Authorized Signature on Checks

[psholtz]

People who advance the "strawman" argument like to point out that the signature line on checks issued by most banks is not actually a line but rather it reads "Authorized Signature" in super-small font.

They then point to UCC Section 3-402 and site arguments concerning "represented persons", "accomodation parties", "agents" and "authorized signatures"..

That's all well and good.

My question is, I've noticed that for instance credit unions don't (usually) seem to follow this practice. At a credit union, the "represented person"'s name is still printed in ALL CAPS on the instrument but the signature line is a *real* line..

Why is that?

Why do banks make the sig line AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE but credit unions don't?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by psholtz

People who advance the "strawman" argument like to point out that the signature line on checks issued by most banks is not actually a line but rather it reads "Authorized Signature" in super-small font.

They then point to UCC Section 3-402 and site arguments concerning "represented persons", "accomodation parties", "agents" and "authorized signatures"..

That's all well and good.

My question is, I've noticed that for instance credit unions don't (usually) seem to follow this practice. At a credit union, the "represented person"'s name is still printed in ALL CAPS on the instrument but the signature line is a *real* line..

Why is that?

Why do banks make the sig line AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE but credit unions don't?

The supersmall print is done with magnetic ink and is to prevent fraud through copying the instrument. The fine print is an anti-fraud feature. It is a given that whoever signs the instrument should be matching an authorized signature on the Signature Card.

As for the consistent difference between banks and credit unions, I have no clue.



Regards,

David Merrill.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

The supersmall print is done with magnetic ink and is to prevent fraud through copying the instrument. The fine print is an anti-fraud feature. It is a given that whoever signs the instrument should be matching an authorized signature on the Signature Card.

The supersmall print must be more than simply an anti-fraud device.. if it was only about anti-fraud, they would print super-small holograms, or super-small eagle symbols or super-small pyramid symbols (<- e.g., both symbols of America) or just a super-small row of "XXXXXXX" or something. (Nor would they be compelled to put it on a signature line.. if it was only about anti-fraud, they could place it anywhere on the check (kinda like a watermark)).

Instead, they print a super-small row of "AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE"..

The check is a financial instrument.. All font/lettering/words on it have legal implications, even if it's a super small signature line called "AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE"..

I am wondering why credit unions don't do this, though..

Is it because credit unions don't participate in the Federal Reserve System? Is it something that only Fed banks require?

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by psholtz

The supersmall print must be more than simply an anti-fraud device.. if it was only about anti-fraud, they would print super-small holograms, or super-small eagle symbols or super-small pyramid symbol...

There are any number of anti-fraud technologies available to financial institutions, but account holders, companies and even individuals can have their own checks printed by third parties.

Originally Posted by psholtz

I am wondering why credit unions don't do this, though..

They can, or their members can elect to have their own checks printed. It's a protection for the issuer as much as the institution.

Originally Posted by psholtz

Is it because credit unions don't participate in the Federal Reserve System? Is it something that only Fed banks require?

No. Credit unions wind up "participating" one way or another.

[David Merrill]

Credit unions wind up "participating" one way or another.

Too bad more people fail to choose to opt out!

http://friends-n-family-research.inf...ublicMoney.wmv

[Notorial dissent]

Let’s take a wild stab at reality here and go for this explanation.

The “microprint”, that is what it is called, signature lines on some checks is a security feature intended to prevent forgery and changes in names. It is similar to the security paper that is also used in some checks. If any attempt is made to change anything on it it disappears or very obviously discolors.

As to why some have it and others don’t, it is largely dependant upon who their check printer is, some printers do it out of hand others have to be requested to do so, otherwise it has no significance whatsoever.

[psholtz]

Originally Posted by Notorial dissent

Let’s take a wild stab at reality here and go for this explanation.

The “microprint”, that is what it is called, signature lines on some checks is a security feature intended to prevent forgery and changes in names. It is similar to the security paper that is also used in some checks. If any attempt is made to change anything on it it disappears or very obviously discolors.

Preventing forgery is one use to which the signature line can be put, however:

a) there are other anti-forgery devices in place on most (all?) checks (<- oxymoron, I know, given that our entire banking industry is little more than legalized forgery and money laundering)

b) why would the words AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE be used unless the signature being signed was in fact an AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE? These words have legal meaning and weight to them, no matter how small the fine print

As to why some have it and others don’t, it is largely dependant upon who their check printer is, some printers do it out of hand others have to be requested to do so, otherwise it has no significance whatsoever.

I kinda doubt this..

Especially since you just spent the previous paragraph trying to convince me that there *is* an additional significance to it, namely the anti-forgery uses to which it can be put..

[fredlox]

A few months ago the company i run sent out 100 checks drawn on an Wells Fargo account to it's distributors. The checks were sent out unsigned by accident. Of the 100 checks 75 of them were cleared.

I called the bank and found out that the device and software that scans the checks do not scan to see if there is a signature on the check. And i also found out that it was a FED policy not to scan for signatures for some 10 years now..

This is something that needs to go out about Wells Fargo..

[2tim215]

deleted dupliecate message

[2tim215]

Originally Posted by fredlox

A few months ago the company i run sent out 100 checks drawn on an Wells Fargo account to it's distributors. The checks were sent out unsigned by accident. Of the 100 checks 75 of them were cleared.

I called the bank and found out that the device and software that scans the checks do not scan to see if there is a signature on the check. And i also found out that it was a FED policy not to scan for signatures for some 10 years now..

This is something that needs to go out about Wells Fargo..

I can confirm what you are saying. I was told that banks do not "verify" signatures on checks, they may just "spot check" them. In addition (don't know if this applies to this thread) you know your so-called "courtesy checks" which you receive from banks for your credit cards all the time, they do not check at all, you can probably print your name and they would clear. This is supposedly "standard procedure" as I understand it (even though they are supposed to have your signature on file). Why bother having someone sign it in the first place?

2tim215
2 Tim 2:15(KJV) Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.