Fraud Education Check 21, Remote Deposit Capture & Check Fraud - A Summary

Check 21 gives financial institutions the right to convert the paper checks they receive into electronic images, to process those images for payment instead of the original paper checks, and to destroy those paper checks after an undefined period of time. If necessary, the paying bank or its processor can re-convert the electronic image into a paper document known as a “substitute check” or Image Replacement Document (IRD).

The right to convert the original check into an image raises the question, “What if a fraudulent or altered check is converted and then shredded?” The Indemnity provision addresses that question.

The Indemnity provision says that if a loss occurred because the paying bank received an electronic image or a substitute check (IRD) instead of the original check, an Indemnity claim can be filed against the bank that presented the substitute check to the paying bank IF two conditions are met.

First, the original paper check had to have security features that could not be seen in the electronic image or substitute check. These are features that “do not survive imaging” and include features such as a true watermark, thermochromic ink, chemical sensitivity, etc. These are some of the best features to prevent check fraud.

Second, the dollar amount of the check had to be sufficiently high that the paying bank would have physically inspected the check for those security features to verify its authenticity, if it had received the original check instead of a substitute check or electronic image. This is known as the Sight Review process. Every bank sets its own Sight Review threshold. One bank might inspect every check over $5000, and a different bank might inspect every check over $25,000.

Both conditions must be met to make an Indemnity claim. The Indemnity is valid for one year from the date the injured party discovers the loss (not from when the check was written). Note that under the exact same fraudulent situation, if the original check did not have the proper security features, it would not qualify for the Indemnity.

How does this relate to Remote Deposit Capture (RDC)? The party that converts the paper check into an electronic image “issues” the Indemnity. Under RDC, the bank authorizes its client to electronically image the checks instead of the bank. The company scans the checks that would normally be sent to the bank for deposit, and then electronically transmits the check images to the bank for deposit/collection.

The process is similar under Mobile Remote Deposit Capture (MRDC), with the individual taking a picture of the check with a mobile device and transmitting the check image to the bank for deposit/collection.

The bank processes the images and sends them to the various paying banks for collection. After a period of time, in our opinion not less than 60 days, the company or individual can destroy the original paper checks.

Under the Check 21 Indemnity provision, the party that originally converts the paper check into an electronic image provides the Indemnity.

While there are many benefits for using RDC, companies and individuals should understand the risks and weigh the benefits against those risks. One risk is the obligation of providing an Indemnity for at least one year against certain types of check fraud.

Frank Abagnale
President, Abagnale and Associates
www.abagnale.com

Greg Litster
President, SAFEChecks
Canoga Park, CA
greg@safechecks.com

Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act, aka “Check 21” was passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and the Senate in October 2003. It was signed by President George W. Bush on October 28, 2003 and became effective October 28, 2004.

Check 21 allows banks to (1) convert original paper checks into electronic images; (2) truncate the original check; (3) process the images electronically; and (4) create “substitute checks” for delivery to banks that do not accept checks electronically. The legislation does not require a bank to create or accept an electronic check image, nor does it give an electronic image the legal equivalence of an original paper check. Check 21 does give legal equivalence to a “substitute check” that is properly prepared.

A substitute check, also known as an image replacement document (IRD), is a new negotiable instrument that is a paper reproduction of an electronic image of an original paper check.

A substitute check must: (1) contain an image of the front and back of the original check; (2) bear a MICR line containing all the information of the original MICR line; (3) conform to industry standards for substitute checks; and (4) be suitable for automated processing just like the original check. To be the legal equivalent of the original check, the substitute check must also (1) accurately represent all the information on the front and back of the original check, and (2) bear a legend that states “This is a legal copy of your check.

You can use it the same way you would use the original check.” While Check 21 does not mandate that any check be imaged and truncated, all checks except checks drawn on foreign banks are eligible to be truncated into images and reconverted into substitute checks. Bank customers do not have the option to “opt out” of Check 21.

Check 21 does not require a bank to convert and truncate paper checks. It is entirely voluntary. A bank that chooses to convert a paper check into an electronic image that can then be reconverted into a paper substitute check provides two warranties and an indemnity that travel with each substitute check. Companies that convert checks using Remote Deposit Capture may bear the identical risks as banks that convert checks. The two warranties are (1) that the substitute check is properly prepared as described in the paragraph above, and (2) that no bank will be asked to make payment on a check that has already paid (no double debit).

Regarding the indemnity, the Final Rule states a bank “that transfers, presents, or returns a substitute check…shall indemnify the recipient and any subsequent recipient…for any loss incurred by any recipient of a substitute check if that loss occurred due to the receipt of a substitute check instead of the original check.” (3) It goes on to say that if a loss “…results in whole or in part from the indemnified party’s negligence or failure to act in good faith, then the indemnity amount …shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence or bad faith attributable to the indemnified party.” (4)

The Fed gives this example.

“A paying bank makes payment based on a substitute check that was derived from a fraudulent original cashier’s check. The amount and other characteristics of the original cashier’s check are such that, had the original check been presented instead, the paying bank would have inspected the original check for security features and likely would have detected the fraud and returned the original check before its midnight deadline. The security features that the bank would have inspected were security features that did not survive the imaging process. Under these circumstances, the paying bank could assert an indemnity claim against the bank that presented the substitute check.

“By contrast with the previous example, the indemnity would not apply if the characteristics of the presented substitute check were such that the bank’s security policies and procedures would not have detected the fraud even if the original had been presented. For example, if the check was under the threshold amount the bank has established for examining security features, the bank likely would not have caught the error and accordingly would have suffered a loss even if it had received the original check.” (5)

The indemnity does not cover a loss that is not directly attributable to the paying bank receiving a substitute check instead of the original check.

The warranties and indemnity are very powerful, and give companies and paying banks a clear defensive strategy against losses that result directly from receiving a substitute check instead of an original paper check. It may also deter banks and companies from truncating high-dollar checks because the warranties and indemnity provided by the truncating party continue for one year beyond the date the injured party first learns of the loss. The Final Rule is clear that a “…claim shall be brought within one year of the date on which the person’s cause of action accrues. …a cause of action accrues as of the date on which the injured person first learns, or by which such person reasonably should have learned, of the facts and circumstances giving rise to the cause of action, including the identity of the warranting or indemnifying bank against which the action is brought.” (6)

It is important to note that the one-year timeframe begins when the injured party learns or should have learned of the loss, not when the loss actually occurred. Thus, the actual risk tail to the converting bank or company is greater than one year.

Remote Deposit Capture is a service offered by many financial institutions that uses new technology to speed up a company’s depositing process.  Using a desktop scanner in its office, a company truncates the checks it normally would send to the bank for deposit.  The company transmits the file of check images to its bank, which in this scenario would be the “truncating bank” (see § 229.2(eee)) of Regulation CC and its commentary).  The bank processes the file and sends the images of the checks for collection to their respective banks.  The images are either presented for payment electronically or as substitute checks.  

While the technology is exciting, Remote Deposit Capture is not without financial risk.  First, depending on the company’s agreement with its bank, the company may need to store the original check in a secure location for a period of time in case it is needed.  Second, and more importantly, by their agreements truncating banks are likely to “pass back” liability for Check 21-related losses to their image-depositing customers who choose to deposit check images.  The statute of limitations in the law for these types of losses is one year after the cause of action accrues.  The cause of action accrues as of the date the injured party learns, or reasonably should have learned, of the loss.

The advent of mobile banking was unforeseen in 2003 when Congress passed Check 21; its inevitable evil twin, mobile banking fraud, was also unforeseen. However, the Check 21 rules apply equally to mobile banking.

Because depositing checks via a smart device (Mobile Remote Deposit Capture, aka MRDC) is highly popular, almost all banks offer, or plan to offer, MRDC. Fraudsters haven’t directly targeted MRDC users’ devices on a large scale; however, cases of mobile users´ double-depositing the same check at multiple banks, or cashing the check at a check cashing store after depositing via a smart phone, are growing significantly.

The Federal Reserve Board predicts that almost half of all mobile users´ will adopt mobile banking in one capacity or another. It will behoove all mobile phone users´ and financial institutions alike to be alert and vigilant toward fraud prevention.

The legal basis for creating and depositing a digital image of a check is Check 21. Check 21 has a rule (“Warranty”) that specifically prohibits a check or its image from being presented for payment more than once, and provides a powerful recovery remedy if it occurs. Consider this example, which is becoming more common: John receives a check and deposits the check (its electronic image) via his smart phone app. He still has the physical check, which he later cashes at a check-cashing store. When the check cashier deposits the original paper check and its image is presented to the drawer’s bank for payment, the second presentment breaches the Warranty that John made when the first electronic image was deposited via John’s smart phone.

Under Check 21, the first presentment of the check (via smart phone) can be charged back to the bank of first deposit (BOFD) under a Breach of Warranty claim (because of the second presentment) for up to one year from the date the injured party discovers the loss, even if he doesn’t discover the loss for 6 months or more.

There are additional fraud protections offered by the Check 21 Rules. Consider this scenario: John Doe picks up a check made payable to “John Doe” from a business or individual. He walks outside and deposits the check remotely using his smart phone. He then walks back inside and returns the check, asking that it be replaced with a new check made payable to John Doe OR Jane Doe. The issuing person or company reissues a new check payable to John Doe or Jane Doe. They don’t place a Stop Payment on the first check because it is in their possession.

John Doe quickly cashes the second check, and waits overnight for the first check to clear before withdrawing the money from the first check. Unfortunately, the drawer issuing the check can be held liable for both checks.

This is because the second check was cashed at the bank, and the first check was deposited remotely. While banks often cooperate to stop fraudulent activity, John Doe’s bank is a Holder In Due Course and has no obligation to return the funds to the issuer.

To prevent this kind of theft, if a check leaves your possession for any length of time and is returned for a replacement, place a Stop Payment on that check. Cause the recipient to sign an affidavit declaring the check was not deposited remotely, and accepts liability for all expenses to recover any stolen funds.  However, even those steps won’t fully protect you.

In an indemnity claim, a party receiving a substitute check – for example, the paying bank – claims that it has incurred a loss attributable to receiving a substitute check in place of the original check. The paying bank would bring such claim against the reconverting bank, i.e., the bank that created the substitute check. Typically, in turn, reconverting banks have agreements in place with the upstream banks from which they receive electronic check files, such that they can recover from these banks, i.e., a reconverting bank typically has agreements in place such that it can recover from the truncating bank. (7) And, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, truncating banks typically have agreements in place with their remote-capture depositors such that they can recover from those depositors.

Examining a check for security features before its truncation (e.g., at the point of sale or deposit preparation) cannot prevent a Check 21-related indemnity claim because the party (person or company or bank) truncating the check likely has no knowledge of the security features contained in an authentic check drawn on the account in question. (8) That is to say, checks truncated under the authority provided by Check 21, whether truncated by a bank or by a bank’s customer using remote deposit capture, are typically truncated without knowing whether the loss of security features existing in the original check stock due to truncation will later result in an indemnity claim brought by the paying bank on the basis of damages that it would have been able to prevent had it been presented with the original check.

Moreover, if a counterfeit original check is truncated at the point of sale or in deposit preparation, the absence of security features in that counterfeit original check (i.e., the absence of the security features present in an authentic original check drawn on the account in question) would not prevent an indemnity claim by a paying bank that receives that check in substitute check form.

The paying bank’s argument would be that it would have inspected the counterfeit original check for security features, found them to be absent, and returned the check unpaid, and that it therefore incurred a loss due to having been presented with a substitute check in lieu of the (counterfeit) original check. (9)

If a loss results from a truncated item drawn on an account that uses original checks with non-image-survivable security features, AND if the dollar amount of the item was sufficiently high that the paying bank would have examined the check for those security features when it was presented for payment, the party that truncated the check may be face an indemnity claim. On the other hand, if the authentic check does not contain image-survivable security features, OR if the dollar amount is so low that the paying bank would not have examined the check when it was presented for payment, there are no grounds for an indemnity claim.

From a liability and risk aversion viewpoint, the safest checks to truncate are small-dollar items; the riskiest are larger-dollar items because 1) higher-dollar checks are more likely to be physically inspected by the paying bank; and 2) companies and individuals that issue higher-dollar checks are more likely to use high-security checks with features that do not survive imaging.

A company or individual that elects to use checks with security features that do not survive the image conversion process may be better off in a Check 21 world. This is especially true for account holders that issue higher-dollar checks, and for banks with a lower sight review limits. In today’s Check 21 world, a bank’s most prudent risk-aversion strategy would be to encourage its customers to use high security checks with security features that do not survive imaging, and to lower its sight review threshold. Moreover, banks that offer Remote Deposit Capture capabilities would be wise to fully disclose the associated risks to their customer.

The two primary purposes for using many safety features (10) in checks are (1) to authenticate an original document, and (2) to deter criminal activity by thwarting their different methods used to alter or replicate checks. The minimum number of safety features a check should have is eight, and more is better. Among the best safety features are Fourdrinier (true) watermarks in the paper, thermochromic ink, and paper or ink that is reactive to at least 15 chemicals. These safety features cannot be imaged and replicated, which, in an age of desktop publishing, is why they are the best. Using a "controlled" check stock that includes these features is critically important. ("Controlled" meaning that the identical check stock is not available completely blank to other organizations – or criminals.)

In addition to their fraud-deterrent value, when an individual or organization uses high security checks that include safety features that do not survive the image conversion process, they position their bank for an indemnity claim against the presenting bank.

thermochromic

The presenting bank passes the indemnity claim upstream, ultimately back to the original truncating bank or company. This assumes that, in addition to the customer using high security checks, the paying bank has a sight review threshold such that the original check would have been examined had it been presented, a critical element in an indemnity claim.

Because of the risk associated with the indemnity, the largest banks in America have actively looked for check safety features that will survive the imaging process while still being useful, i.e. not replicable by forgers. By their very nature, image-survivable security features can be replicated with a color copier or scanner. According to Frank Abagnale, there are no check safety features that are image survivable that are useful. (11) A security feature called “Secure Seal,” which is a type of bar code with encrypted check data and is usually laser printed, is image survivable and is useful. Contact Greg Litster for information on Secure Seal.

Frank Abagnale

is one of the world’s most respected authorities on the subject of forgery, secure documents, identity theft and embezzlement. For over 30 years he has lectured to and consulted with hundreds of financial institutions, corporations and government agencies around the world, including the FBI. More than 14,000 financial institutions, corporations, and law enforcement agencies use his fraud prevention materials. He is the author and subject of Catch Me If You Can, a Steven Spielberg movie that starred Tom Hanks and Leonardo DiCaprio.
Mr. Abagnale can be contacted at (800) 237-7443.

Greg Litster

is president of SAFEChecks, and a former 18-year banker.  He is an associate of Frank Abagnale, and is publisher and editor of Mr. Abagnale’s publication, The Fraud Bulletin. It can be downloaded at safechecks.com. SAFEChecks sells high security checks, secure check printing software, and Positive Pay file formatting software.  Mr. Litster lectures on fraud prevention across the United States, and provides expert witness services in fraud cases both nationally and internationally.  He can be contacted at greg@safechecks.com or by phone at (800) 949-2265.

This article is provided for informational purposes. The authors assume no responsibility or liability for the specific applicability of the information provided. If you have questions regarding the information, please consult an attorney.

*******

The Abagnale Super Business Check has 16 security features and SAFEChecks have 12 security features, including heat sensitive ink, a true watermark and properly worded warning bands. Both are strictly controlled, high security check stock; both were designed by Frank Abagnale, one of the world’s foremost authorities on fraud prevention; and both are available through SAFEChecks.

SAFEChecks
“The Check Fraud Prevention Specialists”

Since our founding in 1996,
SAFEChecks has NEVER had a check replicated
and used in a check fraud scam.

(800) 755-2265
www.safechecks.com