If Bank A accepts a mobile deposit that is endorsed with "For Mobile Deposit Only" and that same check is then physically deposited at Bank B with that same endorsement, what bank is liable for the loss?
Does an online bank (such as Ally Bank or go2bank) have to provide customers with an Image Replacement Document (IRD) when checks deposited via mobile Remote Deposit Capture (mRDC) are returned?
If no, does it then become the responsibility of the payee to work with the maker of the check to recoup the funds?
One of our official checks cleared twice. A nonmember walked the paper check into the branch to be cashed and completed the full endorsement on the back of the item. Later that same day, we received the item again in our daily check processing batch. That one looks to be taken in by the other bank as an RDC, however there is not one thing written on the back of their image - no signature, no "for mobile deposit" check mark, no "for mobile deposit only" written - nothing.
We did not find this duplicate until we reconciled the monthly register for official checks. Do we have any claim to recover the funds from the bank that ran the RDC without any sort of endorsement? We hold the paper item.
I think banks which offer mobile deposits don't fall under Regulation CC for funds availability. Is there any regulation that talks about mobile deposits and what guidelines it provides banks?
When mailing a chargeback to a customer, is it required to include a brochure explaining Check 21? We give out disclosures at account opening explaining Check 21 and since it's been in place since 2004 do we really need to send one with every chargeback?
Is it legal for a customer of a bank to use a copy of a check (not the original because they never actually have it) to scan for Remote Deposit Capture?
Customer has their client send a copy of the orginal check to them with the proper endorsement on the back. This could be via an email attachment. Customer scans the check copy, front and back, into the RDC program for deposit into their account. Customer never actually receives the original check but now has credit for it.
We have seen customers commit fraud by using remote deposit capture to deposit the same check at multiple banks, by using the same image of the check front but different check backs in order to use multiple restrictive endorsements. Under Reg CC or the UCC, what is the best way to argue against another bank that their claim is legitimate and ours isn’t? Both banks have an image with their restrictive endorsement, and theoretically the captures could have been made within a short amount of time. How can we defend ourselves from being left holding the bag?
I own a check cashing business. Our industry is faced with an epidemic of returns for duplicate presentments where a payee will deposit an image of their check (using their phone app), then bring the original to the check casher. The check casher takes custody of the check and gives cash to the payee. The check casher then deposits the check to its own account via remote deposit capture (RDC) - this is standard practice today. Keep in mind, the original check remains in possession of the check casher and does not physically go to the bank. Sometime later, the check casher gets a duplicate presentment return because the image deposited by the payee's phone app was first in time.
Now, per Check 21, the check casher's bank is the depository and is a warranty recipient entitled to enforce the warranty against the payee's bank so long as the depository (1) sustains a loss and (2) takes the original. Two part question: If the check casher's bank does not take a loss because the check casher itself covers the return, is the bank still able to enforce the warranty? And since the check casher is using RDC, even though it retains custody of the original check, is the bank able to enforce the warranty?
Our customer mobile deposited a check with their signature endorsement along with a restrictive endorsement of "mobile deposit only [FI name] [date]".
The customer then scratched/crossed out the restrictive endorsement and negotiated the item a second time. We were charged back on the mobile
deposit. I understand we did not process the paper check, however the restrictive endorsement was on the mobile deposit and later scratched out.
Do we have any recourse back to the second bank to recover funds?
In April 2013, a teller errantly entered the wrong routing number when a check she was scanning rejected. In Jan 2014, the FI whose routing number was errantly entered is now asking us to issue them a credit for this item. Is the FI within their time frame to ask for reimbursement? What regulation does this matter fall under.