Check fraud has been in existence for as long as we have had checks. Over the course of time and technology it has gotten better though. Banks have implemented new strategies to help keep check fraud at bay and with continued success with debit card adoption rates, check fraud will probably be near extinction in the next decade. We can only hope anyway.
Bank of America has been implementing a fingerprint policy that coincides with the cashing of checks for non-bank customers. This has been a nationally recognized procedure for about ten years. So it is nothing new.. except for one customer. Joe Moses, grocery owner in a suburb of Boston, recently went to a Bank of America trying to cash a check for $80. Since he did not have an existing relationship with them, they required him to supply a fingerprint along with the check for identification purposes in case he was doing something fraudulent. Most people have accepted Bank of America’s request and supply them with whatever they need. Mr. Moses, however, was not so quick to comply. He refused to give them his fingerprint and they refused to cash his check. Apparently Mr. Moses had frequented this branch many times, always happy to supply any identification that was requested. He felt as though the fingerprint request was over the top. His direct quote was “Anyone who gives a fingerprint to someone other than the police is an idiot.” Needless to say, Mr Moses did not get his $80 and the bank did not get their fingerprint. He was quickly escorted from the branch.
So the question that comes to mind.. is the bank’s fingerprint policy infringing upon any rights? Do you think they are mandating a fair request based upon the liability they are assuming by cashing a potentially fraudulent check? I know that we leave fingerprints all over the place without regard. So do you think this is a good practice for banks to continue or do you think they should find an alternative solution… maybe retina scans!!??
October 22nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Good for Joe. The bank should be able to determine based on realistic means like photo id, signatures, or even dare I say CALL THE ACCOUNT HOLDER to verify the check is legit before cashing it. The tellers need to be doing a better job of verification, not pushing this off on the customer. And just because Joe does not have an account there does not make him a non-customer. The fact that he is using a Bank of America check from a Customer is enough for Joe to be treated like one. Is it not enough to be captured on video when your in the bank, record our license number and 2nd form of id and verify our signatures? Come one people. This is not national security here, this is a BANK, they do not need to collect such personal info like this. What is next, DNA? I bet the idea of fingerprinting came along 10+ years ago and it sounded crazy then, but after a while it becomes accepted. We’ve got no privacy anymore its a shame. I would be discouraged to be a customer of Bank of America, it sounds more like Bank of Whatever Country That DOES NOT Protect Personal Privacy and Liberties!
Good for JOE!
October 24th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
@Ron
You are correct in many of your statements. The one that I always have trouble with is cashing a check at a bank that the check is drawn on. If you don’t have an account with them, they want you to jump through hoops to get the check cashed AND some of them will charge you a check cashing or transaction fee?!?!? Makes no sense but I guess their ultimate goal is to get you to open an account so that you don’t have all those troubles.
November 9th, 2008 at 1:09 am
First of all, the fingerprint is not used for identification. It is kept on file in case the check turns out to be fraudulent. That is the very definition of a warrantless and a priori restraint on my rights to privacy and due process in the absence of probable cause of wrong-doing.
If your fingerprint is already all over the check when you hand it to the teller why does BOA require you to put your fingerprint on it before they cash it? Because it then becomes “voluntary”
It has to be voluntary so that a few years from now when all of our fingerprints are loaded into a database and we no longer have any financial privacy at all, we can’t complain about it because we volunteered.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:00 am
I agree that fingerprinting is an extreme measure. I know they’re just trying to protect themselves, but at what cost to our privacy? Really, it seems like they are trying to coerce you into opening an account so that you don’t have to leave a fingerprint. It could be considered profiling.