RBC customer's cheque was cashed ... not just once, but Twice ! | Page 3 | General financial discussion | Discussion forum

AltaRed said
Given the weakness that allows for multiple photo-deposits especially across different accounts and institutions, it may be time for individuals and businesses alike to stop using cheques. I posted earlier (or elsewhere?) that cheque usage has dropped dramatically on a global basis and it is mostly France, USA and Canada that are still outliers in cheque usage, even though the numbers have fallen dramatically. …

It is not time yet until alternatives, like Interac e-Transfers, have similar legal protection for senders that cheques have.

I've refused to pay contractors by Interac e-Transfer. Not going to be having a potential dispute of whether or not I legally did pay the invoice should the e-Transfer to the e-mail address on the invoice be intercepted and deposited by someone else.

smayer97 said
Can someone take extra measures to protect themselves? Sure. BUT not doing so does not mean that they are negligent. How absolutely absurd!  

You will never win that argument for as long as you write about it. The terms and conditions you consent to when opening an account are the contractual obligation.

The FIs provide tools such as email and/or SMS alerts for account holders to use to monitor ANY and ALL activity in their accounts, and educational materials to help account holders avoid a range of nefarious mechanisms to gain access to login credentials. Use them. The account holder has an obligation to monitor their accounts on a timely basis) per the terms and conditions of consenting to opening that account. Employ it.

Not doing so is indeed negligence on the account holder's part just as it would be in a range of other life endeavors* we engage in. Stop making excuses.

* As in operating a vehicle for example. The owner/operator has an obligation to be licensed, have insurance, keep the vehicle roadworthy and follow the rules of the road. The bank (vehicle manufacturer in this case) does not carry those responsibilities.

Norman1 said
It is not time yet until alternatives, like Interac e-Transfers, have similar legal protection for senders that cheques have.

I've refused to pay contractors by Interac e-Transfer. Not going to be having a potential dispute of whether or not I legally did pay the invoice should the e-Transfer to the e-mail address on the invoice be intercepted and deposited by someone else.  

Perhaps, and I understand the vulnerabilities, but I have a transaction record (confirmation) that I can screenshot for every e-transfer that goes out, i.e. to who it was sent too, the amount, invoice number or description of services rendered in message box and the time stamp. If the recipient's receiving information such as email address has been hacked/hijacked, that is the recipient's problem, not mine. I have the transaction record. As with the cheque issue being discussed, it is our obligation to ensure our own phones and email addresses are secure if we are receiving payments using those processes.

@AltaRed you keep implying that this an operator error problem. The operator did nothing wrong. THAT is the key point in all this discussion. T&Cs have their limitations and policies are not laws, as you try to implicitly elevate them to.

If it can be shown that the operator made a mistake, like in all your analogies, then yes. BUT there was no mistake made by the operator.

I hope others do not extend the same lack of understanding and compassion towards you as you seem to have a lack of towards others.

Of course there was operator error. Anyone who signs a contract/agreement is obliged to meet the terms and conditions of that contract or if necessary, seek redress through negotiation, or through the courts.

As Norman1 has pointed out, if the routing data was correct, i.e. transit number, institution number and account number were a match, the bank IS going to honor its obligation to pay out the amount shown on the cheque. Would you want your bank to put every debit/cheque/bill payment on hold and not pay until the account holder validates it as correct by Secure Message or a physical visit to the bank?

How can software catch duplication if cheque number is not (cannot) be used as a qualifying data point? There are a number of reasons for 'same' cheque numbers as Norman1 pointed out. It has nothing to do with one's record keeping in Quicken or otherwise (which I do use for what that is worth).

The crime, assuming there probably is one, is the individual that deposited it twice, whether stupidly or nefariously. It was neither the bank's fault, nor the account holder's fault, but it is on the account holder for not dealing with it in a timely matter, i.e. with the 30-45 days or whatever of having received the monthly statement. It really is as simple as that.

Had this happened to me for whatever reason, I would graciously ask the bank to chase down and try to recover the funds, but I certainly would not be asking the bank itself to make me whole....given I violated the terms of my contract with them. Had I caught it within the 30-45 days, then of course I would expect the bank to cover it and then leave them to try and recover it if they felt it worth their while.

When an account holder does not fulfill his/her obligations of timely notification, there should not be an expectation the bank would make the account holder whole. They might do it out of goodwill but they are not charities.

Too many folks seem to think FIs are supposed to be the protectors, or helicoptering parents, of wayward account holders holding their hands. They are businesses selling products and services for the most part. It has been my experience over some 50 years that banks do pretty well in trying to educate and assist customers AND providing goodwill. I have mostly appreciated the give and take of the relationships I have had with financial institutions over the years and I have no axes to grind with them.

smayer97 said

GOOD Article...Higlights:
- Double presentment describes a crime.
Therefore, let's not blame the victim. It is a crime, whether wilful or accidental.

- Policies of 30 or 90 days, are just that. They are about what is easily achievable if caught in time. BUT "The CPA will also arrange to return funds up to six years after a questionable cheque clearing ...

No, the 30 days or 45 days is part of the account agreement. You obviously didn't read your account agreements.

Article actually said up to six years is allowed when "the cheque writer gets a declaration from the original payee that the funds were not received". That matches CPA Rule A4, subsection 6(g) which allows six years for a cheque to be returned when the “Intended Payee(s) Not Paid”.

Good luck getting that funds-not-received declaration from the payee! The payee actually received the funds the first time and the declaration includes the statement "I/WE UNDERSTAND THAT MAKING A FALSE DECLARATION IS A CRIMINAL OFFENCE".

Only 90 days is allowed for “Duplicate Payment Item” under subsection 6(c).

Servus also reimburses loyal and valued members outside the above policies in circumstances where the member is clearly not to blame."

So, 30 days are NOT laws. Solutions are possible long after the 30 days. And the above shows how FIs have and take responsibility to deal with this. …

As AltaRed wrote, member is clearly to blame for not reporting the double presentment in time.

I doubt that Servus reimbursed the client and absorbed the $678.75 itself. It is more likely Servus contacted the payee, the contractor. Contractor was likely surprised as he didn't endorse the cheque over to anyone else. Contractor signed a declaration that the endorsement on the back of the cheque that was presented second time was a forgery. Servus then returned the second presentment for "Forged Endorsement” within the six years allowed by Rule A4, subsection 6(a) for that reason and received the funds back.

AltaRed said

Perhaps, and I understand the vulnerabilities, but I have a transaction record (confirmation) that I can screenshot for every e-transfer that goes out, i.e. to who it was sent too, the amount, invoice number or description of services rendered in message box and the time stamp. If the recipient's receiving information such as email address has been hacked/hijacked, that is the recipient's problem, not mine. I have the transaction record. As with the cheque issue being discussed, it is our obligation to ensure our own phones and email addresses are secure if we are receiving payments using those processes.

Those show that you sent the e-transfer. They don't show the funds were actually received by the intended payee and, consequently, paid the invoice.

It is actually the sender's problem in such cases. Just like a cheque that was lost in the mail, the sender owes the contractor still.

This is from CBC (Sept 22, 2019): Banks tell dozens of customers they're to blame for thousands of dollars lost to e-transfer fraudsters:

Rene Trudeau e-transferred the maximum his bank allowed — $3,000 — to a contractor who installed a new front door on his home in February. He then e-transferred the remaining $300 owed and texted the contractor to let him know he'd been paid in full.

The contractor texted back, saying he didn't get the e-transfers and hadn't seen a dime.
…
As soon as Trudeau realized something was wrong, he contacted TD Bank and an employee was able to stop the $300 e-transfer from leaving his account. But the earlier $3,000 was gone.

That was the beginning of a seven-month battle with TD, to try to track his money and get it back.
…

If one does pay a contractor by e-Transfer, one needs to do it securely and not by using a public password that's pre-printed on the invoice.