How Citibank Charged TPM for Executive Substance Abuse Counseling

In this Oct. 6, 2012, photo, a Citibank logo is shown in the window of one of the bank's offices in New York. Citigroup reported earnings Monday, Oct. 15, 2012, that beat analysts' expectations, after stripping out o... In this Oct. 6, 2012, photo, a Citibank logo is shown in the window of one of the bank's offices in New York. Citigroup reported earnings Monday, Oct. 15, 2012, that beat analysts' expectations, after stripping out one-time items like a big write-down it had to take because it got less money than it had hoped when it negotiated to sell its stake in its retail brokerage. (AP Photo/Mark Lennihan) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

TPM is a website and a news organization. But fundamentally it’s a small business. And like any well-managed small business we keep a close eye on expenses and review all the incoming and outgoing revenue at the end of month. So it was with some surprise when I heard from our accountant last week asking me about a payment for $1984 to Julian Toynbee (not his real name, for reasons which will become clear shortly.)

We went through the normal routine. Virtually every time we have this conversation, I know the identity of the non-routine payment. And that’s the end of it. But this time I didn’t. So I checked with our General Counsel. No dice. Associate publisher? Nope. None of us have ever heard of Julian Toynbee.

It’s also an odd some sum of money. Real money, even for a company that costs $2 million+ to run each year. Yet way too much money for a a ‘vampire’ fraudster to think no one would notice and hit us up for a small payment each month. And not nearly enough money if you’re trying to score with a single phony check.

Then the mystery deepens. A google search by our General Counsel (who doubles as my wife), reveals that Julian is a psychologist in mid-town Manhattan specializing in substance abuse treatment for professionals and c-suite executives.

At this point I’m thinking, if someone on staff is in trouble, I want to help. But this is so not the way to go about it.

Happily it turns out no one on staff is under treatment with Julian. Of if they are, they didn’t try to pay him from one of our corporate checking accounts. Our accountant finally figured it out.

As you know, the signature line on a check is just above the bank account numeric codes in that weird computerese font. When the person who wrote the check signed it check, she swiped down with an ornate opening ‘L’ which crossed over the bank account number. That seems to have left the Citibank mainframe computer thinking the draw was on TPM rather than the recipient of Julian’s services. But even so, in the last four digits, we have only two in common with the real account.

We’re getting this worked out and getting our two grand back. I know no computer system is foolproof. But I must admit that it has shaken some of my confidence in computerized banking.

Latest Editors' Blog
  • |
    April 25, 2024 12:09 p.m.

    For most of this election season so far, FiveThirtyEight hasn’t surfaced its own presidential race average. Compiling these averages in…

  • |
    April 25, 2024 11:58 a.m.

    Kate chats with TPM’s Josh Kovensky about life inside the courtroom as the Trump hush money trial unfolds. Belaboring The…

  • |
    April 25, 2024 10:04 a.m.

    Kate Riga is liveblogging the Supreme Court oral arguments on Trump’s insane presidential immunity claims here. Josh Kovensky is liveblogging…

  • |
    April 24, 2024 10:43 p.m.

    There’s going to be a lot to talk about tomorrow with these new fake electors indictments out of Arizona. In…

Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: