Slashdot Mirror
Wells Fargo Sued By 63-Year-Old Pastor They Wrongfully Accused of Forging Checks (nj.com)
Wells Fargo has been hit with a lawsuit from a 63-year-old pastor at the United Methodist Church of Parsippany. Wells Fargo sent his ATM photos to the police, which he says led to false arrest, malicious prosecution -- and humiliation. NJ.com reports:
In the lawsuit filed Thursday in Morris County Superior Court, attorneys for the 63-year-old pastor sought unspecified damages against Wells Fargo, which has come under fire over a series of scandals in recent years. Also named were the State Police detectives who originally brought the charges against him last year after bank security officials allegedly mistakenly identified a photo of Edwards taken at an ATM machine as a suspect in a series of fraudulent check deposits....
In the lawsuit, Edwards' attorney wrote that Wells Fargo notified the State Police when it discovered the bogus transactions, and the bank was asked to provide any still photos or video images taken from the ATM at Parsippany where some of the checks were deposited and later cashed out. The bank sent photos of Edwards, who had made his own deposit of checks at the same ATM the very same day, according to the complaint...
The pastor said he first discovered he was the focus of a criminal investigation last year after a parishioner texted him a State Police Facebook posting requesting the public's help identifying a man suspected of depositing fraudulent checks at an ATM... In an interview, Edwards said after seeing the post, he called the detectives and shared a copy of his banking transactions to show he had not deposited the fraudulent checks. "I thought it would clear things up," he said. "They said all their information was from Wells Fargo..." Last September, Edwards said he was asked to come down to the State Police station in Holmdel. After he got there, he said he was shocked to find out he was being arrested and charged with third degree forgery. When he protested and said somebody made an error, he said one of the investigators asked him if the case did go to trial, who would the jury believe -- a bank security expert or him?
"They fingerprinted me. Took my mug shot and gave me a court date," he said.
The case fell apart, but the 63-year-old pastor says he never received an apology from the police, or from Wells Fargo. "The carelessness of both Wells Fargo and the State Police is kind of appalling, and I wonder what happens to somebody who might not have the resources to defend themselves," the pastor told NJ.com. "I told them yes that was my picture and yes I was in the bank that day. That's all they needed to arrest me."
A spokesman for Wells Fargo told the reporter they'd be unable to comment "since this is a pending legal matter." But the story was submitted to Slashdot by someone claiming to be pastor Jeff Edwards. "Wells Fargo carelessly provided ATM pictures [of] me to the state police in a fraudulent check investigation that led to my arrest," reads the original submission.
"The case was dismissed when it was demonstrated that Wells Fargo had been grossly irresponsible."
In the lawsuit, Edwards' attorney wrote that Wells Fargo notified the State Police when it discovered the bogus transactions, and the bank was asked to provide any still photos or video images taken from the ATM at Parsippany where some of the checks were deposited and later cashed out. The bank sent photos of Edwards, who had made his own deposit of checks at the same ATM the very same day, according to the complaint...
The pastor said he first discovered he was the focus of a criminal investigation last year after a parishioner texted him a State Police Facebook posting requesting the public's help identifying a man suspected of depositing fraudulent checks at an ATM... In an interview, Edwards said after seeing the post, he called the detectives and shared a copy of his banking transactions to show he had not deposited the fraudulent checks. "I thought it would clear things up," he said. "They said all their information was from Wells Fargo..." Last September, Edwards said he was asked to come down to the State Police station in Holmdel. After he got there, he said he was shocked to find out he was being arrested and charged with third degree forgery. When he protested and said somebody made an error, he said one of the investigators asked him if the case did go to trial, who would the jury believe -- a bank security expert or him?
"They fingerprinted me. Took my mug shot and gave me a court date," he said.
The case fell apart, but the 63-year-old pastor says he never received an apology from the police, or from Wells Fargo. "The carelessness of both Wells Fargo and the State Police is kind of appalling, and I wonder what happens to somebody who might not have the resources to defend themselves," the pastor told NJ.com. "I told them yes that was my picture and yes I was in the bank that day. That's all they needed to arrest me."
A spokesman for Wells Fargo told the reporter they'd be unable to comment "since this is a pending legal matter." But the story was submitted to Slashdot by someone claiming to be pastor Jeff Edwards. "Wells Fargo carelessly provided ATM pictures [of] me to the state police in a fraudulent check investigation that led to my arrest," reads the original submission.
"The case was dismissed when it was demonstrated that Wells Fargo had been grossly irresponsible."
It's the 'Guilty until proven innocent' game again.
Ok, Wells Fargo made an error.
But it was the police who arrested the guy, instead of just knocking on the door at an appropriate time, and asking some questions.
What on earth was their justification for making an arrest first? Was he considered a flight risk?
The guy's first mistake was thinking he could somehow talk to the police himself and "clear things up". You will never, ever succeed at that. Always consult a lawyer first, and always have your lawyer talk to the police on your behalf. And I haven't seen a link to James Duane's famous Don't Talk to the Police video in a while, which explains why this is the case a lot better than I could in a couple of paragraphs.
Because wells fargo provided wrong pictures and the police just went on with it with the premise that he should confess EVEN IF HE WAS INNOCENT because if it went to court he would be railroaded anyways and would get higher charges. he didn't do it but they were so ready to assume that it was him that they probably went more than a little bit too far with just trying to get him to confess.
it's worth suing both the police and wells fargo really, since it's in the usa. that it's in the usa is also why it can cause personal loss worth suing over as well as .. well, that's just what you gotta do in usa.
it's pinpointing a thing that is majorly wrong with the usa legal system at the moment and as such well worth suing for. It is the system trying to coerce you to give up your right for a fair trial(by pleading guilt on whatever they randomly choose as the crime that time) by pressuring on the fear that you will not receive a fair trial.
"you better plead guilty because otherwise you'll be convicted on stuff you didn't do anyways".
a lot of why that system got into the place at is today is the notion that "it only happens to people who deserve it" or that they did something anyways, so who cares, just convict them of something. it's barbaric and stupid. but somehow americans keep voting in people who base their campaigns on just doubling down on the stupidity.
---
and it is mugshot not a comparison photo, that it was him in the photo was never contested. it's not for that purpose. the mugshot and publishing them (before trial) is for shaming purposes, which again seems like a good idea as long as it never happens to you.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
It seems like they choose not to investigate the pastor's version of events. This is very different than choosing to believe one or the other
this is quite common. just assume guilty and try to coerce a guilty plea - and they even went as far as to imply that he would not receive a fair trial so he would be better off just confessing.
that makes it a lot easier for police and usually works with the people they mainly deal with which is drug addicts coming down. it doesn't get the right crime allocated to the right perp of course, but it's not like that shows up in the statistics anyways. and once you've confessed in the hearing, well, good luck trying to turn that over in the actual trial because that ain't happening, even if you have proof that you didn't do it.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Sadly some bank employees often do not even attempt to analyse anything. They spend the smallest amount of time/effort to finish the task, for example forward some data without validating it.
There are numerous cases where banks freeze people's account for debt recovery, while the original order was on a different person with the same name. You would think this should never happen as there is (on order and in accoint) a lot of additional information that should match in order to validate the order, such as birthdate, official address, ID, yet time and time again bank employees just click on the first account that comes up in "search for first name last name" field in their system.
It takes months to correct such mistake (and get access to your money), as when you raise the problem the bank will go full "let's do it totally formally now like an insurance company" way with YOU having to convince the system it is their mistake.
If he has an account with Wells Fargo then one of the things he had to agree to was mandatory arbitration.
Ah, a non-lawyer posts how the law works. It's a valid point you raise, but it may not matter. I've got friends who are lawyers and I have learned a lot about how the law really works from them. I can assure you that it still may be possible to sue Wells Fargo even if the customer agreed to arbitration. The arbitration clause may not cover this kind of conduct. Also, even when people agree to clauses like this, it's still possible to argue that the customer was coerced into signing it. We'll see what happens in court.