Handling an Altered Money Order

Answered by:

Question:

If a customer makes a claim that his Personal Money Order had been altered, do we follow normal procedures as if the MO was his personal check? The MO was not completed when the customer left the Bank; however, the purchaser's copy indicates one Payee and the check indicates another. Normal procedures include completing an Affidavit of Alteration and filing a police report. The checks were issued over 60 days ago.

Answer:

Generally speaking, a PMO is treated as a check and the remitter gets most of the rights afforded the drawer of a check. So I would suggest that the remitter here gets the right to assert a claim for alteration. Since there is no statement provided for the customer, I can't see that the 60-day lapse since purchase has any meaningful impact on the outcome.

However, the facts as you've presented them would not lead me to conclude, without further review of the actual check, whether any alteration ever took place. If the MO left your control without a named payee, as many do, the mere fact that the customer copy shows one payee and the check another doesn't mean much. It's too easy to use the carbon or carbonless duplication features in a MO "package" to create this sort of apparent conflict.

Only if the check itself shows evidence of the alleged alteration would I even consider acknowledging the remitter's claim.

First published on BankersOnline.com 09/15/03