Click to return to BOL home page
Banker Store Read A Reg Vendor Connect Career Connect Learning Connect Bankers Information Network
 

Support for BOL is provided by:

MAIN CONTENT 
Compliance

    Agency Road Maps

    Alphabet Soup

    Compliance Tools

    FACTA/FCRA

    OFAC

Lending

    FACTA/FCRA

    Lending Tools

    SCRA

Marketing

Operations

    Check 21

    Operations Tools

    SAR Resrch Guide

Security

    AML/BSA

    Bank Robbery

    Counterfeits

    ID Fraud/Phishing

    Security Tools

Technology/eBanking

    Info Security


SPECIAL AREAS 
BOL Archives

BOL Blogs

Briefing Archive

Calendar

Court Watch

e-Card Exchange

Examiner's Corner

Executive Briefing

HR Corner

Infovault

Launch Pad

Regulator Roadmaps

Risk Management

Site Map

Site Orientation

Top Stories


~ ~ ~
SERVICES 
CrimeDex

Em@il Education

ID Verification


~ ~ ~
SHOP 

Banker Store

Bankers Info Ntwk
Vendor Connect

CONNECT 

Career Connect

Learning Connect

Vendor Connect

Guru Central

INTERACT 

Ask a Guru
Bankers Threads

Contact Us

Give Us Feedback


TOOLS 

BOL Toolbar

60 Second Solutions

Alphabet Soup

Banker Tools

BOL Forms

FUN 

BOL Recipes

eCard Exchange

LEARN MORE 


About Our Sponsors
About Us





Print Friendly! Email This Article! Discuss NOW!


Refer to Maker Revisited
Barb Hurst, BOL Guru
Guru Bio

Editor's Note: A Q&A we featured last week about the use of the phrase "Refer to Maker" raised some questions about whether it is an appropriate reason for a check return, in light of the provisions of Regulation CC. We asked BOL Guru Barbara Hurst to expand on her answer a little further.

I agree that CC specifies that the reason for return is required. And perhaps I was too audacious in mentioning the fact that "Refer to Maker" is a handy reason. But I'm speaking from working in Operations for fifteen years and not only using it for a reason, but also having to deal with it on returned checks.

When testifying for a bank that has been stuck with a check marked that way, I've had to explain to the court just what it means, and why the bank that marked the check that way thought it a legitimate reason. On the face of it, dealing with the words themselves means this check is no good and you'll have to find the maker to determine why it's no good. In banking language, however, it means this check is 99% sure to be a fraud, but the bank can't say so. NSF on the check can be disproven if the records show a good balance - but the officer knows the balance is false, and fraudulently inflated. So I can't put NSF on it. The signature agrees. "Funds subject to hold" means I better have some documentation to back me up. However, I may be taking action on nothing but a phone call And I'm in even more trouble if I put "suspected fraud" on the face of the check. So the catch-all - used by almost all financial institutions (particularly the very large ones) is "Refer to Maker".

If you can't find a good, standard reason to put on the check as the reason for return, and the reason you are returning it puts even more liability on the bank, then "Refer to Maker" is your answer.



First published on BankersOnline.com 3/19/01







Open the newly required
"UAD" .XML appraisals
Download Free UAD Reader


Privacy Policy    Disclaimer   Recommend This Site !   Contact Us


BankersOnline is a free service made possible by the generous support of our advertisers and sponsors. Advertisers and sponsors are not responsible for site content. Please help us keep BankersOnline FREE to all banking professionals. Support our advertisers and sponsors by clicking through to learn more about their products and services.