Customer deposits check, it is returned/charged back. A couple weeks later, customer presents check from same source/remitter and bank staff wants to place a hold on it, using the "re-deposited item" reason....but this doesn't work, correct?

In order to use this reason, it must be the same exact item (not just an item from the remitter's same bank account) being re-deposited that was previously returned by the bank, correct? Is this specifically stated in Reg. CC anywhere? Staff's logic in this situation is that if one check comes back (unpaid) another one drawn on the same account, just a short while later, most likely will too....even though this is not always the case.

I agree with you that it applies only to the checks that were returned and subsequently redeposited.

(c) Redeposited checks. Sections 229.10(c) and 229.12 do not apply to a check that has been returned unpaid and redeposited by the customer or the depositary bank.

You're right. The new check has not been "re-deposited" (it must be the same item) so you can't use that reason to delay the funds.

229.13(c) Redeposited checks. Sections 229.10(c) and 229.12 do not apply to a check that has been returned unpaid and redeposited by the customer or the depositary bank.

Thank you both for the confirmation!

You may be able to sell me on Reasonable Cause to Doubt Collectibility