🚀 go-pugleaf

Gordon Charrick wrote:
> 
> In misc.consumers Jamie <jamie@digex.net> wrote:
> : Why should Crestar (as opposed to your bank) honor the check, if, as you
> : said, it was rejected it due to insufficient funds?
> 
> : A bad check is a bad check.  I've never heard of anyone being able to
> : cash a bad check simply going to the issuing bank personally.  The
> : reason you couldn't cash it at your bank in the first place, is because
> : Crestar themselves had rejected it due to insufficient funds.  Why would
> : showing up there in person change that situation?
> 
> Suppose you break into John Doe's home and steal some of his checks. You
> write one out and forge his signature and take it to his bank to be
> cashed. How do they know whether or not it's a forged check unless that
> branch has his signature card? John isn't going to be out the money
> because he'll bitch and scream and file an affidavit of fraud and get
> the money back. The bank or it's insurance company will eat the loss.
> This is the banks way of discouraging this kind of fraud.

What this is telling me is that the bank should be asking for the prints
of the ISSUER - not the redeemer.  (In most of these cases; the checks
are written to 3rd parties ... I know; my wife had her purse stolen 
about 6 years ago with about 6-8 checks in it & they were used to buy 
everything from a leather jacket to some burgers [not sure why they
wasted them on burgers ... I guess thevery makes one hungry])

It's the issuer who opens the account with the bank & who should be the
one to bear the burden of having to follow these rules...