Can I restrict an account up to 60 days for investigation purposes when depository account experiences return items that return as fraudulent or
unauthorized? Also can the 60-day restriction be extended after each returning deposit? When do I start counting the 60 days? When the last return
item is received?
EX: receive 1st return item on 10/1- 60 days is 11/29, receive 2nd return item on 10/3 can I extend the restriction until 12/1, so on and so on?
Is the bank liable for cashing an on-us check that was forged by the daughter of our customer? There was no stop-payment placed on the check.
We are reviewing our ability to deny debit card claims, whether it be a dispute or fraud case. If we have sufficient information to initiate and investigation, but don't have sufficient information to determine it an error occurred or didn't occur, are we able to decline the claim based on the fact that in the course of our investigation, the information we have does not support the customer's claim?
For example, we have a customer claiming fraud, who states they have the card in possession but did not make the purchase. If during the course of our investigation we can see that the item in question was in fact delivered to the customer's home address, can we deny it for stating that it appears the customers benefited from that transaction since the item purchased was delivered to the address on file?
Can we refuse to send an international wire out if we suspect fraudulent activity?
My question has to do with scams involving fraudulent checks and how we should handle the check when a customer presents it for payment. Specifically, we had a customer bring in a check for $2,900 that just didn't feel right for the type of business the customer normally conducts. The teller inquired about the check. The customer explained that he had enrolled online as a secret shopper. He was to keep $300 for himself and spend the other $2,600 buying specific merchandise to send back to the company that sent him the check. The teller called the bank on which the check was drawn and was told that it was fraudulent. We have had a law enforcement official tell us that we need to deposit the check anyway, put a hold on the account so that the funds are secured, and wait for the check to be returned so that we have a paper trail and proof that the check is fraudulent. In addition,
once we have proof that the check is fraudulent, we should give the returned check back to the customer so that they can file a complaint with law enforcement. Is this the proper way to handle the check?
A check clears on a business account. The signature is good, it is within check number range and there are no red flags. Three days later another check clears, but it is flagged as duplicate. The client claims the first check is fraudulent. What is our recourse and obligation to the business, and is this different than a consumer account?
How would you define reasonable notice used in the following terms and conditions disclosure? We may also close this account at any time upon reasonable notice to you and tender of the account balance personally or by mail. Reasonable notice depends on the circumstances, and in some cases such as when we cannot verify your identity or we suspect fraud, it might be reasonable for us to give you notice after the change or account closure becomes effective.
We have a commercial account which has had fraudulently created checks presented against it. When we returned these items to the bank that cashed them, that bank sent them back stating there was only a 24 hour window to return. We initially returned them back as fraud within two weeks of receipt. Shouldn't that bank accept the check and the loss?
Recently we have been receiving Breach of Warranty Claims for fictitious checks and/or forged maker signature checks drawn on the Bank's submitting the claims.
My understanding is that under the UCC the paying bank has until its midnight deadline to return a check for these reasons. We initially denied the claims, but have now received demand letters stating that are in breach of warranty provisions.
Along with these claims, banks are providing hold harmless agreements stating that their customer has filed formal complaints with law enforcement. From what I can ascertain they are attempting to use the warranty to claim that the creation of a fake check is an "alteration". We don't belong to a clearing house that allows warranty claims on fraudulent checks.
Any insight you can provide is most greatly appreciated.
When filing a check-fraud SAR, do we have to report all names on the checks, if we are not sure if they are victims or possible suspects, in the subject information section?