Well, if he's up to something--good or not so much--it's between them & I wouldn't involve myself. It's possible that his against the law comment was just his shorthand way of saying that he's been hearing about (but obviously not understanding) many fraudulent things happening with wire transfers lately. And, no signature required means she stands an equal chance of grabbing the check, too. There are as many explanations as there are people reading this. But my main points are 'she agreed' and 'not my business'. |