Check washing happens when someone utilizes simple chemicals available around the home (nail polish, bleach, etc..) to remove portions of the information you have written on your check. Check washers typically take your check and put a piece of masking tape over your signature. Then they soak your check in the chemicals mentioned above and all the other handwritten ink will disappear from the face of your check. After letting the check dry, they now have a blank check with your legitimate signature. They complete the check for any dollar amount that they feel appropriate and are off to the local bank or check cashing store (PayDay Loans, Check Into Cash, etc..) to get your money. You don’t find out for days or weeks later and when the bank researches it and compares signatures, they say that it is an official check with your signature. Studies show that check washing is costing Americans over $800 million dollars a year!! (FTC 2006 annual report)
Help is on the way! Uni-ball, with the guidance of Frank Abagnale (author of Catch Me If You Can), has put into production a new line of pens that are impervious to check washing. The Uni-ball 207 utilizes a technologically advanced ink that won’t wash away with standard check washing solutions. The ink is formulated so that it chemically bonds to the paper that you are writing on.
SmartSecurityPeople.com recommends to our readers that the next time you go pen shopping, you should look for the Uni-ball 207 and make use of it when signing documents of importance. It is a cheap investment that provides great protection.
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!!??
