Comments

• blimthepixie@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨23⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Would this actually work?

  Never considered how illiterate people use cheques

  source

  • tiramichu@sh.itjust.works ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    This particular cheque should work, if processed by a person.

    Cheques have two fields for the amount; numbers and written out. The numerical field is the most important and required part, while the written is to deter fraud, for example the bearer may attempt to alter £100 to £1000, or £300 to £800, and having the sum in writing makes this a lot harder.

    So as long as this cheque has $650 in the number field, it should be valid.

    source

    • VitoRobles@lemmy.today ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      I also assumed the number field was all that was needed.

      I had fraudulent checks used under my name. And it was only caught because the thief signed my name “perfectly”. Where I purposely sign with extra scribbles.

      After that experience, every check I wrote, I added something extra in the memo section only I would know. I could see someone being extra paranoid and using the “written” section as another test - like purposely misspelling words.

      source
  • blueworld@piefed.world ⁨22⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Probably depends on the bank and their internal rules, but by Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), no. This stackexchange is relevant but not exact. Enough to show the point though.

    source
• RiceMunk@sopuli.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Even the Loch Ness monster is not immune to inflation

  source
• Sarcasmo@piefed.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  Six fiddy? Shazam!

  source
• bleistift2@sopuli.xyz ⁨13⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Image

  source
• jaybone@lemmy.zip ⁨19⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  What’s the m for?

  source

  • LogicalDrivel@sopuli.xyz ⁨18⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    moneys

    source
  • ToastedRavioli@midwest.social ⁨17⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    Millin

    source
  • HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    mac daddy’s

    source