He knowingly deposited a fake check, expecting that the exact clearance mechanisms you mention would catch it, and the deposit rejected. As evidence that he wasn't committing fraud, he didn't endorse the check, so no intent to commit fraud.
He only got stubborn about it after 1) the bank far exceeded the deadlines for dishonoring the check, rendering the money legally his, and 2) when they tried to retrieve the money, they strongarmed him with security officers rather than approaching him as an adult.
What's missing from the FT version is that the initial freezing of all his accounts caused him some hardship and scared his mother, and once he spoke to the bank security officer about this and his original intent, and that he knew the law surrounding this, the bank backed off, unfroze his accounts, and started dealing with him with much more civility.
He only got stubborn about it after 1) the bank far exceeded the deadlines for dishonoring the check, rendering the money legally his, and 2) when they tried to retrieve the money, they strongarmed him with security officers rather than approaching him as an adult.
What's missing from the FT version is that the initial freezing of all his accounts caused him some hardship and scared his mother, and once he spoke to the bank security officer about this and his original intent, and that he knew the law surrounding this, the bank backed off, unfroze his accounts, and started dealing with him with much more civility.