• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arrested for being a muslim...

PeteEU

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
38,869
Reaction score
14,213
Location
Denmark
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ed-depositing-check-wichita-article-1.3489883

[FONT=&quot]Sattar Ali, who is originally from Iraq and moved to the United States in 1993, said he was trying to deposit a $151,000 check at an Emprise Bank when police showed up and arrested Ali, his wife and their 15-year-old daughter, The Sunflower reported.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The check came from the sale of the family’s Dearborn, Mich., home, ABC-affiliate KAKE reported.[/FONT]
Seriously..

They even called the school of his son, to inform them to hold the boy because his parents had been arrested.

The reasoning for all this?

[FONT=&quot]Wichita police said they were called to the bank for an attempted forgery, KAKE reported.[/FONT]

Wait what? You arrest a 15 year old girl and her mother, for attempted forgery by the father? The fact, that he had documentation from where the money came from? The fact that he was DEPOSITING money in the bank.. how on earth can that be fraud? Even if had been, then the bank could just hold the money till things were sorted out.

No they arrested him because he was Muslim... pure and simple, and the bank should be ashamed of what they triggered and people need to be fired.
 
This is a classic example of only having one side of the story, with very limited statements from the police, presumably limited by what they’re legally permitted to say but also possibly edited and selectively quoted by the media. Lots of things in the reported sequence of events don’t make sense but it’s perfectly possible that’s because they didn’t happen quite as reported or there are other relevant factors not being mentioned.

I don’t think jumping to the unconditional conclusion that the police discriminated against this family because of their religion in unjustified based on these reports alone, arguably no better than jumping to the conclusion that a Muslim was passing a bad cheque would be.
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ed-depositing-check-wichita-article-1.3489883


Seriously..

They even called the school of his son, to inform them to hold the boy because his parents had been arrested.

The reasoning for all this?



Wait what? You arrest a 15 year old girl and her mother, for attempted forgery by the father? The fact, that he had documentation from where the money came from? The fact that he was DEPOSITING money in the bank.. how on earth can that be fraud? Even if had been, then the bank could just hold the money till things were sorted out.

No they arrested him because he was Muslim... pure and simple, and the bank should be ashamed of what they triggered and people need to be fired.

Before I commented on something like this, I would certainly want to know more and have it from solid sources. But chacun à son goût, I suppose. ;)
 
Iraqi doctoral student arrested depositing $151G check in Kansas - NY Daily News


Seriously..

They even called the school of his son, to inform them to hold the boy because his parents had been arrested.

The reasoning for all this?



Wait what? You arrest a 15 year old girl and her mother, for attempted forgery by the father? The fact, that he had documentation from where the money came from? The fact that he was DEPOSITING money in the bank.. how on earth can that be fraud? Even if had been, then the bank could just hold the money till things were sorted out.

No they arrested him because he was Muslim... pure and simple, and the bank should be ashamed of what they triggered and people need to be fired.


I don't know what the bank employees' thoughts were, and neither to you, but this is not an uncommon scenario. A middle-aged female acquaintance was made to sit in the back of a patrol car for almost an hour while the bank verified a $60,000 settlement check she received from a class-action lawsuit.

When fraud is suspected, which happens when someone tries to deposit a check for a large amount and the source of the check can't be verified -- as was the case in the Muslim family's situation -- law enforcement is immediately called.
 
This is a classic example of only having one side of the story, with very limited statements from the police, presumably limited by what they’re legally permitted to say but also possibly edited and selectively quoted by the media. Lots of things in the reported sequence of events don’t make sense but it’s perfectly possible that’s because they didn’t happen quite as reported or there are other relevant factors not being mentioned.

I don’t think jumping to the unconditional conclusion that the police discriminated against this family because of their religion in unjustified based on these reports alone, arguably no better than jumping to the conclusion that a Muslim was passing a bad cheque would be.

Oh there was a second side of the story Pete just chose not to include it...

from the article in the OP:

Emprise Bank said it acted according to protocol.

“If faced with the same circumstances today, we would expect our team to take the same actions,” it said in a statement, KAKE reported.
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ed-depositing-check-wichita-article-1.3489883


Seriously..

They even called the school of his son, to inform them to hold the boy because his parents had been arrested.

The reasoning for all this?



Wait what? You arrest a 15 year old girl and her mother, for attempted forgery by the father? The fact, that he had documentation from where the money came from? The fact that he was DEPOSITING money in the bank.. how on earth can that be fraud? Even if had been, then the bank could just hold the money till things were sorted out.

No they arrested him because he was Muslim... pure and simple, and the bank should be ashamed of what they triggered and people need to be fired.

IF the check couldn't be verified, it would be a common procedure to contact authorities, especially for that amount. That is what it is in these days. And yes, if it is someone from the ME, they will have added interest. Blame the terrorists for everyone being suspicious and profiling. If large amounts of money have not been funneled to groups in the ME from the US, this wouldn't be necessary. Tough. They made it the new norm.

I was held up in the bank when I sold my house, while they verified everything. And that was a local bank and could be verified. I understood why. This is not a local check and probably not a local company, but a different state.

In addition, they weren't arrested, but held until the check was verified. The police were going by what the bank reported until they could prove otherwise.

If my bank thought the check was a forgery because it couldn't be verified, the police would have been called as well.
 
I can see the upset regarding the bank actions...but not so much the police. The police responded to a call. When they arrived they found conditions were as described in the call. They acted in accordance to their official policies and when they arrived at the police station, followed procedures to verify the validity of the check and then released them.

If I were mr Ali, I can certainly see being upset. I would also go to a different bank.
 
He said it’s the first time he’s felt discriminated against in the city.
Well oops, nothing like that ever happened to someone else, right? Since it happened to Muslims it is a big deal? Cops doing their job? I am sure they apologized.
Moving on.
 
IF the check couldn't be verified, it would be a common procedure to contact authorities, especially for that amount. That is what it is in these days. And yes, if it is someone from the ME, they will have added interest. Blame the terrorists for everyone being suspicious and profiling. If large amounts of money have not been funneled to groups in the ME from the US, this wouldn't be necessary. Tough. They made it the new norm.

I was held up in the bank when I sold my house, while they verified everything. And that was a local bank and could be verified. I understood why. This is not a local check and probably not a local company, but a different state.

In addition, they weren't arrested, but held until the check was verified. The police were going by what the bank reported until they could prove otherwise.

If my bank thought the check was a forgery because it couldn't be verified, the police would have been called as well.


Yes, it's a common procedure when large amounts of money are involved. This is another non-story that's being turned into a cry of discrimination.
 
Oh there was a second side of the story Pete just chose not to include it...

from the article in the OP:
That’s just a standard corporate statement. It doesn’t say anything about the sequence of events as alleged by the customer. The point is that someone has made a claim of what could be a serious criminal act but with no evidence beyond their statement, some people are leaping to a clear conclusion that the police were unconditionally in the wrong.
 
Iraqi doctoral student arrested depositing $151G check in Kansas - NY Daily News


Seriously..

They even called the school of his son, to inform them to hold the boy because his parents had been arrested.

The reasoning for all this?



Wait what? You arrest a 15 year old girl and her mother, for attempted forgery by the father? The fact, that he had documentation from where the money came from? The fact that he was DEPOSITING money in the bank.. how on earth can that be fraud? Even if had been, then the bank could just hold the money till things were sorted out.

No they arrested him because he was Muslim... pure and simple, and the bank should be ashamed of what they triggered and people need to be fired.

So easy to jump to conclusions. So hard to read.

In a statement Wichita police said, "Officers on scene made attempts to verify the legitimacy of the check, and were unable to do so. Wichita Police Detectives were utilized as part of the investigation due to their expertise and access to additional resources. The Detectives, using the additional resources, were able to verify the legitimacy of the check."

Emprise Bank issued the following statement:

".. We are aware of a situation at the 21st and Woodlawn branch yesterday and can confirm that our team acted in accordance with our policies and procedures. If faced with the same circumstances today, we would expect our team to take the same actions."

Ever hear of the story about the boy who cried wolf? That story fits with today's calls of racism and bigotry.

 
That’s just a standard corporate statement. It doesn’t say anything about the sequence of events as alleged by the customer. The point is that someone has made a claim of what could be a serious criminal act but with no evidence beyond their statement, some people are leaping to a clear conclusion that the police were unconditionally in the wrong.

Its is but its certainly unusual since usually a company apologizes for any inconvenience even when they follow policy
 
Oh there was a second side of the story Pete just chose not to include it...

from the article in the OP:

Yep.



Because only the 1% are allowed to deposit large sums of money without suspicion.
 
Its is but its certainly unusual since usually a company apologizes for any inconvenience even when they follow policy

Completely true. Heck, companies have to apologize even for customers mistakes.
 
Why not accept the deposit of the cheque with a hold on the funds until it's verified and cleared. (Like a 7 day wait clearance.)

Certainly a whole lot more reasonable than just arresting him. That's nuts.
 
Yep.



Because only the 1% are allowed to deposit large sums of money without suspicion.

I believe anything at $10K and above gets an automatic flag in the banking system, which is why I keep most of my cash in the safe.
 
So for what ever reason the bank was unable to verify the authenticity of the check.
And the police were called.


From the story:

Ali was puzzled with why the bank couldn't seem to verify the check but police did.

In a statement Wichita police said, "Officers on scene made attempts to verify the legitimacy of the check, and were unable to do so. Wichita Police Detectives were utilized as part of the investigation due to their expertise and access to additional resources. The Detectives, using the additional resources, were able to verify the legitimacy of the check."
 
I believe anything at $10K and above gets an automatic flag in the banking system, which is why I keep most of my cash in the safe.

The whole thing just seems incredibly backward based on my experiences with how our banks work.

When you deposit a cheque into your account here, you don't get arrested if they can't verify the authenticity. That's beyond ridiculous.

Cheques are deposited into your account and a hold is placed on them, usually 4 or 7 days until they are cleared. When cleared, the funds are available. IF there is a money laundering/other criminal issue that then comes to light, the authorities are notified and its investigated further.
 
The whole thing just seems incredibly backward based on my experiences with how our banks work.

When you deposit a cheque into your account here, you don't get arrested if they can't verify the authenticity. That's beyond ridiculous.

Cheques are deposited into your account and a hold is placed on them, usually 4 or 7 days until they are cleared. When cleared, the funds are available. IF there is a money laundering/other criminal issue that then comes to light, the authorities are notified and its investigated further.

Might depend on who that check was from. Watch list?
 
Why not place a hold on the deposited check, explaining that some perceived anomaly must be sorted out before those funds can be made available? It seems that the only "crime" was confusion as to whether the check was good.
 
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...ed-depositing-check-wichita-article-1.3489883

Seriously..

They even called the school of his son, to inform them to hold the boy because his parents had been arrested.

The reasoning for all this?

Wait what? You arrest a 15 year old girl and her mother, for attempted forgery by the father? The fact, that he had documentation from where the money came from? The fact that he was DEPOSITING money in the bank.. how on earth can that be fraud? Even if had been, then the bank could just hold the money till things were sorted out.

No they arrested him because he was Muslim... pure and simple, and the bank should be ashamed of what they triggered and people need to be fired.

Maybe we ought to wait until we hear the rest of the story. Not as if the press always gets it right...

They probably called the school because there was no one left at home.
 
Why not accept the deposit of the cheque with a hold on the funds until it's verified and cleared. (Like a 7 day wait clearance.)

Certainly a whole lot more reasonable than just arresting him. That's nuts.

That is actually the freaking procedure from the "old days", and now days the bank could just call the bank whos cheque it is, and get verification. Plus the guy had proof of sale of his home... so the police or bank claiming fraud is one hell of a weak excuse.
 
So for what ever reason the bank was unable to verify the authenticity of the check.
And the police were called.


From the story:

Ali was puzzled with why the bank couldn't seem to verify the check but police did.

In a statement Wichita police said, "Officers on scene made attempts to verify the legitimacy of the check, and were unable to do so. Wichita Police Detectives were utilized as part of the investigation due to their expertise and access to additional resources. The Detectives, using the additional resources, were able to verify the legitimacy of the check."

When the police had no idea whether that the check was good it makes no sense to detain anything other than the check.

It is curious, indeed, what "other resources" the police used to verify the source of the funds yet did (would?) not divulge to the press. I suspect that those "other resources" may have been the county's records concerning the property deed transfer but, since these records are public, the bank should have been able to do the same. This leads me to believe that it may have been simply a matter of the (snails pace?) speed of the county clerks office posting/updating that documentation. If it was not yet posted online (current record showed that Ali still owned the house) then someone had to make a trip or phone call to that public office to *gasp* ask someone to look through the deed transfer information not yet processed.
 
Actually the circumstances are very simple. Incompetence and bigotry, it is as simple a s that. Come on people, this was not a personal check torn out of someone's checkbook on the far side of the moon and if police detectives have better resources than a bank in this matter that bank should not be in business.
 
So for what ever reason the bank was unable to verify the authenticity of the check.
And the police were called.


From the story:

Ali was puzzled with why the bank couldn't seem to verify the check but police did.

In a statement Wichita police said, "Officers on scene made attempts to verify the legitimacy of the check, and were unable to do so. Wichita Police Detectives were utilized as part of the investigation due to their expertise and access to additional resources. The Detectives, using the additional resources, were able to verify the legitimacy of the check."

I find it odd that a bank cold not verify the check, which is what they do all day every day, but police detectives were able to.

Something doesn't seem right.

What resources does the police have that a financial institution does not?
 
Back
Top Bottom