Salvation Army left short of cash by fake $25,000 check

[Kadie]

Salvation Army left short of cash by fake check

January 06, 2010 1:21 PM

CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) — The Salvation Army thought it had received a grand gift ahead of Christmas — a $25,000 check. But the donation turned out to be an expensive hoax that may force the charity to cut back on winter assistance for the needy.

Investigators said Wednesday that more than a dozen Charleston-area charities received fake checks before Christmas purporting to be gifts from a genuine local company

None of the other charities cashed theirs, but the Salvation Army deposited its check. It went ahead and spent some of the money on food and toys for about 100 families, counting on the check to clear.

The bank called two days before Christmas to say the check had bounced, and the agency was left with less money than planned to help the needy this cold January.

snip...
The check and accompanying letter appeared to come from Force Protection Inc., an armored vehicle manufacturer in Ladson. The letter said the company had enjoyed success and wanted to share with local charities.

snip...
Tommy Pruitt, a spokesman for Force Protection, said the checks were written on a company bank account that had been closed months ago. He said he did not want to speculate on who might be responsible.

more...
http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100106/A_NEWS/100109928

[Quantess]

1. Who would do such a thing?

[dionysus]

2. i bet darth cheney or ol dubya would get a laugh off it..

[notadmblnd]

5. Someone that doesn't like the company.

Foolish Salvation Army people, they should know corporations are not that generous and they certainly aren't going to take from their shareholder's mouths to help the less fortunate.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. And why would they spend the money before the check clears?

That's really stupid.

[SoCalDem]

14. BINGO.. n/t

[TCJ70]

23. The story says it was spent on food and toys for...

...families. Maybe they were already running short on supplies and saw an opportunity to help more people.

[Roon]

3. A disgruntled gay person eom

[virgogal]

4. God,what a world. eom

[WI_DEM]

6. Some one who does that should be boiled in their own pudding with a stake of holly thru

his heart.

[Stevenmarc]

7. Maybe the other homophobe Rick Warren will share some of his score and make up the difference

[kenfrequed]

8. Hmm

Well I'm torn on this.

It is a charitable organization so bilking them out of 25k is pretty rotten.

On the other hand...

They do discriminate and I still have a historical grudge for how the "starvation army" attempted to screw with workers trying to strike or fight for better wages, hours, and working conditions.

[elocs]

10. On these sub 0 degree nights in my city many people, including women & children

have a place to sleep and food to eat and I doubt if you would hear a bad word about the Salvation Army from any of them. Also, at my public library just a block away there is a notice in the bathroom that if anyone needs a shower they can got to the Salvation Army.

In my city there is no organization which does more for the homeless, those in need of shelter, or the hungry than the Salvation Army. I certainly would not judge and condemn them for a lack of political perfection because I know on a night like tonight without them people might likely die here because of the cold.

[kenfrequed]

12. Look.

I did say I was torn about this.

Please do not lecture me about a group that barely gave a damn about working people for decades back in the day and was used to drown out honest men and women standing up and speaking out in favor of a decent living wage. They have a history and you would do well to crack a book now and again to learn it.

There are dozens of organizations that help people out. Churches, government programs, community centers, civic organizations... the list goes on.

I did not applaud or jump up and down in jubilation about them losing a bit of money. I really wouldn't do that.

[elocs]

18. Sorry, in my city there are NOT dozens of organizations that help people out.

What are they supposed to do here.

[Xithras]

25. Same here, and across most of America I'd bet.

I live near a city of 250,000 people which has exactly TWO homeless shelters. Once is run by an uber-fundy church that requires homeless to sit through prayer services, and segregates men and women (even if married) into different buildings and will not let them meet anywhere on shelter property. The other is run by the Salvation Army. Both are so full every winter night that they must turn people away.

I despise the Salvation Army's political and social views, but at the end of the day, I probably ended up dropping about $20 in their buckets this last holiday season. I didn't do it because I supported the Salvation Army. I did it because I knew that without those donations, homeless men, women, and children will spend these freezing winter nights under bridges and in abandoned warehouses, instead of inside of a dry shelter with warm food in their bellies. It's the lesser of two evils.

[foxfeet]

13. Let's not whitewash the SA's discriminatory policies as a mere "lack of political perfection."

It's not as if they simply ignore GLBT people; the SA has actively campaigned against equal rights. The chief reason they do more for the homeless, the hungry and others is the fact that the SA has a large infrastructure in place compared with other charities, especially local charities. If we gave our money to agencies that do not practice discrimination, we can get twice the charitable bang for the buck. If we tell the SA why we are giving to other agencies, perhaps they will open their homophobic, bigoted eyes and come around.

[elocs]

17. Please, tell it to the people in my city who would freeze or die tonight.

Please.

[foxfeet]

24. Don't get all sanctimonious. Is there NO other agency you could support?

Or, at the very least, could you as a donor press the SA to stop its discrimination and active political support for continued oppression of GLBT people?

[nashville_brook]

21. ...and, it's not really "bilking" as no money was stolen. they shouldn't have spent $$

they didn't have.

could be the rubber check was from someone they discriminated against. if so, it's their policies that're hampering their charitable mission, and they've got total control of that. they can change at any time.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

11. "...counting on the check to clear."

FFS, have we forgotten the very basics in this country?

What a shitty thing to do to a charity, and what a stupid thing for the charity to do. And I have mixed feeling about SA because of its discriminatory policies. What a mess.

[JI7]

15. wouldn't be surprised if it was one of their own

first of all, especially with a check that large why spend the money before making sure the check goes through.

considering some of the things they have done i can see this being something done by their own to try to get money.

like that rick warren guy.

i'm always suspicious of "charity" done by right wing religious types.

[GreenMetalFlake]

16. Bastards

[jillan]

19. That is sick! I have some clothes and books to donate - now I know who to donate to.

[WeDidIt]

20. I wouldn't give a penny to the Salvation Army on a bet

but this is just fucked.

[Rabrrrrrr]

22. So basically, the Salvation Army doesn't have the courtesy to offer a thanks to donors of large sums

If they did, they would have found out right away that no real check had been sent.

Serves 'em right - fucking awful organization.