Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22
  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,031

    Default Re: Banking

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    It is not my basis. It is a basis from another attorney.

    I did not give the OP state specific advice, rather general advice that may apply to his/her state. Besides, this is banking law which I assume is mainly Federal. However, I get my information from a sharp attorney who gives his full name (Steve Lehto), his state, and he looks into a camera and speaks extemporaneously from his knowledge and experience as an attorney. Much, much more than what we get here.

    He speaks on an issue resembling the OP's here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuGuzc3rioM

    Feel free to challenge what he says. I'd love to hear a sound rebuttal...and not the picking of low hanging fruit like the OP was not owed the money because that is easily argued.
    An important thing to note that he did not make clear in that video. He references Article 4 of the UCC. What he does not tell you is that the UCC itself is not law. It is a recommendation to the states to adopt so that states will have a uniform law on certain commercial and financial topics. Most states have adopted most articles of the UCC, including Article 4, but some have made one or more tweaks to their version of the UCC. So while he referenced the UCC in his story, he was really referring to Michigan's version of it. Moreover, each state that has adopted the UCC of course has its own case law interpreting the UCC, and those decisions too, can vary from state to state. So, while the law on this is largely uniform in most states (Louisiana in particular is one that has not adopted the UCC at all), it is not identical. There are differences. This is why knowing the state makes a difference. While the feds regulate some aspects of banking activity, much of the law relating to how customers interact with banks is state law. In short, banking is heavily regulated by both the federal government and the states. It's not just primarily federal law as one might assume.

    I agree that the bank generally has a pretty limited time to recover the erroneous deposit, which I referenced in my post. But I also mentioned the possibility that the true owner of the funds might sue the OP to get their money back (assuming he/she didn't get that from the bank(s) involved). That lawsuit would not involve Article 4 of the UCC nor involve the bank. Whether that person would have a good claim to pursue who depend on who that person was, what the details were that lead to the deposit error, and of course the applicable state law. Mr. Lehto's video did not touch at all on this possibility.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    499

    Default Re: Banking

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    An important thing to note that he did not make clear in that video. He references Article 4 of the UCC. What he does not tell you is that the UCC itself is not law. It is a recommendation to the states to adopt so that states will have a uniform law on certain commercial and financial topics. Most states have adopted most articles of the UCC, including Article 4, but some have made one or more tweaks to their version of the UCC. So while he referenced the UCC in his story, he was really referring to Michigan's version of it. Moreover, each state that has adopted the UCC of course has its own case law interpreting the UCC, and those decisions too, can vary from state to state. So, while the law on this is largely uniform in most states (Louisiana in particular is one that has not adopted the UCC at all), it is not identical. There are differences. This is why knowing the state makes a difference. While the feds regulate some aspects of banking activity, much of the law relating to how customers interact with banks is state law. In short, banking is heavily regulated by both the federal government and the states. It's not just primarily federal law as one might assume.

    I agree that the bank generally has a pretty limited time to recover the erroneous deposit, which I referenced in my post. But I also mentioned the possibility that the true owner of the funds might sue the OP to get their money back (assuming he/she didn't get that from the bank(s) involved). That lawsuit would not involve Article 4 of the UCC nor involve the bank. Whether that person would have a good claim to pursue who depend on who that person was, what the details were that lead to the deposit error, and of course the applicable state law. Mr. Lehto's video did not touch at all on this possibility.
    The state was PA, not Michigan.

    Who would inform the person who lost the money in this transaction as to where the money was accidentally deposited? Not the bank because that would be proprietary information. Also, $12,000 is a lot of money and it likely was not 'bank' money, rather an individuals money that was misplaced. If that person had a viable lawsuit to reacquire those funds, it didn't happen in this account.

    It was the bank that made the irreversible error, so it will be the bank that will be liable for the misplaced funds. Therefore the bank will replace the funds which will circumvent any lawsuit, very similar to CC fraud.

    I cannot respond to all of your points but I would like to see you argue them with Steve.

    PS. I have asked many times if lawyers are ever intimidated by other lawyers and I never got a response. So I will not ask if you'd like to square off with this guy in a courtroom because I'd probably get an evasive response.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,031

    Default Re: Banking

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    The state was PA, not Michigan.

    Who would inform the person who lost the money in this transaction as to where the money was accidentally deposited? Not the bank because that would be proprietary information. Also, $12,000 is a lot of money and it likely was not 'bank' money, rather an individuals money that was misplaced. If that person had a viable lawsuit to reacquire those funds, it didn't happen in this account.
    You are not taking into account all the possibilities. The true owner of the funds could be the one, for example, who made the mistake the resulted in the erroneous deposit. Seeing his/her mistake, saying in writing down the right account number, he or she may well know the account to which the funds were deposited. Even if he or she didn't know that, a subpoena to the bank would solve that problem — he or she doesn't have to rely on the bank to voluntarily provide it.

    Let me give you one example that I have seen more than once. The IRS erroneously issues a refund that is direct deposited in a taxpayers bank account. The IRS doesn't realize the error in 30 or 90 days. Instead, it takes around a year for the IRS to get around to realizing the mistake and going after the money. The IRS knows exactly where the money went. Is it too late for the IRS to get the money back? Nope, because federal law gives the IRS at least two years to do it.

    So again, all the details matter. This is why lawyers say they want those details before offering a legal opinion on the matter. If Steve is really good, he would agree with that.


    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    It was the bank that made the irreversible error, so it will be the bank that will be liable for the misplaced funds. Therefore the bank will replace the funds which will circumvent any lawsuit, very similar to CC fraud.
    Again, you are assuming things we do not yet know. How do you know that it was the bank that made the error? We have no facts from which to determine that.

    Will the true owner have gotten recourse from the bank and thus not have any reason to go after the funds that were deposited? Of course that's one possibility; but it is not the only one.

    My answer simply accounted for the possibility that the true owner might be able to sue for the money since we don't have all the facts to determine otherwise. Steve would do the same thing, assuming he's good at what he does. Taking into account all the possibilities is the only smart way to practice because then you don't get an unpleasant surprise later on; instead, you are prepared for it.


    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I cannot respond to all of your points but I would like to see you argue them with Steve.
    None of the points Steve made in his video contradict what I've said here. Nor has Steve come here to comment, so I have nothing to argue with Steve.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    PS. I have asked many times if lawyers are ever intimidated by other lawyers and I never got a response. So I will not ask if you'd like to square off with this guy in a courtroom because I'd probably get an evasive response.
    I'd happily square off with Steve in a courtroom. I'd have no problem taking him or any other attorney on as opposing counsel.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    499

    Default Re: Banking

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    You are not taking into account all the possibilities. The true owner of the funds could be the one, for example, who made the mistake the resulted in the erroneous deposit. Seeing his/her mistake, saying in writing down the right account number, he or she may well know the account to which the funds were deposited. Even if he or she didn't know that, a subpoena to the bank would solve that problem he or she doesn't have to rely on the bank to voluntarily provide it.
    A person can never know all the possibilities of a given situation. But your examples of what may have happened do not hold any weight. If I incorrectly wrote down the wrong acct # and deposited funds into another person's acct, I doubt if those funds are legally retrievable. When that is done through Zelle, which is accomplished through the banking system, kiss those funds good-by. If I wrote a check to John Smith, and the wrong John Smith cashed it, kiss those funds good-by. If I put a $100 bill in the wrong person's pocket and discovered it a week later, kiss that money good-by. Also, it is unlikely that a bank would be forced to supply personal information on a person when you legally gave them money. Example: I have walked up to a teller in the past and told them to "put money in this acct, and handed them an account #. They did it...and I highly doubt it is reversible later...not even through the court system.

    Let me give you one example that I have seen more than once. The IRS erroneously issues a refund that is direct deposited in a taxpayers bank account. The IRS doesn't realize the error in 30 or 90 days. Instead, it takes around a year for the IRS to get around to realizing the mistake and going after the money. The IRS knows exactly where the money went. Is it too late for the IRS to get the money back? Nope, because federal law gives the IRS at least two years to do it.
    This is a poor example because the IRS has more power than God. No comparison!

    So again, all the details matter. This is why lawyers say they want those details before offering a legal opinion on the matter. If Steve is really good, he would agree with that.
    True, details do matter. But what is also effective is bluffing people with bad examples like you are doing to me. Lawyers do it all the time to other lawyers just to see what they know about the law. And they really do it to non-lawyers...just like contractors do it to naive homeowners.

    Again, you are assuming things we do not yet know. How do you know that it was the bank that made the error? We have no facts from which to determine that.
    This was either an error by the bank or it was intensionally done by a person writing down the wrong acct #. Either way, if it was a bank error, it would have 30-90 days to be caught. If it was deposited by an individual that wrote down the wrong acct #, it would likely be unretrievable like when it happens with Zelle.

    Will the true owner have gotten recourse from the bank and thus not have any reason to go after the funds that were deposited? Of course that's one possibility; but it is not the only one.
    Casting doubt by offering fictitious scenarios is a lawyer's best friend. But your scenario seems unlikely.

    My answer simply accounted for the possibility that the true owner might be able to sue for the money since we don't have all the facts to determine otherwise. Steve would do the same thing, assuming he's good at what he does. Taking into account all the possibilities is the only smart way to practice because then you don't get an unpleasant surprise later on; instead, you are prepared for it.
    True, it is always best to be prepared for the worst case scenario. But it is also best to weigh that possibility, which in this case is nearly zero.

    None of the points Steve made in his video contradict what I've said here. Nor has Steve come here to comment, so I have nothing to argue with Steve.

    I'd happily square off with Steve in a courtroom. I'd have no problem taking him or any other attorney on as opposing counsel.
    This leads to my last point. You say you'd square off with any attorney. Well, no professional in his right mind would say he is as good as anyone in his field, but that is what you are saying.

    A big problem with what you are saying comes from a massive ego, or you are so good at manipulating people that you believe what you are saying. But the dose of reality is that any professional can listen to another person in their field speak and tell whether he is superior or inferior to them. I can do it and so can any honest professional. But lawyers cannot admit that they are intimidated by other lawyers. They will also never admit that they were outmatched or out debated. Furthermore, lawyers are not the real losers in a case. Their client is...big difference. So if I can bust your argument, you better not ever square off with a Steve.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,031

    Default Re: Banking

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    . They did it...and I highly doubt it is reversible later...not even through the court system.
    Well, the doubts of a contractor with little knowledge of the law isn't going to be very persuasive to me. You are making guesses based on few facts and no knowledge of the relevant state law — hell, we don't even know which state it is. If an opposing attorney made conclusions based on almost no information, as you have done here, I'd say he was a terrible lawyer.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    This is a poor example because the IRS has more power than God. No comparison!
    Ah, of course, you'd dismiss the example that proves my point because it doesn't fit what you want the answer to be. We don't know where the deposit came from. Might it be the IRS? It's certainly possible. Might it be from someone else? That too is possible. My whole point here has been that we don't have enough information to know what the situation is and what law applies. And in some circumstances, like with the IRS, that money might well be recoverable after 30 or 90 days.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    True, details do matter.
    There you go. You've just acknowledged the point I made. So why the bashing from you? Oh, I know, it's because you hate all lawyers and therefore hate me, and thus feel the need to try to bash me at every opportunity. Right?

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    And they really do it to non-lawyers...just like contractors do it to naive homeowners.
    I'm well aware that some contractors are crooks or are incompetent. I've had to deal with a few of them for clients. Are you saying all contractors are crooks? Are you one of them? I hope not, but it wouldn't totally surprise me if you were.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    This was either an error by the bank or it was intensionally done by a person writing down the wrong acct #. Either way, if it was a bank error, it would have 30-90 days to be caught. If it was deposited by an individual that wrote down the wrong acct #, it would likely be unretrievable like when it happens with Zelle.
    Again, more assumptions based on no facts. We don't know where the deposit came from, whose error it was, or what law applies. In short, we know nothing other than a deposit that the account owner didn't recognize hit the account. And depending on the details, in some of those situations the true owner will be able to get it back even after 90 days.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Casting doubt by offering fictitious scenarios is a lawyer's best friend. But your scenario seems unlikely.
    Unlikely, perhaps, but even unlikely situations do sometimes occur. I've seen my share of those in over 20 years of practice. You want to discount those because they don't fit the answer you want — which apparently is that the account owner can keep money after 90 days that may not be hers no matter what the situation is. But the situation does matter very much.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    True, it is always best to be prepared for the worst case scenario.
    Again, an acknowledgment of the point I'm making. The account owner here has to prepare for what might happen. And that is essentially what my answer was about. Reread it. I said that it may be the case that true owner could successfully get the money back later. And in some situations that's true, which you have acknowledged. Now if we get more facts we can narrow down that range of what might happen. But as things stand, we don't have much to work with.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    This leads to my last point. You say you'd square off with any attorney. Well, no professional in his right mind would say he is as good as anyone in his field, but that is what you are saying.
    Another example of faulty logic. The conclusion you've reached is wrong. Not being afraid to take on someone else is not the same thing as saying I think I'm the best lawyer out there. I'm not saying I'm the best lawyer out there. Indeed, I know I'm not, though I do a good job for my clients. Just as I'm guessing you'd say you aren't the best contractor in the business, but that you do a good job (or at least I hope you do) for your customers. What I am saying is that I'm not afraid to take on any case just because the opposing lawyer might in some respects be better than I am. You are a bicyclist, right? Do you participate in bike races? If so, are you afraid to race because someone better than you is in the race? Do you stay out of the race for fear you won't win? If so, then you aren't much of a competitor, Harold. Lawyers who do trials tend to be competitors; they aren't afraid of going up against someone who might better. Instead, they relish the challenge of it. And if they can win against that lawyer, that's a great feeling indeed, just like you likely feel when you beat someone in a race who is generally regarded as faster than you are.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    So if I can bust your argument, you better not ever square off with a Steve.
    Lol, you certainly didn't bust my argument. You helped me make it, for which I thank you. As for going against Steve, I have no idea how good he is in trial, and neither do you if you are relying just on his entertaining videos. He is certainly knowledgeable, but that's not all it takes to be good at trial. If you are persuaded he's good at trial just because you like the videos he puts out — which are, of course, made to show him in the best light — then you are easily buffaloed. Those videos don't show anything about how good he is in conducting a trial. Is he better at it than I am? I have no idea. But I can say for sure I'd not be afraid to go up against him no matter how good he is. And if he's really good, that's a challenge I'd love to take on.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    499

    Default Re: Banking

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Well, the doubts of a contractor with little knowledge of the law isn't going to be very persuasive to me. You are making guesses based on few facts and no knowledge of the relevant state law — hell, we don't even know which state it is. If an opposing attorney made conclusions based on almost no information, as you have done here, I'd say he was a terrible lawyer.

    Ah, of course, you'd dismiss the example that proves my point because it doesn't fit what you want the answer to be. We don't know where the deposit came from. Might it be the IRS? It's certainly possible. Might it be from someone else? That too is possible. My whole point here has been that we don't have enough information to know what the situation is and what law applies. And in some circumstances, like with the IRS, that money might well be recoverable after 30 or 90 days.

    There you go. You've just acknowledged the point I made. So why the bashing from you? Oh, I know, it's because you hate all lawyers and therefore hate me, and thus feel the need to try to bash me at every opportunity. Right?

    I'm well aware that some contractors are crooks or are incompetent. I've had to deal with a few of them for clients. Are you saying all contractors are crooks? Are you one of them? I hope not, but it wouldn't totally surprise me if you were.

    Again, more assumptions based on no facts. We don't know where the deposit came from, whose error it was, or what law applies. In short, we know nothing other than a deposit that the account owner didn't recognize hit the account. And depending on the details, in some of those situations the true owner will be able to get it back even after 90 days.

    Unlikely, perhaps, but even unlikely situations do sometimes occur. I've seen my share of those in over 20 years of practice. You want to discount those because they don't fit the answer you want — which apparently is that the account owner can keep money after 90 days that may not be hers no matter what the situation is. But the situation does matter very much.

    Again, an acknowledgment of the point I'm making. The account owner here has to prepare for what might happen. And that is essentially what my answer was about. Reread it. I said that it may be the case that true owner could successfully get the money back later. And in some situations that's true, which you have acknowledged. Now if we get more facts we can narrow down that range of what might happen. But as things stand, we don't have much to work with.

    Another example of faulty logic. The conclusion you've reached is wrong. Not being afraid to take on someone else is not the same thing as saying I think I'm the best lawyer out there. I'm not saying I'm the best lawyer out there. Indeed, I know I'm not, though I do a good job for my clients. Just as I'm guessing you'd say you aren't the best contractor in the business, but that you do a good job (or at least I hope you do) for your customers. What I am saying is that I'm not afraid to take on any case just because the opposing lawyer might in some respects be better than I am. You are a bicyclist, right? Do you participate in bike races? If so, are you afraid to race because someone better than you is in the race? Do you stay out of the race for fear you won't win? If so, then you aren't much of a competitor, Harold. Lawyers who do trials tend to be competitors; they aren't afraid of going up against someone who might better. Instead, they relish the challenge of it. And if they can win against that lawyer, that's a great feeling indeed, just like you likely feel when you beat someone in a race who is generally regarded as faster than you are.

    Lol, you certainly didn't bust my argument. You helped me make it, for which I thank you. As for going against Steve, I have no idea how good he is in trial, and neither do you if you are relying just on his entertaining videos. He is certainly knowledgeable, but that's not all it takes to be good at trial. If you are persuaded he's good at trial just because you like the videos he puts out — which are, of course, made to show him in the best light — then you are easily buffaloed. Those videos don't show anything about how good he is in conducting a trial. Is he better at it than I am? I have no idea. But I can say for sure I'd not be afraid to go up against him no matter how good he is. And if he's really good, that's a challenge I'd love to take on.
    I notice that you conveniently skipped over the established, one-way protocols of Zelle which probably extend to accidentally writing down the wrong acct #.

    During my deposition I was questioned for five hours. Only two to three quotes from that deposition were used during the trial. So I know how lawyers use exonerating or substantiating evidence. They throw it out. Also, if you think I do not like you, you are mistaken. I just take note and emphasize how lawyers employ their craft of misdirection, misleading, confusing, casting doubt, discrediting, concealing, etc. A successful lawyer would be far less effective if he did not use those underhanded tools.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    19,776

    Default Re: Banking

    Beleive me TM is right, and God help her if it was the government that deposited the money in the wrong account (or in an erroneous amount). My brother got pretty screwed by such an IRS deposit even though he never touched the overpayment.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    499

    Default Re: Banking

    Quote Quoting flyingron
    View Post
    Believe me TM is right, and God help her if it was the government that deposited the money in the wrong account (or in an erroneous amount). My brother got pretty screwed by such an IRS deposit even though he never touched the overpayment.
    Did he know where it came from and waited for them to ask for it back? Bad move IMO.

    The IRS is worse than a Mexican Cartel, which is why I take zero chances with them...and why I've never been audited. I also know very well that a bank can debit your account 18 months after the fact using the flimsy excuse of "improper endorsement." Because it just happened to me. I also know that my bank and the other bank colluded with each other to make that debit...getting into my business that they had NO authority to get into.

    As for the case Steve handled, it happened in PA many years ago, so there were no repercussions. That bank lost $12K due to accidentally depositing it into the wrong acct. No lawyer can cast doubt on that!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,031

    Default Re: Banking

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I notice that you conveniently skipped over the established, one-way protocols of Zelle which probably extend to accidentally writing down the wrong acct #.
    Zelle is a service to which you agree to certain terms by contract. That the contract provides limitations only tells you what the result would be dealing with Zelle. Nothing in the OP says that Zelle was involved, so those contractual limitations don't appear to be involved. So that's why I skipped it.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Also, if you think I do not like you, you are mistaken.
    I thank you for that.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    As for the case Steve handled, it happened in PA many years ago, so there were no repercussions. That bank lost $12K due to accidentally depositing it into the wrong acct. No lawyer can cast doubt on that!
    No, Harold, it was not PA, it was Michigan, as I said earlier. That's the state in which he practices and if you view the video starting at 6:35 where he starts talking about the client with the extra money in the account, you will hear he does not mention PA at all. Instead, he specifically mentions the Michigan court opinions on which he relied in aiding his client. You are correct that he stated the bank caved when it got the letter he sent outlining the Michigan law that favored his client. But note that the outcome turned on Michigan law, and the laws of other states may be different. That's why knowing the state law that applies matters. Also note that the specific situation was one in which the bank made the error. We don't know if the bank made the error here. If it wasn't a bank error, Article 4 of the UCC, which he also cited in his video in support of his client, would not apply. That's why knowing the details of how this credit came about matters.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    499

    Default Re: Banking

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Zelle is a service to which you agree to certain terms by contract. That the contract provides limitations only tells you what the result would be dealing with Zelle. Nothing in the OP says that Zelle was involved, so those contractual limitations don't appear to be involved. So that's why I skipped it.
    I would never expect you to not have a comeback because when a lawyer is left without one, what the other person or witness said, suddenly becomes a fact. It is partially how I lost my case. One small example: The witness made an outlandish comment and my lawyer did not contest it...so it became fact even though it was flat-out wrong. Like: How long does it take to stop a bike at 23mph? The witness said 40'. But that is not true when one takes into account all the other systems required to make the stop like seeing danger, recognizing it as danger, brain to hand response time, brake hand to caliper response time, and then the physical braking ability of the bike. Then how high the bike sits off the ground and the danger of applying the brakes too hard and flying over the bars. With all that it takes 100'. My point: A lawyer knows that he should say anything back incase the jury wants any reason to believe him. It is probably taught in debating 101. Whereas the other lawyer was very quick at responding with anything like: How do you know the traffic was traveling 70mph? I said "because traffic can travel 70 in a 60 zone without danger of getting cited. Because I travel that road as a motorist three times a week and I personally witness it." But will he let it be? NO, even though it is a verifiable fact. He quickly responds: "Did you ever report it to the police?" So as flimsy as a response that was, he was not going let me get the last word and establish any facts to the jury. Not one! Sound familiar as a good lawyering tact, TM? Sound familiar to what you instinctively do here? Lawyers probably call it "just throw anything back tact" because juries are probably too stupid to tell the difference.

    Zelle, is run through a federally controlled system. All systems have "terms" so that is a flimsy response. Also, Steve did it with his client and I have done it with tellers. Another lawyering accomplishment is to tell a person who just learned that fire is hot, that fire is not really hot.

    Tell you what TM, why don't you transfer $50 into my account, claim it was a mistake, then try to get it back through your legal abilities. Good luck!

    I thank you for that.
    TM, don't get me wrong, I like you and you are probably a great lawyer and have a very upstanding reputation. Too bad you do not give me the same. But since I've seen lawyering tactics, I cannot help but see you employ those methods here. But why not? They work on most people!

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Banking: Who to Repay After a Banking Error
    By steviekm3 in forum Personal Finance And Investment Law
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12-23-2016, 09:26 AM
  2. Debt Collectors: Banking Ombudsman's Duties
    By potugadu4all in forum Debts and Collections
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-12-2013, 09:55 PM
  3. International Law Issues: International Banking Regulation
    By lawstudent2013 in forum International Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-26-2011, 01:02 AM
  4. Background Checks: Can I Get a Job in Banking
    By 1203.4 in forum Employment and Labor
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-13-2009, 05:48 PM
  5. Banking: Banking Rights
    By daddysbaby in forum Personal Finance And Investment Law
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-13-2006, 05:16 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources