Thumbprints at Banks

[2tim215]

What if the check was issued by their bank? Does this make a difference?

[marksgirl]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The thumbprint, incidentally, is on the check itself. If the check bounces, then the bank has your thumbprint to pass on to law enforcement, but if your check is good, then the cancelled check - with your thumbprint on it - eventually gets sent back to you.

Passed on to law enforcement? For what purpose?

If I write a check to someone, and it bounces, then I get charged a fee by my bank, and possibly by the business I wrote it to. And hasn't it been years since banks actually returned cashed checks to the person who wrote them? I suppose there are still some out there who do that...

If I get a check that someone wrote to me, and I cash it, but the person that wrote it doesn't have the funds, they get charged a fee by their bank.

I think the question here is what right do banks really have to take a thumbprint? It's never been required to open an account to prove who you are...the driver's license (or other ID) works fine. If they feel the need to have "proof" that the person cashing the check is really the person intended to receive it, then writing down their ID on the check should suffice.

[planetmark]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Look at it this way. You're talking about a bank (or any bank) where you don't have an account. Such a bank doesn't have to cash your checks no matter what sort of ID you have or that they normally would accept. If a bank is willing to cash the checks of strangers, it can attach whatever safeguards it pleases to the transactions. If they require a thumbprint and you refuse, they don't cash your check; end of story.

My situation is one of attempting to cash a paycheck that is drawn upon the bank I am visiting. My reading of UCC 3 indicates there are very specific rules on handling a negotiable instrument. Since the bank I'm visiting is the bank from which the instrument is drawn upon, the bit about "cashing it is optional" just doesn't work. There are strict rules and penalties associated with dishonoring a negotiable instrument. I need to wrestle more with the definitions of the roles presented in UCC 3-501, et. seq., but I gather that if the guy who wrote the check has his money in the bank where presentment occurs, the bank HAS to accept it - with the three rules I mentioned earlier being the only valid reason to dishonor it without penalty. It is Mr. A's money, on deposit at Bank B, and Mr. A is ORDERING Bank B to pay the funds from Mr. A's account to Mr. C. The rules allow for "reasonable ID". A state issued ID is more than "reasonable" in every transaction imaginable.

What additional "safeguards" are needed (and how is a fingerprint even practical)? Mr. A WROTE the check. It is of little concern to him once it leaves his hand WHO cashes it. Mr. C received the check and wants his money. If Mr. C has no account with the Bank, what concern is it of the Bank's if Mr. C lost the check and Mr. D tries to cash it? Mr C is NOT their customer, and doesn't need or deserve Bank B's "protection". They verify Mr. D's "reasonable ID" (letting the Bank off the hook for any mis-deeds), and proceed accordingly, stopping him if they suspect fraud or forgery. A fingerprint is of no more use in this rapid transaction than is a nose smudge or a shoe print... there IS NO DATABASE for verifying it (rapidly and cheaply, anyway).

On that note, how on earth does the Bank reckon that a fingerprint works for identity - ESPECIALLY for someone who they have NO relationship with??? If I faked up some ID, told them I am Jacob Schmukateli, and gave them my fingerprint, then they would have MY fingerprint stored with Jacob's name and info. Do you think they run every fingerprint through an FBI search? I think NOT. That costs $ every time, and Banks are greedy. They are just scanning and storing them somewhere in a database, crossreferenced and cataloged with your name and personal information for later "use".

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The thumbprint, incidentally, is on the check itself. If the check bounces, then the bank has your thumbprint to pass on to law enforcement, but if your check is good, then the cancelled check - with your thumbprint on it - eventually gets sent back to you.

Ditto to what marksgirl said.... huh?

If it bounces, they have my SIGNATURE, my ID INFO, my address, my phone number, and whatever else they can find to write on there... how does my FINGERPRINT help?? And "law enforcement"? For a bounced check?

Bottom line, they are breaking federal rules (UCC 3-501) by dishonoring a valid negotiable instrument drawn on their own institution for payment ordered by one of their customers. There is no basis in law to dishonor it because of refusal to fingerprint. Because of this, I say we fight it at every turn. Go out of our way to be difficult with them, if nothing else, and cause them grief on a regular basis.

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by planetmark

Bottom line, they are breaking federal rules (UCC 3-501) by dishonoring a valid negotiable instrument drawn on their own institution for payment ordered by one of their customers. There is no basis in law to dishonor it because of refusal to fingerprint. Because of this, I say we fight it at every turn. Go out of our way to be difficult with them, if nothing else, and cause them grief on a regular basis.

emphasis added.

Well said, planetmark. This appears to be the only effective way to get the banksters attention.

[Shoonra]

Before you guys go running off in all directions, I suggest you read this decision from Maryland's highest court:

Messing v. Bank of America (2003) 373 Md 672, 821 A2d 22, 50 UCC Rptg Serv.2d 1.

http://www.securitymanagement.com/li...merica0703.pdf


PS: not to be too catty, but could someone explain formatting to Tora?

[idknow]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

[cut]

I really thought this idea would be better received. I must be the only one who thinks it's weird to be fingerprinted at a bank when you are only trying to have a legimate negotiable instrument honored that is drawn on one of their accounts.

[cut]

Pick my battles. Hmmmph. I am on this pathway to turn those tables and make THEM pick THEIR battles.

[cut]

Thanks

HB

Henry, if I can offer my tumbprint as something which is unforgable, like my signature (which I developed to
be unique looking) then I'd be ok with it as far as when *I* wanted to sign something.

But I agree that I won't be forced to sign anything under duress.

[charlene]

Try cashing a check at wall mart wanted Thumb-Print
Charlene

[idknow]

Originally Posted by charlene

Try cashing a check at wall mart wanted Thumb-Print
Charlene

what happened?

[planetmark]

Shoonra, I read that whole B of A decision from Maryland... The only thing I can say is that their decision confirms that the lawyer-judges are owned by the bankers. They banter and bounce over all the arguments, stacking one decision on another, all with an eye to pleasing the bankers. Then they finish with the only real issue in the first place - is a thumbprint "reasonable identification"? To which question they decide "yes", and then they state clearly that they say "yes" because it is good for the bank.

Check out the bias at the opening, on page 5, where it says: "Instead of depositing the check into his account at his own bank, Petitioner elected to present the check for payment at a branch of Mr. Burruss’ bank, Bank of America, the drawee."

Now look at the footnote attached to that statement: "Petitioner’s choice could be viewed as an attempt at risk shifting. Petitioner, an attorney, may have known that he could have suffered a fee charged by his own bank if he deposited a check into his own account and the bank on which it was drawn returned it for insufficient funds, forged endorsement, alteration, or the like. Petitioner’s action, viewed against that backdrop, would operate as a risk shifting strategy, electing to avoid the risk of a returned-check fee by presenting in person the check for acceptance at the drawee bank."

So, we see the judges declaring that us peons have no rights to "risk shifting", but the law can be flexed, blurred, stretched, and distored in order to ensure that the Bank has every opportunity to avoid all possibility of risk. Tell me that isn't bias.

The disenting judge got it spot-on correct:

Eldridge, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in that portion of the Court’s judgment which reverses the judgments
below. I also agree that the Circuit Court erred in failing to render a declaratory judgment. I cannot agree with the majority’s holding that, after the petitioner presented his driver’s license and a major credit card , it was “reasonable” to require the petitioner’s thumbprint as identification.

Today, honest citizens attempting to cope in this world are constantly being required to show or give drivers’ licenses, photo identification cards, social security numbers, the last four digit s of social security numbers , mother’s “maiden names,” 16 digit account numbers, etc. Now, the majority takes the position that it is “reasonable” for banks and other establishments to require, in addition, thumbprints and fingerprints. Enough is enough. The most reasonable thing in this case was petitioner’ s “irritation with the Bank of America’s Thumbprint Signature Program.” (Majority opinion at p. 2).
Chief Judge Bell has authorized me to state that he joins this concurring and dissenting opinion.

BTW, the story of the cow-check is absolutely hillarious! "the check
'appeared to resent endorsement and adopted a menacing posture.' " That made the whole read worthwhile! lol

[idknow]

Originally Posted by planetmark

Shoonra, I read that whole B of A decision from Maryland... The only thing I can say is that their decision confirms that the lawyer-judges are owned by the bankers. They banter and bounce over all the arguments, stacking one decision on another, all with an eye to pleasing the bankers. Then they finish with the only real issue in the first place - is a thumbprint "reasonable identification"? To which question they decide "yes", and then they state clearly that they say "yes" because it is good for the bank.

Check out the bias at the opening, on page 5, where it says: "Instead of depositing the check into his account at his own bank, Petitioner elected to present the check for payment at a branch of Mr. Burruss* bank, Bank of America, the drawee."

Now look at the footnote attached to that statement: "Petitioner*s choice could be viewed as an attempt at risk shifting. Petitioner, an attorney, may have known that he could have suffered a fee charged by his own bank if he deposited a check into his own account and the bank on which it was drawn returned it for insufficient funds, forged endorsement, alteration, or the like. Petitioner*s action, viewed against that backdrop, would operate as a risk shifting strategy, electing to avoid the risk of a returned-check fee by presenting in person the check for acceptance at the drawee bank."

So, we see the judges declaring that us peons have no rights to "risk shifting", but the law can be flexed, blurred, stretched, and distored in order to ensure that the Bank has every opportunity to avoid all possibility of risk. Tell me that isn't bias.

The disenting judge got it spot-on correct:



BTW, the story of the cow-check is absolutely hillarious! "the check
'appeared to resent endorsement and adopted a menacing posture.' " That made the whole read worthwhile! lol

i didnt realise that "judgen" of the "courten" wrote jokes

that is to me a funny dissent