We cashed 2 stolen checks, one for $90.00 and one for $400.00. The maker's signature was forged on both items. The payee used her state i.d. and provided a thumbprint on both items.
The stolen checks are drawn on a joint account, father, mother, 50 year old son.
The mother's signature was forged as maker.
When the payee attempted to cash a third check at a different branch, the teller was suspicious, sought management approval and the payee was turned away.
The 50 y.o. son was contacted. He said the two checks that we had cashed were fraudulent. I asked him where he has the checkbook now and he said it was stolen about 30 days ago from his convertible. I asked if his car was broken into and he said no, his top was down.
I filed a police report, have good pictures, the police know who the suspect is, etc.
The customer wants full restitution. I offered half because of the circumstances. Had he notified the bank about the stolen checkbook, we could have closed the account and we wouldn't be in this position. He said he didn't know the checkbook was stolen until we called and figured it was stolen about 30 days ago.
Looking for opinions here. I think 50% is the right thing to do. Customer wants 100%. I can see some banks offering nothing for restitution because the customer never notified the bank that the checkbook was stolen.
Advice anybody?

It depends on how much in attorney fees you want to spend to save the bank $245.

Sometimes you have to adjust your principles to save your principal. Randy's right. It could cost you a whole lot more than $245 to stand on principle here.

A mere $490.00 is nothing compared to loss of reputation if this customer starts telling current customers or potential future customers about how poorly he was treated by your bank. I also agree with Randy about the potential cost implications.