Is this even legal? How?

[TwoRails]

I tried a little experiment today. I wanted to "cash" a check I received from an major international company (a refund) the old fashion way: cash it for cash.

The bank wanted all kinds of crap, and they wanted to finger print me.

How can a bank, or any private company, require such a thing?? What is their authority?

I asked the bank manager how they can do that legally, and she was clueless and I was given the standard, typical answer of "that's just how we do things here."

Anybody know if / how this can be legal?

[HAL9000]

Interesting to say the least.... and so what are they matching prints to?

[blue60007]

Interesting indeed...my bank needs your account number - incase it's an invalid check they can get you for the $$...

Haven't tried that with an international check though..

[bucksfanjimj1]

Hal, the bank will turn the fingerprint and check over to the local authorities if the check turns out to be fraudulent. The banks have been doing the fingerprint thing for awhile now. Some banks will hold onto the funds until the check clears and then you will have to go back to the bank to claim your money. I went through a similar experience when I needed to cash a check from my 401k plan. I was given the first $100 and had to wait ten days for the check to clear before I could have the rest.

[Force Flow]

What bank did you go to? A bank you do business with, the bank that issued the refund, or somebody else entirely?

[trulad]

My wife works in the legal compliance department of a large bank and you would be surprised at the scams they run into. Also, all overseas transactions are carefully watched to make sure the money isn't going to a terrorist organization or is being "laundered" She is bound by law to report all suspiscious transactions to the FBI,after which they take over. Since 911 we can't be too careful.
trulad

[novie]

Utilizing the services of a bank is not a right, it is a privilege, so they can do it under their own authority. Typically if you do regular business with a bank as an account holder or depositor they wont require such stringent means as fingerprinting.

[HAL9000]

I can see holding the funds until it clears... but fingerprinting??? That's gone too far.

[Panama Red]

Maybe the hooded sweatshirt, dark glasses and fake moustache gave them reason to doubt the checks authenticity! Ya gotta clean up yer act, TR!

[glfredrick]

Here at the Kroger stores in Louisville, KY, you have to be fingerprinted and registered to use the services of the customer service desk in the grocery stores... Welcome to Big Brother...

[mairving]

More info on the fingerprinting thing. I noticed that my bank does it too but only for non account holders.

[Lespaul20]

My bank does the same for non account holders also.

[Negeva]

Blimey, that hasn't started over in the UK - yet. I can understand some measures to help combat terrorism and fraud but treating all of your customers as either potential fraudsters or terrorists isn't too comforting. So much for the innocent before guilty approach.

Be interesting to know what they do with all the prints that aren't on any national criminal databases; do they delete them, use them when investigating other crimes and so on.

[David M]

There is so much fraud out there such as fake ID's that I do not blame the banks for getting some sort of positive identification. Although not impossible, it's real hard to fake a fingerprint. If you do not like a bank getting positive ID on you then go elsewhere.

Feel fortunate they are not asking for a DNA sample.

[TwoRails]

To catch up on the above a little: I have no idea what they are matching the prints up to... I asked what they wanted it for and do with it, and all I got was "we discard it" after the check clears. I asked, since the check's bank was the one I was at, if the check was any good. They said yes, so I said then you don't really need my prints, then, do you? I got the "it's just the way we do biz" response...

As far as "waiting" for the check to clear, it should be "instantaneous" due to the new check-cashing law that allows a business to cash your personal check just like it was a debit (cash) card. So why don't the consumers get to utilize the same law?? If the check was good, and at the same bank, it should be instantaneously debited to the company's account and I get the cash. Period and simple... but it's not.

I was in a differ part of my small town and used a different branch for my little experiment. Yes, I could have easily ID'd myself as a customer, but then that would negate my experiment on how cashing a check works now-a-days. The company's check is with the same bank.

Oh, I not saying there isn't a lot, too much fraud, but I have a ton of ID. Why not take photos? The the fraud folks could be easily spotted visually that way! Having just a print means you have to get another and then match them up, etc...

A privilege?? I don't think so. I pay for a service, just like getting a car repaired. It's not a privilege to go to the dealer to have your car fixed, and it's not a privilege to pay for banking services --- not to mention they make a ton of money investing my money they are holding for me. Are they paying me for the privilege of holding my money??

Yes, I agree that fingerprinting is going to far. Hence this thread

Dang PR!! I didn't know that was you in the corner of the bank!!! LOL I'll wear something nicer next time (and BTW, that not a fake mustache, I just have to trim it up some )

I think I'd find a different grocery store if I had to get printed to use their service...

I'll have to check out your link later, mairving: thanks! I'm behind schedule on a few things right now.

LOL ! Ya, getting DNA is probably just around the corner for the banks I'd bet. They do it on criminal already if I'm not mistaken.

[David M]

The fingerprint probably acts as more of a deterrent than anything else. Obviously if someone wants to commit fraud but has never been fingerprinted, then fingerprinting will have no effect. But if I were considering committing a crime and someone wanted to take my fingerprints beforehand...then would I go ahead and do the crime? It would be pretty stupid to go ahead with the crime.

Come on....how many in here have never been fingerprinted? I am willing to bet it is a small minority. I had to get fingerprinted for my Merchant Mariners license. Worrying about someone getting your prints is like worrying about your face going on your drivers license. In fact, in CA you have to provide a finger print to get your license renewed. Big deal. The state and federal government and corporations, all with large databases, know a lot more about us than most people imagine....or have access to that information by paying for it. If you look around the internet anyone can purchase information on anyone else. We are not anonymous at all. Is this legal?...Yes. Is this ethical?...No. But it is a fact.

Don't think your bank could not purchase a copy of your fingerprints or any other information about you if if they wanted that information.

[TwoRails]

Agreed with most of that, David M, and yes I've been printed in the past. I understand that government agencies have the legal authority to print people, as they are the ones that make the laws. So back to one of my original questions: by what authority does a private (or public, but you get the idea) company have to finger print people? Now, from above, I'm finding out grocery stores do it to!?! When will the car dealers from my example above start finger printing folks?

[sdkfz]

The problem with cashing the check instantly is having the check ‘be good on its face' and having money in the account are not the same thing. Good on face includes- is the signature actually the account holder's/ authorized signor?

Say I stole a check from the middle of your current batch in your check book (a common strategy BTW) you may not know the check was missing for some time and then even not realize it was stolen right away.... "Strange I skipped a check # here…let’s see I wrote one to Bob then...oh well... I'll have to check on line to see if it cashed..."

In the mean time I have written it up and gone into the bank and submitted it. The teller looks at the sig and compares it to original. ... close enough (it should be cause I got a copy of it from the imprint of your last signature- hint - never sign the check in the book remove it then sign... anyway back to the bank...teller checks balance covers and cashes it. Sometime later you start getting bounce notices / check on line and investigate, submit an affidavit of forgery. In the mean time I am gone....so is the money. You get the stolen money back since you signed the affidavit, but what about the bank?

I have been in banking since 1984... started as a teller...been robbed at gun point, had fake money given, received forged checks, had to deal with employee theft.. if only they applied themselves to honest work....

[kstatefan40]

Banks around here do it for non-account holders. I don't see too much of a problem with it personally, but if someone were to clone it, it could be a problem, I suppose.

[David M]

Originally Posted by sdkfz The problem with cashing the check instantly is having the check ‘be good on its face' and having money in the account are not the same thing. Good on face includes- is the signature actually the account holder's/ authorized signor? Say I stole a check from the middle of your current batch in your check book (a common strategy BTW) you may not know the check was missing for some time and then even not realize it was stolen right away.... "Strange I skipped a check # here…let’s see I wrote one to Bob then...oh well... I'll have to check on line to see if it cashed..." In the mean time I have written it up and gone into the bank and submitted it. The teller looks at the sig and compares it to original. ... close enough (it should be cause I got a copy of it from the imprint of your last signature- hint - never sign the check in the book remove it then sign... anyway back to the bank...teller checks balance covers and cashes it. Sometime later you start getting bounce notices / check on line and investigate, submit an affidavit of forgery. In the mean time I am gone....so is the money. You get the stolen money back since you signed the affidavit, but what about the bank? I have been in banking since 1984... started as a teller...been robbed at gun point, had fake money given, received forged checks, had to deal with employee theft.. if only they applied themselves to honest work....

You don't even need to steal checks. There is software available to custom make any sort of check you wish. You enter in the persons name, address, account number, routing number and a few other things, click on the print button, and you have an exact copy of someone else's check. A check itself is no guarantee of any sort of authenticity. If you cannot prove the identification of the bearer of the check then you have absolutely no protection. The banks know this and the best form of verifying the bearer is by fingerprint. Are the banks supposed to take a reactive instead of proactive approach to fraud? Should they only take action after they have been ripped off? I totally understand the banks position on this.

So long as our society continues to deteriorate where there is more and more fraud then businesses will have to take a harder and harder stance against fraud..and we all end up suffering by having to go through more and more hassles in order to conduct our regular lives. Point the finger of blame at the fraudsters and not the businesses.

[TwoRails]

sdkfz, I'm glad you weren't shot! One of my points is that "they" (virtually any business) can cash my checks (almost) instantaneously because of the Check 21 Act. Yes, I understand that 'face' and cash in the account are two different things, but a fingerprint will not stop someone from getting the cash even if it was fraud. That's just a security blanket so banks can prosecute the perpetrator. Why is Check 21 a one way street....

[EzyStvy]

Not real sure what Check 21 has to do wth anything in this thread....

The Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (or Check 21 Act) is a United States federal law (public Law 108-100) enacted into law October 28, 2003 by the 108th Congress. It took effect one year later, on October 28, 2004. The law allows the recipient of a paper check to create a digital version, thereby eliminating the need for further handling of the physical document. Consumers are most likely to see the effects of this act when they notice that certain checks are no longer being returned to them with their monthly statement even though other checks are still being returned. Another side effect of the law is that it is now legal for businesses to use a computer scanner to capture images of checks and deposit them electronically, a process known as remote deposit.

"I tried a little experiment today"-> What was the experiment about? Was there some goal other then to get cash?

Aren't you proud of your bank for good security so they can keep their costs down which enables them to not pass these costs onto You?

[novie]

i once worked as a bank teller and caught a few people with fake checks (in an urban branch it happens a lot). actually at one time there was a string of people bringing in the same check that looked totally clueless when the cops arrived. while we did not fingerprint, there are reasons to take these measures.

with the greater resolutions and storage/compression available, it does become a bit of a privacy issue - you may not know it but images of all checks written on an account are scanned when processed in the back of the house and can be referenced by check # amount and viewed, hopefully not by anyone that shouldnt

as for the 'automatic' electronic transfers, they are a stopgap. afaik, the actual check still goes through processing and verification, the standard 2-3 days and if not verified the money goes back the other way. i have seen account holders use the funds they see in their account only to have the deposited check bounce, stacking up overdraft fees.

[TwoRails]

Originally Posted by EzyStvy Not real sure what Check 21 has to do wth anything in this thread.... "I tried a little experiment today"-> What was the experiment about? Was there some goal other then to get cash? Aren't you proud of your bank for good security so they can keep their costs down which enables them to not pass these costs onto You?

Gosh, EzyStvy... There's a lot in this thread that does not directly relate to the question(s) I asked, which is what give them legal authority?? Just rolling over and taking it doesn't fit either, but this is "general discussion" ...

Here's a similar question: why do insurance companies want your social security number to give you an online quote? It's the same question only different. You'll now find TV commercials for a certain company stating they don't need it. Smart business move as they got a ton of prospective customer going online for quotes that the "other guys" lost out on.

Why? because John Q Public didn't like it and they didn't roll over. If more folks used their voices (actual or monetary) we would not have so many little things in life that we don't like being done to us.

[mairving]

Originally Posted by TwoRails Gosh, EzyStvy... There's a lot in this thread that does not directly relate to the question(s) I asked, which is what give them legal authority?? Just rolling over and taking it doesn't fit either, but this is "general discussion" ... Here's a similar question: why do insurance companies want your social security number to give you an online quote? It's the same question only different. You'll now find TV commercials for a certain company stating they don't need it. Smart business move as they got a ton of prospective customer going online for quotes that the "other guys" lost out on. Why? because John Q Public didn't like it and they didn't roll over. If more folks used their voices (actual or monetary) we would not have so many little things in life that we don't like being done to us.

Most insurance companies use the SSN to check your credit. Their studies indicate that people with bad credit are higher risk and so will have higher premiums. They say that you will save money if you have good credit. What they really mean is that you will pay more if you have bad credit.

[trulad]

i think the fingerprints could be taken to the next level and used as ID for an ATM machine. They can steal your card and PIN number,but not your fingerprints. Your money would be much safer. Actually, it's a shameful society that forces us to take such measures. Honesty seems to be on the endangered lst.
trulad

[bucksfanjimj1]

Originally Posted by Force Flow What bank did you go to? A bank you do business with, the bank that issued the refund, or somebody else entirely?

I took the check to my bank for cashing. The check was issued by an out of state bank. However that bank is equally as large as mine. They just don't have a physical prescence here in Ohio. Plus the check was for a very large sum of money.

[sdkfz]

Originally Posted by TwoRails sdkfz, I'm glad you weren't shot!

Most displays of a weapon are a scare tactic fortunately. Still a freaky experience.

[backithink]

my bank will ask for a finger print if i am cashing a personal check and out of state checks.... when i asked why... its just incase the check comes back "stolen" they have exact proof that you were the one who cashed it.... even stores that cash checks here will print you.... its no biggie i guess... not much i can do about it... i want my money and if i have to give someone my finger print so be it... i am not a criminal so i dont have any current or future issues i need to worry about hiding from

[EzyStvy]

Originally Posted by TwoRails Why? because John Q Public didn't like it and they didn't roll over. If more folks used their voices (actual or monetary) we would not have so many little things in life that we don't like being done to us.

Learning to Not sweat the little things is much easier..

Course, if the bank got to keep ten percent of ALL checks they cash as a fee, then they could afford to loosen up their security. Could be an expensive price to pay for our freedom...

God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.