![]() From your perspective, it really doesn't matter whether the duplicate presentment is the result of fraud or carelessness. There is no question that mobile deposits (a mobile version of remote deposit capture, sometimes abbreviated as mRDC) has resulted in increased duplicate presentment or duplicate payment activity. 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? 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. Sometime later, the check casher gets a duplicate presentment return because the image deposited by the payee's phone app was first in time. Keep in mind, the original check remains in possession of the check casher and does not physically go to the bank. The check casher then deposits the check to its own account via remote deposit capture (RDC) - this is standard practice today. The check casher takes custody of the check and gives cash to the payee. 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. 2023 BSA/AML Top Gun Conference ON-DEMAND.2023 Lending Compliance Triage Conference.2023 Operations Compliance Triage Conference.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |