[peggys123]

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.<

[JudyKayTee]

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.

[ScottGem]

My knowledge echoes Judy's. However, I would not recommend making deposits into a "foreign" ATM. Withdrawals are OK

[peggys123]

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?

[JudyKayTee]

A camera would record what it was pointed at - an empty envelope, something else.

[ScottGem]

I'm curious, why do you ask?

[peggys123]

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.

[JudyKayTee]

Someone was found guilty of making an ATM deposit, no more, no less, no other explanation?

That makes no sense to me.

[ScottGem]

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.

[JudyKayTee]

What? I have no idea what you said - there are ATMs for deposits only?

[ScottGem]

There are special atms for such purpose they are directly accepting money and credit to your account , anyone can deposit in your accunt without going to bank great deal of task indeed.

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.

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.

[peggys123]

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.

Here is what I saw at this trial. This was a Jury trial.


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.

[ScottGem]

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.

[JudyKayTee]

I'm an investigator - something is missing from this scenario which, incidentally, contains a lot of speculation.

Something isn't reading right to me.

[peggys123]

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

[JudyKayTee]

You have to be coming from one side or the other - what is your interest in this?

[peggys123]

Just keep thinking about how this can happen. How someone can be found guilty this way. How person was denied new trial.

[JudyKayTee]

As long as you keep asking questions instead of answering them you will never know.

[peggys123]

As long as you keep asking questions instead of answering them you will never know.

Answer what?

[JudyKayTee]

For starters - "You still haven't answered why or how you are involved."