One of our offices has a customer that purchases official checks, sometime more than one at a time. He request that someone else name be placed as the remitter. The office does not know why. One question should we do business this way? The center then asked whose information do they get for the monetary instrument log? I said the person who is purchasing the check. Is that correct even though his name is not on the check as the remitter?

What is the correct process in this situation?

Thanks in advance for your help.

The remitter should be the account holder.
I would not put someone else's name on the check.
And the account holder information also goes on the log.

Many times it's a matter of your bank procedures - our procedure is that the purchasers name goes on the instrument as remitter - period.

There should not be any exceptions to this rule the way I understand. We have to get our employees to understand the importance of getting all required information.

Our teller software, Vertex, allows us to have two separate fields. The remitter, which appears on the check and the transactor, the individual who is purchasing the check. The transactor information is captured for MIL, the remitter information prints out on the check.

This is convenient when someone owns a business and they want their business name to appear on the check as the remitter, but the business is not really purchasing the check. The business name would appear on the check as the remitter, the teller would take an option to also have a "transactor" and collect information on the individual for the MIL.

My old bank had a system like that, too.
I miss it!