAVE TO, assuming you have proper ID. To refuse is
considered "unlawful dishonor" and is illegal. I worked for a bank for
10 years writing policies and procedures manuals. I am very familiar
with the regs.
clams_casino
That's certainly NOT been my experience, but I do admit I haven't
attempted such in many years.
phil scott
thanks... its so easy to forget the actual facts of life with some
idiot lying clerk or bank manager telling you
that you 'need to open an acccount to cash checks'... that couldnt
possibly be true if commerce is to work as it does, its obvious... I
fell for that
baloney though myself.
in the future I wont....I will look at them as though they are
criminally insane sociopaths next time I try to run a customers check
through is own bank.
... and I will have fun with that.
trust me.
and thanks again for point out the obvious.
Phil scott
tmc...@searchmachine.com
Jesus, what is wrong with you? I am merely pointing out that it is
illegal for a bank to refuse to cash a check written by one of its
depositors, whether or not the check receiver is an account holder.
The problem is that you can point out the illegality to the bank all
day long, but the only person with legal standing to sue the bank for
unlawful dishonor of a check is the person who wrote it, not the one
holding the piece of paper. None of that makes it any less illegal,
however.
You need anger management classes. PLONK.
phil scott
>
> - Show quoted text -
dang...I thought I was complinenting you and thanking you for the
insight... you have misread my reply
or confused it with someone elses?
Phil scott
Vic Smith
Yes, he misread it, and seems a mite angry himself.
But the good thing is this time he pointed out that squawking
about "illegality" may be fruitless.
So it's hard to say if his info is of any practical use to those
trying to cash a bank-issued check in that bank.
Went nowhere basically.
--Vic
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
> HOLDING checks until they clear is
> generally only done with larger checks, unknown or out of state
> accounts as a rule.
My bank will not hold check funds until the check clears any more. They
hold the funds for X days (10, I think) and then release them, so you
never, EVER really know if the check has not cleared until it bounces --
which could be months later in the case of those advance-fee fraudulent
checks.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
>
> Umm, they HAVE to, if it's drawn on their bank and you have photo ID.
> If it's not drawn on their bank, then they can refuse, but again, not
> if it's "their" check.
I invite you to come to the San Francisco Bay Area and try it at Bank of
America.
Samatha Hill -- take out TRASH to reply
there is no way they can make sure your ID is not forged, for one thing.