Mailing paper checks has long been a routine way for Americans to pay bills, but rising mail theft is exposing serious risks. In Northern California, two households say they lost tens of thousands of dollars after thieves stole property tax checks from the mail, altered them, and successfully cashed them, only to later have their refund claims denied by Wells Fargo.
Postal inspectors warn that mail theft has increased sharply, with criminals increasingly targeting envelopes likely to contain checks, including tax payments and utility bills.
Table of Contents
San Jose Homeowner Discovers Check Was Altered
San Jose resident Kathy Pham believed her property tax payment had been handled as usual. Her husband had personally dropped the check into a post office mailbox, and months later, her bank statement showed the check had cleared.
However, Pham was stunned when she received a delinquency notice from the county claiming her property taxes were unpaid. Initially, she assumed she had made a mistake, until she reviewed the check image and realized it had been altered.
The check had been stolen from the mail, and criminals had manipulated the payee name by squeezing additional letters into the original writing. The altered check was then cashed by someone else, resulting in a loss of $2,400. Pham was forced to repay the property taxes along with late fees.
When she contacted Wells Fargo seeking reimbursement, her claim was denied. The bank cited that too much time had passed between the check clearing and the fraud report.
Similar Case Leaves Another Family Out Nearly $60,000
A nearly identical situation affected Jody Glaser and her husband, Paul, residents of Los Altos. The couple mailed a property tax check using a blue mailbox outside a post office. Three months later, they received a late notice from the county, despite having seen the check clear their account.
Upon reviewing the check image, the couple discovered the payee name had been erased and replaced, likely using chemicals to remove the original ink. The altered check was cashed, and nearly $28,000 was stolen.
In addition to losing the stolen funds, the Glasers had to repay their property taxes along with penalties, bringing their total loss close to $60,000.
Bank Cites Account Agreement and Reporting Deadline
Like Pham, the Glasers turned to Wells Fargo expecting reimbursement. Their claim was denied within 30 days, with the bank citing its deposit account agreement, which requires customers to report unauthorized or altered checks within 30 days of the statement date.
The homeowners argue that their monthly bank statements only displayed the check amount and date, not the payee. As a result, they had no indication of fraud until the county mailed delinquency notices months later.
Wells Fargo maintains that customers are responsible for reviewing check images, which are available online. The bank updated its account agreement last November to explicitly require customers to review check images to preserve claim rights, although this language was not present when the homeowners initially filed their claims.
Consumer Advocates Urge Vigilance
Consumer advocate Teresa Murray of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group says many customers may not realize that state law requires altered checks to be reported within a “reasonable time,” often defined by banks as 30 to 60 days.
She notes that consumers rarely read lengthy account agreements and may not know they are expected to review individual check images each month. Murray emphasized that increased fraud and technology-driven scams have shifted much of the burden of detection onto consumers.
Mail Theft Patterns and Ongoing Investigations
Investigators later discovered that the Glasers’ stolen check had been deposited at an ATM at a U.S. Bank branch in Minnesota. The mailbox they used was later sealed and taken out of service due to repeated thefts, with signage directing customers to drop mail inside the post office.
Pham was told her stolen check was cashed at a Wells Fargo branch in South San Francisco. After media involvement and an appeal, Wells Fargo eventually refunded her money, though the bank did not disclose why her case was approved while the Glasers’ claim was not, citing privacy rules.
In correspondence with the Glasers, Wells Fargo said it would continue efforts to recover their funds.
Experts Warn Against Mailing Large Payments
Experts caution that mail thieves actively target envelopes that may contain checks, including property tax payments, utility bills, and even greeting cards. Once a check is stolen, criminals gain access not only to funds but also to bank account numbers and personal information.
As a result, consumers are increasingly advised to avoid mailing large payments and instead use electronic payment methods whenever possible. Online bill pay and direct electronic transfers significantly reduce the risk of mail-related fraud.
For both families, the experience has been deeply unsettling. While Pham ultimately recovered her money, the Glasers are still waiting for resolution. The incidents serve as a warning that traditional payment methods may carry unexpected risks in an era of rising mail theft.
