I'd just like to know how you handle checks made out to cash at the teller line. Back in my baby banker days on the teller line, we always had whoever was taking the cash sign the back of the check. I came on board my current bank as operations officer in Feb and have been cleaning up a lot of messes from the former ops officer's reign of terror. I spent the last couple of weeks on the teller line in different offices and noticed that they were not having people sign the back of the check IF they are the person who signed the front. I've asked for opinions on this from my office managers and have gotten a mixed response on changing this back (the former ops officer made them quit having the customers sign the back). All thoughts are welcomed. Thank you!

Check out this guru article: http://www.bankersonline.com/compliance/gurus_cmp051203c.html

At my bank (community bank), we also require the individual obtaining the cash to sign the back of the check even if they are the individual that signed the front of the check. This is incredibly helpful in research and helps to provide the paper trail necessary if there is a dispute.

Thank you for your help!

For what it's worth, we also have the person cashing the check endorse the back.

Our bank had a policy of not requiring an endorsement for checks made out to "cash" until this fall. After attending a seminar on negotiable checks we realized we would be wise to require the endorsement. The change was implemented with not much grumbling by our customers except from a former employee who absolutely refused to endorse her check. She was the person who trained our staff not to require the endorsements in the past, and apparently still knew how to intimidate our staff since they let her get by with it. Do you always refuse to cash a check made to "cash" because the customer won't endorse it?

The signature is proof of who received the funds. Without it you have no idea who funds were paid to. Without it you open the door to potential loss

mbe, have you considered closing her account? Aren't those kind the first to scream the loudest when they perceive an error?

The thought crossed my mind, but she is also friends with some our our board members and shareholders so I think I'd be on the losing end of the arguement. Small town politics. When she worked at the bank we worked together as she was internal audit and I am compliance officer. It just irks me she is trying to throw her weight around on such an insignificant issue. Anyway,I haven't yet given up on getting her to change.

I would introduce her to the ATM.

I don't intend to pile on here as most of the posts have indicated that it is not required since a negotiable item payble to cash is a bearer instrument, but that their bank does require endorsement of the person cashing the check.

You might also consider that periodically, banks have problems with couriers or proof operators pulling items from the work during processing. A large bank that I worked at was having a problem with non-branch employees pulling travelers checks and checks payable to cash to process at check cashing companies and other banks.

Having an endorsement on the negotiable item at least makes it a little more challenging for the crook to explain why there is another endorsement.

Just a thought.

That is an excellent point and it reinforces our decision to change our policy. But I really do like the ATM suggestion for my former employee friend.

Brady on Bank Checks cites reasons why a bank should obtain the endorsement (indorsement) even on a bearer instrument.

So? What makes you think you are entitled to know who your customers are paying? Aren't your customers entitled to any privacy? There is no reason why you should know who received the funds. A properly endorsed check made out to "cash" is the equivalent of a Bearer Bond--so called because it is payable to the "Bearer"--ie, whoever happens to be presenting it! It is the equivalent of cash. Which means if the intended recepient should drop it on the street and someone else finds it, that someone can come into your bank, present the check, and get the money. This is not unusual. If the intended recepient had been paid with a $100 bill, accidentally dropped it on the street, someone finds it and comes into your bank and asks for 5 $20s--would you require him to sign the back of the $100 and show ID? Of course not.
The person issuing, and the person receiving, a check made out to "Cash" assume all the risk, should the check be lost. However, by refusing to honor a properly endorsed check issued by one of your customers (assuming there is sufficient funds in the account to cover the check) you open yourself (&/or) your Bank up to a host of legal liabilities.A check made out to cash, endorsed on the back by the signatory, is the same as cash, and should be treated accordingly.

So much passion for something that hasn't been discussed in a year and a half...

Quote:

---

A check made out to cash, endorsed on the back by the signatory

---

Such misdirected passion. If you would go back and read
s-l-o-w-l-y you would see that the issue is when someone refuses to endorse the back when made out to cash. No one has an issue if the check is endorsed.

BTW, I am friends with someone who's named Cash. Sure hope he doen't find all of these checks!

Our bank you don't have to sign the back if it is a on us check, counter check, but if it is from another bank then the front and the back must be signed, it is really important.

The last three banks I have worked at have required that checks payable to cash always be endorsed. When I conduct my training, I teach the tellers to explain to the customers that a signature is proof that they paid out the money and didn't deposit the check. I have never had a customer refuse, sometimes they may tell us that it is weird to sign the front and back.

I just explain that it is bank policy. And then if the teller drawer is off (because they do ask once in a while for extras! ), we know who to start calling. They smile and like that answer.