We recently had a situation with a Financial Institution that allows customers to scan their checks from home for deposit. Our mutual customer scanned a Treasury check to them for deposit. The customer then brought the original item to us for deposit. We received the item back from Treasury as already being paid. We are now out the $400. Are there any warranties or indemnities to us under Check 21? Everything we read is in reference to a loss from receipt of the substitute check instead of the original. In this case, we received the original item. Does this institution have some obligation to remove the original item from circulation?

No - the customer that imaged the item has that obligation. I can already see the train wreck coming. IMHO - Any bank that allows ca onsumer to do this is just going to cause a world of hurt for themselves and all the other banks.

This is the Check 21 version of "the race to the bank." And I am with Randy on it. Scammers are only beginning to scratch the surface.

This thread might help.

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbth...true#Post671876

Al

I use this service with my son's account. It is really slick. But just as a bank might accept a fraudulent check from someone, this takes it to a higher level because the check not only looks authentic, it is.

When you scan the check it instructs the customer to "VOID" it. But if you're planning on cashing it again, you have the power starting right then and there.

It's interesting to note that the bank offering this service says you can scan for deposit any check except traveler's checks and foreign checks, and it won't, of course, accept savings bonds. I share Andy's concern about dishonest payees. Will the paying bank catch the fact that a check is being presented for a second time? If and when they do, which depositary bank will hold the bag? Because one of them will, unless the crook is stupid enough not to have disappeared with his ill-gotten gains.

What are the chances that someone creates a scanner that has an integrated stamper? Of course there would need to be a feature that would shutdown the batch transmissions if the stamper were "out of ink".