 |
Deposit is made at an ATM. What is procedure? Deposit is in bank ATM what happens next? Who opens deposits and is it done in a room with camera(s) or do more than one person open deposits?
>Threads have been merged to keep all information regarding this subject in one place.<
I'm sure the procedure varies - in my area my bank (and I can't address other banks) has two employees open the machine, the "money" box is removed and taken into a back room, the contents are inventoried by two employees and there are cameras.
My knowledge echoes Judy's. However, I would not recommend making deposits into a "foreign" ATM. Withdrawals are OK
Thanks for answers. I am just trying to figure if the deposits are under camera and if so would the cameras show what was in the deposit envelope when opened. If a customers says they made a cash deposit would it show amount on camera? Amount being counted? Would camera show if it was an empty envelope or what was in envelope?
A camera would record what it was pointed at - an empty envelope, something else.
I'm curious, why do you ask?
A person was charged with making a deposit and was prosecuted without that video. The prosecutor did have a video of person at atm.NO video of what was in envelope or if it was a blank envelope or if cash. Envelope was disposed of by bank and person was convicted of fraud without that video of who opened envelope or envelope being opened. No testifying by any bank employee that they opened that envelope or of what was in envelope.. I was thinking if envelope was accepted at atm and then someone had to open that envelope(was a very thick envelope) I would think that deposit being opened would be the video that should have been shown. Instead a video of person at atm which showed nothing but his face. That video at atm convicted person. A video that showed nothing but person standing at atm pushing buttons getting receipt.
Someone was found guilty of making an ATM deposit, no more, no less, no other explanation?
That makes no sense to me.
Thank you for explaining. What is your relationship to this person. Was this person represented by counsel?
To convict someone of bank fraud, without a) the testimony of the bank employees (both of them) or b) video evidence of opening the envelope doesn't make sense. I can't believe a prosecutor would prosecute such a case nor a judge or jury convict.
So I suspect there is more to this story then you are telling us or are being told.
What? I have no idea what you said - there are ATMs for deposits only?
Where is this and what bank? I have never heard of an ATM specifically for deposits. I do know that many banks have night deposit slots for customers, but generally these date back to the days before ATMs and do not credit your account until the deposits are processed, under similar procedures.Quote:
Originally Posted by tassha
But I still think there is more to this story. I still have a great deal of doubt that someone would be convicted of bank fraud, without much greater proof.
Here is what I saw at this trial. This was a Jury trial.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Two banks were involved Bank A&B. Deposit was made at bank A and Bank B said they did not get the deposit. Neither of the banks prosecuted. The State's Atty prosecuted the case, the victim is bank B. States atty subpoenas 2 witnesses. One witness was from bank A and he was an executive from bank A. This executive said that this was brought to his attention. Then the executive was shown the video of person making deposit at ATM. Executive basically confirmed that person was making deposit at his atm. I am not sure why the executive testified instead of the actual person or persons who handled deposit and why no video of deposit envelope or of envelope being opened in front of camera or witnesses who actually handled deposit.
Next witness subpoena was of a police officer of where bank A is located. Police officer also viewed video of the person making deposit and confirmed this was the video. Police officer said he was dispatched to bank A. Police officer did not say that he viewed a video or that he spoke to witnesses who opened the envelope.Justthe video at atm. Again person shown at atm and only thing showing at atm video was persons face. Persons face was not covered no sunglasses no baseball cap nothing. Just a clear picture of persons face. The person at atm is not shown making the deposit. That part was not visible on video. The persons face and the persons hand pushing keys on keypad and you can see where person reaches into his back pocket at least that is what it looks like. The person completes transaction and gets his receipt and comes back immediately because forgot his card and removes card.
This video was the main piece of evidence that states atty used.
Next witness was a bank employee from bank B. Basically what employee from bank B explained was transactions he made(purchases) and I believe said he withdrew $300.00 cash. Next witness was from police officer arresting officer who is from where bank B is located. Officer says he investigated case and he also said that when he called bank to check on defendants account they bank B said he still had a positive balance of around $800.00 (I think that is amount not exact but was $800.00 plus)
I am not sure why the defendant was convicted. What I basically saw on the video that was shown was a person at ATM. The video does not show the person making or not making deposit because that part was not visible on video(when the states atty went to play video he could not. States atty had to go out into the hall and get the arresting police officer to play the video because the computer being used was the police officers personal computer. He was only one who knew how to play video. (USELESS VIDEO)
So video does not show if deposit was or was not made. No witnesses opening envelope no video showing empty envelope.. The public defender did ask(bank executive)where envelope was and I believe bank Executive said it was disposed of. So when I hear that testimony from bank A executive it is obvious that a deposit was made. Just no proof of what was in envelope or if empty envelope because no witnesses opening and no video. If envelope was disposed of then someth was in atm Bin.
I really do not know word for word what happened at trial. I am thinking they are saying no deposit was made and I am thinking that is reason person at atm is shown only in a close up so that person CAN NOT be seen making deposit. Video shows where person made movement to get deposit from back pocket and bend to insert into atm. What is really strange is that a jury of 12 convicted without a reasonable doubt. Something not right. I even saw the arresting police officer come out of where the jurors were deliberating.
The way I see it now is if anyone makes a deposit at atm and deposit is lost or misplaced or even taken. Then that person should be found guilty and convicted.
And you were at the entire trial from start to finish? Even a barely competent legal aid attorney should have been able to get this defendant off based on what you have said.
You still haven't answered why or how you are involved.
I'm an investigator - something is missing from this scenario which, incidentally, contains a lot of speculation.
Something isn't reading right to me.
Yes. Looked like a set up to me. That is why I am seeking information on how a atm deposit is handled. I just can not see what jurors saw that I did not see at trial. Jurors even asked to see video again before finding defendant guilty. Later a motion for a new trial was filed and Judge denied and I believe he said 12 jurors found him guilty motion denied (not sure on his exact words on his comment) either way denied
You have to be coming from one side or the other - what is your interest in this?
Just keep thinking about how this can happen. How someone can be found guilty this way. How person was denied new trial.
As long as you keep asking questions instead of answering them you will never know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JudyKayTee
Answer what?
For starters - "You still haven't answered why or how you are involved."
What does it matter who I am? Will that give me better answers?
It might. If we understand your interest in this, it could affect our advice.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggys123
I do not see that you need to know who I am or my interest. This is what happened and I just want to know if that or what is procedure for atm deposits. Is it done under camera or employee(s) verifying each other. What happens to the deposit after it has been deposited.
Your questions have been answered and answered and answered in general, not with specificity because we don't know where you are or which bank you are asking about - information which you don't want to share.
At this point if you want very specific, targeted info, you need to consult with an Attorney and share.
I know the procedure at Bank of America very specifically. After that it's just conjecture that all banks operate in the same fashion.
Your level of irritation makes me believe the whole story isn't being posted here, and that includes prior arrests, convictions, legal problems.
I think it's time to close this adventure.
As Judy said, your questions were answered about bank procedure. If you don't want to explain your part in this you don't have to, but it limits how we can help any further.
The case as you described it doesn't make sense. Any decent lawyer should have been able to get this dismissed for lack of evidence. Or at least gotten a not guilty for reasonable doubt. Bottom line is we find it hard to believe your story and your being secretive about your part in it increases our suspicions.
I know it is hard to believe. It is still hard for me to believe.
I also could not believe this case was prosecuted. Conviction was on circumstantial evidenceQuote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Here is a Link to a story. I have posted in the comments under ( finally ) not the jewellery story
Jewelry store owner disappointed by burglar's sentence | Paxton Record
First, I'm so sorry for your loss. I think I understand how frustrating and saddening this all must be for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggys123
However, as has been said before, all we are hearing is your side of this. And it makes no sense that a jury convicted him on such evidence. Without seeing a transcript of the trial we have only your side of it. I can't fathom how his defense attorney failed to get his dismissed based on what you have said.
But I'm also not sure what else you want from us. We have agreed with you that a conviction based on what you have told us makes no sense. I would advise to appeal, but apparently it is too late for that.
I hope your suit succeeds though I'm sure that will be small comfort.
Thanks. I do have transcripts now and that is some of what is in transcripts. The judge does say that the jury agreed that enough circumstantial evidence was produced to jury for them to find him guilty and denied post trial motion.I thank you for your answer all who answered.
Our criminal justice system is based on innocent until proven guilty. That also means a person has to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence should not be enough unless it leads to no doubt. I know, had I been on a jury and no evidence was presented to prove the envelope was empty, which is what you are telling us, I would never have voted to convict. Had I been the defense attorney, I would have hammered home the reasonable doubt doctrine and I would have kept asking why no direct evidence was presented to prove the envelope was empty.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggys123
But that doesn't help you any at this point. In fact, it may make you feel worse. And I apologize for that. I really don't know what more to say to you. The only thing I can think for you to do at this point is to go to the media. Try to get an investigation as to why the prosecutor chose to prosecute such a flimsy case, why the defense attorney didn't mount a better defense, how a jury could convict on such flimsy evidence and whether your son's death is linked somehow to this apparent miscarriage of justice.
Maybe that will help you get the closure you seem to need.
Without seeing a transcript of the trial we have only your side of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
Here is some of what is in transcripts. I appreciate that you have answered all questions. No envelope. No witnesses to empty envelope
Sending 1 more attachment was only able to upload 5 max
Here is one more pageQuote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
I'm in shock. It certainly looks like the defense attorney made the right arguments. My one question is whether these arguments were made in front of a jury and what instructions were given to the jury in terms of reasonable doubt.
But again, this really doesn't help you does it? Does it make you feel better that someone else is shocked at the judge's actions or the jury's verdict? If so then I hope I have made you feel better.
But there is no point in an appeal, and it has no bearing on the wrongful death suit,
I'm in shock. It certainly looks like the defense attorney made the right arguments. My one question is whether these arguments were made in front of a jury and what instructions were given to the jury in terms of reasonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
But again, this really doesn't help you does it? Does it make you feel better that someone else is shocked at the judge's actions or the jury's verdict? No it does not. I could feel something not right at trial. The judge is resident where trial was done. Small town and I am sure everyone knows him. I know the judge knew not enough evidence. The jurors were also from same town or next town. He had no chance I think. I just wonder why the PD did not object to the hearsay or why the PD did not demand that witnesses who opened envelope be subpoena. He mentions this stuff in his closing statements.
What would make me feel better is if this never happened and my son was still here.
Here are the jury instructions
3 more pages to follow
Rest of pagesQuote:
Originally Posted by ScottGem
First I have stayed out of this conversation to this point, I have to say that, most of the reason is that some things are believed or taken as fact. Only your bank knows its procedures, but in general, depending if it is at a bank or not at bank, but at a bank, two employees normally go into the machine and take the items back into the secure area of bank, ( and fill machine with cash) At other locations, this is done by armed security, normally only one employee is working with the cash, and the other is watching for security.
There is a trust factor within the banks, and most people find it more believable that someone will lie about making a deposit at a ATM ( this is a common thing to happen) Than someone would pick that one deposit to steal money from, and not any others.
The facts would lead to a conviction, in my mind, with a jury. ** that was their choice of a jury or judge trial.
They prove that a deposit was recorded by using the defendants PIN used at machine, to show he was the one that logged on, and by use of the camera showing their face at machine. The log in information shows what was done at machine.
The banks records showing that no money was found is taken as proof or truth. Most juries are going to accept this, because of standard business practice.
The defense attorney could have (if they did not) the person who got money from machine, the clerk who opened it, all on the stand to question them. They could have questioned or gotten bank records of other missing money, or also, bank records of these people to see if there was any money transfers that matched. Or if deposits where made same day of exact amount to another account by error.
* I do not know what defense attorney did or did not do, but all of this takes money and I am not sure, how much money was available for defense.
Next, if he made the deposit, he could have shown a history of making the same type of deposits. Did he make regular deposits in cash at a ATM, if so, was it about the same amount every week ?
But in general, it all comes down to belief, they jury did not believe this person made the deposiit, They may also look at age, jobs, character , any prior crimes and more when looking at this.
I know that would, but its not going to happen. Nothing anyone says or does will do that. I feel for you and your loss. But rehashing the failures of the judicial system in your son's case is not going to do you any good. You might want to consider bereavement counseling to help you deal with your loss.Quote:
Originally Posted by peggys123
In looking over the transcripts, it appears that the defense attorney didn't make a rebuttal case, but simply relied on the lack of hard evidence to sway the judge and/or jury. If that's the case, I think that was a mistake. He should have subpoenaed the bank records and employees. As Chuck said, a jury would probably be predisposed to believe a bank, even without proof. If the bank testified that their tally was short the amount of your son's deposit, the jury would be likely to believe it without evidence to the contrary.
I have been in dozens of trials, and I have testified in courts. The thing with trials, is that often a jury will assume the person is guilty because police arrested them. Also some things are also accepted as fact. People want to believe and want to trust institutions, A example, as a police officer when I testify what I say, normally holds more value.
FrChuck hit that nail right on the head. I have had witnesses to accidents change their eye witness statements when they find out that the Police reported something to the contrary. Yes, the "average citizen" perceives the Police to be truthful than the public in the cases I investigate.
I am fequently on AMHD stating that the Police are after the fact witnesses and not the authority on how the accident happened.
Small matter concerned to this but I testified in a case where a loose dog ran into the road and was the cause of a serious auto accident. The dog owner's insurance paid part of the settlement.
The problem? That homeowner's dog was deceased at the time of the accident, the owner had proof, all testimony was that the people did not own a dog - the dog involved was a stray. My investigation and surveillance showed no dog.
The Judge didn't believe the evidence.
After the trial my son was found guilty. I feel this was a conspiracy. I did tell my son before trial that maybe we should hire attorney instead of the public defender. My son said the public defender told him this is a BULLxxxt case do not worry about it.
This PD could have done the right thing for my son. I think he ignored things that would have found my son not guilty
PD put on a good show in the motions and the closing statements yet does not ask that witnesses be produced,or a video or even a notarized statement.
The public defender,the prosecutor ,the judge, and the bank vice president, I believe new that a envelope was deposited and they new it was not empty. The envelope was not empty.
The cash deposit was a large amount and if it was a blank envelope the ATM I think would have rejected deposit because it would not be thick enough.
Someone else did this crime and it was not my son.
I know the bank is lying about the deposit. I have been told that deposit was made and the bank did not receive a empty envelope.
I honestly think that this lead to the death of my son at the jail.
His death stops appeal and his death stops truth about this case. Is what they thought
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:39 PM. |