Print

[brianguy]

Checks are a slam dunk to prosecute. Now they can go the bad check route on this borrower too.

that would actually require a phone call to a lawyer, and the presumption of a contractual obligation to PAY said counselor.  doesn't seem promising

[ira01]

Checks are a slam dunk to prosecute. Now they can go the bad check route on this borrower too.

It is not clear from Prosper's email that this was actually the case of a "real" check sent in by the borrower.  It is just as likely that this was a paper check printed by Prosper (you know, the alternative to ACH processing that Prosper offered borrowers for a 1% fee, because it is illegal to require ACH payments).  I'm not at all sure whether that kind of "check" falls within the bad check statutes.  The couple of times I've looked at District Attorney websites' section on their bad check programs, they've always said they wanted a copy of the check showing the borrower's signature (which Prosper printed checks won't have) and an affidavit from the person accepting the check describing the person who passed the check and stating that the employee checked ID (which also obviously doesn't apply to Prosper).  Unfortunately, the Bad Check units seem to have lagged technology, and are geared towards brick and mortar stores that physically accept a check from a customer. 

[brianguy]

great point.  disappointing but great info...

[mothandrust]

The October payment was made when this loan was in collections with AmSher.

A week after this payment was posted, Prosper put the loan was put into charge-off status.

So I'm guessing that the borrower paid AmSher (not Prosper) and after AmSher learned the check was an NSF, they had already transferred the loan back to Prosper.

[brianguy]

interesting...