We received a call from a credit union on 9-1-21 informing us that a cashier's check on them was fraudulent. We sent that check out on 8-5-21. We waited 10 business days to give the customer credit. (8-20-21)
The customer has spent more than half the funds but I placed a hold on the remaining amount. Do credit unions not return through the Fed like banks? They sent us an Indemnification Agreement to sign and send the funds back. Could this be considered a Late Return? Help!
If a mother allows her son to use her debit card and PIN, then another day the son takes the card and withdraws cash from the ATM (which we have video of him) and the mother does not want to press charges, does she have dispute rights? Can we the bank require the police report in order for her to make a claim? She says he does this all the time and he lives with her.
A corporate customer's account was recently compromised. Information from an authentic check was used to create fictitious checks. Numerous $100 checks were negotiated. The fake checks don't include a payee name. In addition, the checks don't have any type of endorsement. If we consider these checks bearer instruments, and no endorsement is required by UCC, do we have any recourse with the institution who processed the (fictitious) checks, or is the loss on our side since the customer failed to identify the fake checks in time for a timely return?
I was asked today, on our bank's affidavit of fraud and forgery form for checks that have been cashed fraudulently, why we require it to be notarized. Is this required? The people who created the form and implemented it are no longer here. We are trying to figure out if a customer has check fraud, on our form that customers sign, does the bank have to have a section so it is notarized?
During a review of the account, we noticed several transactions to Cash App, to the same people from last December and one in January. These were NOT disputed. Should we inquire about these transactions? If so, could we start our calculation from the statement date (plus 60 days) from the statement with the first unauthorized transaction? Does it make a difference that the December, the May and June transactions were on different cards? (The customer has had multiple cards.)
We have received an EFT claim where the customer allowed the girlfriend to use his debit card to pay his bills while he was in the hospital for a month, Nov 23 - Dec 23. Unfortunately the girlfriend did not pay bills, she helped herself by using FB Pay and transferred about $9,000 to herself. Customer gets out of the hospital and girlfriend will not let him have access to his phone, the bank, or anything as she is the one "taking care of him". Finally, if the story is true, he managed to get out of the car while near the bank when she was driving, parked at a stop sign. He then learned why she wouldn't give him any of his account info. Even though she exceeded her authorization he granted, the customer is liable since he gave her authorization, correct?
My concern is more so about the transactions that occurred after Dec 23, as she continued to use the account. He took his card back on Dec 23 when he got back home; however, the information was stored in the device for the P2P transfers and she continued to use it through January. Are we liable for those transactions? Is it a concern that the customer was unable to contact the bank since he was hospitalized? He was unable to contact us even after he got home because she wouldn't allow him access to his phone. What do you suggest we do on this claim?
Our customer authorized a transfer but was scammed into completing it. The customer received a message from someone posing as an Apple support person. She called in response to the message she received and the person posing as the support rep instructed her to set up a Google Pay account with her debit card attached, which she did. The scammer then orchestrated the transfer of funds via Google Pay and our customer is now disputing these charges. What are our responsibilities regarding this dispute since the charges were technically authorized?
Regarding Reg E and tier three timely notification: if a cardholder submits a dispute stating fraud occurred 5/1/20, our institution would apply the tier three timely notification and deny items beyond that statement + 60 days. If that same cardholder comes back after this dispute processes, and claims additional fraud on the same card dating back to 1/1/20, are we allowed under Reg E to re-evaluate that tier three application? Additionally, if the cardholder makes separate claims on two different days (consecutive days for example) is it correct that we may treat that as a single claim?
We have a customer that deposited a check, which we believe to be possibly fraudulent. The check was issued for work in another country and the description doesn't match what the depositor does or the work in the other country. The work is being performed by his girlfriend and we believe the girlfriend is solely on the internet. So there are a number of red flags.
How long does the issuing bank have to return the check to us for reimbursement from our customer's account? Does that time frame differ if the check is deemed to be fraudulent? I have heard up to one year. However, we can't hold the funds that long, or is there a stipulation-reason we could use to hold funds for one year?
If the funds are gone, are we required to return the funds after 90 days? After one year?
We are trying to plan not to get caught having to return $10,000 that we believe to be fraudulent.
We have had several EFT claims recently that involve online debit card transaction to dating sites and adult sites. Both of which may have a trial membership period where the customer signs up for very little and then in 7 days or so gets hit with a heftier fee, and then many more. The customer claims they did not authorize the transactions. Our employee contacts these merchants; gets verification the customer signed up for the trial membership, the date they signed up, the name on the account, the email, and possibly the address associated with the account.
My concern with these types of sites is that there may not be a shipping address as they are online services, so we can't say there was a shipment to their physical address. If the customer is claiming they didn't sign up for the services, yet the merchant is providing us with all the other information that coincides with our customer's information, is that enough to still deny the claim or should it be paid based on the customer's statement?