Talk:Check kiting

History

I'm surprised there isn't any mention of the Congressional scandal that broke out on this issue. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A side note

With the way our banking system works it's not fair to simply play the consumer off as a thief when it comes to things like check kiting. The banking system we have permits employers to post-date checks to employees (that banks typically won't cash until the date) yet if a consumer writes a post dated check not only are they told it's against the rules but also the bank will probably cash that check early regardless of the date because the banks maintain the date is irrelevant. I guess that date is only irrelevant when it's convenient for the banks. I personally have ran into a situation where I deposited a check at a bank (from another bank) and it cleared before I was given any of it. So who's the kiter in that regard? Some would say they banks. Woods01 (talk) 06:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC) If corporations have a credit facility with the bank that is associated with their bank accounts, can the account holder be liable for kiting if checks written exceed the limit of the credit facility. Basically can kiting be charged by the government if the bank account holder has a credit facility?mf560. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.53.53 (talk) 22:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

"paper hanger?"

Under the section entitled "Laws about check kiting, the second paragraph begins, "Although the United States prosecutes some paper hangers under federal law..." The term "paper hanger" does not appear elsewhere in the article. Is this an American English law enforcement slang term for persons who engage in check kiting? Some sort of clarification is in order, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.40.24 (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I've added a link to a dictionary which lists it as a slang term. C_(u)w_(t)C_(c) 19:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Check kiting → Kiting (fraud) –

After searching for this online, it seems overtly conspicuous that "check" from American English is used to name this article. This is confusing and seems unnecessary because the simple fact is that this form of crime is not just prevalent in the United States but in all the English-speaking world. I propose that the name of the article should simply be called kiting as that what the crime is named; with a parenthesis to disambiguate what kind of kiting. It would clearly stop the confusion and encourage Commonwealth English speaker to read the article rather than be put off from the perceived overt Americanism (like I say this crime is not just in North America, so why should it have such a name?). 86.160.72.54 (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose; natural disambiguation is preferred to artificial. Spelling differences are unavoidable in this case because there is no spelling used throughout the English-speaking world. Anyone who would refuse to read an article because of the way "cheque" is spelled is too stupid for us to consider writing for. Powers ^T 17:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Support. No point having an argument over spelling when a neutral term is available. The article's current title should be at "Cheque kiting" anyway, to match the main articles cheque and cheque fraud. I♦A 07:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, we have no such rule requiring consistency in national varieties of English; cf. windshield versus windscreen wiper. Powers ^T 02:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well that's a bit stupid. You'd think consistency would be better than having one each way, but never mind... I♦A 03:40, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Check kiting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090806032422/http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/idtheft.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/fraud/idtheft.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)