Bank Of America Asks Armless Man For Thumbprint, Denies To Cash His Check

Remove all ads!

One from Absurdistan:

​

Well, Sir, our regulations require that you give a thumbprint, and unless you can do that there's nothing we can do about that - it's here, black on white! So are the rules, Sir!

 

That is quite legendary

I had a hell of a lot of trouble acquiring photo ID a year back because... I didn't have any photographic ID.

a couple of friends and I are wanting to petition a change with Disability badges as well - for many disabled people travel and/or driving isn't an option, disability badges have photos on, all that would need to be added is a date of birth - most already have holographic official seals.

Instead we have to get citizenship cards... which most places won't accept on the premise "they could be fake"

 

Remove shoe, give big toe print to B of A where needed!

 

On the flip side, it's likely that the teller knew the policy was stupid, but I have worked with some real douchebag supervisors in my time. These pieces of crap were totally impervious to logic and decency, especially when they decided to "make an example" of an employee. Had the teller cashed the cheque, one of these dimwit supervisors could have used it as ammunition against her.

You may think it's surreal, but it isn't. Never underestimate the utter stupidity of some moron up the bureaucratic food chain who will cheerfully eff up your life over something really stupid like this.

 

I have a question: If they need a thumb-print to open the account (and if they don't, what possible purpose could taking one now serve), didn't they have some kind of established workaround for this guy? Something like a toeprint or something?

Other than that, yeah, someone wasn't thinking.

 

According to the link, he didn't have an account with BofA, and the check was made out to his wife. The supervisors said without a thumb print, he either had to bring his wife in, or open an account himself.

I think the idea of taking a thumb print would be if you were committing fraud, and cashing a check for someone who wasn't your wife, then having the print would possibly make it easier to catch you. However, there's no guarantee even if this guy had hands that his thumbprint would be on record, as the US government doesn't have some database with everyone's fingerprints in it. The only people who have fingerprints on file are government employees, and/or if you have a criminal record. So while that's a TON of people, it's by no means a comprehensive list.

 

If it's for comparative results paper copies of the ID and a photo would be enough to provide the police as sufficient security attempts.

 

Yeah, I'd think a photo would be better than a fingerprint. At least then you have something that could be used to readily identify anyone, whether they're in the system or not.

 

I agree with NOG. If the guy would be a first time felon, having a finger print doesn't do much for the case. I don't think they'll go up to people on the street and ask "do you recognize this print?". However, having a photo ID gives something the authorites can use to track the guy down.

In any case, I agree it was probably a bureaucratic brain freeze. If I would have been in the guys place and the bank would have refused to cash my check without trying to understand my situation, I would have turned around and explained the absurdity of the bank's arguments to the customers waiting in line. I would then have asked one of them to lend me their cell phone and dial the police for me. I would have asked for a police officer to come down and take my statement so I could just cash my wife's fricking check!