no and no. Banks are required to cash a fucking napkin if it has the required info on it. They can require a license I think, but thats about it.

Checks are governed by the Universal Commercial Code - ARTICLE 3 - NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/article3.htm#s3-110

nothing about thumb-prints.

who is the governing body you would even compain to though?

I can't seem to find any online resources that go into the specifics of what a bank can, can't and must require to clear checks.

I quess I've lived for 42 yrs not knowing you can walk into a bank that you don't have an account with and have them cash a check for you. I mean, I see old ladies do it at the supermarket...but not a major bank

Wack-off-ia does the same thing. AND they charge a fee. I was in the bank with a friend who doesn't have an account but wanted to cash a check drawn on Wachovia. They told him he would be required to provide a fingerprint and pay a fee. When he balked, they cheerfully offered to open an account for him -- as if he would want to keep his money there when they'd just acted so stupidly moments before. I have an account there, so he signed the check over to me, I got them to cash it (sans print or fee), and then counted the cash out to him right in front of the tellers. The tellers snippily warned me that if the check was no good, I'd be left holding the bag (even though the check was a corporate check from a prominent, established, and trusted business partner). Yeah, piss off my friend and then insult me.

Stamp "Not honored by financial institution" on the check, return it to the person who gave it to you, upcharge them $30.00 "processing fee" and demand payment in cash or money order as their checks (negotiable-bearer instruments) don't seem to be honored for cash at the institution they're drawn on.

Why should you let yourself get suckered into fighting someone else's crappy bank? Ding him for a declined check charge and let *THEM* fight with their institution (since, as a customer, they have a lot more weight to throw around).

They've been doing this (requiring thumbprints for non-customers) for the last five years--at least--in some locations. Luckily I almost never have to cash other people's checks.

"Hey, let's collect as much personally identifiable information as possible so that way when our data is compromised, the damage is as extensive as possible."

What exactly would they do with your thumb print, anyway?

I would be horrified if someone asked for my thumbprint as a backup ID. WTF? Where has the concept of privacy gone? Is Big Brother here already? Think what mischief some freak could do with an exact print of your unique thumb surface... Like put your print into a criminal database as having served time, etc.

NO WAY. That is barbaric. I won't play; unh-uh.

To reiterate what someone else said, I've done this before at institutions which simply refused to cash a check for me, drawn on their institution.

Step 1.) Note in their truth-in-lending statement where "funds deposited to your account, drawn on this bank, are available immediately."

Step 2.) Say, "OK, then I'll open an account, and use this as my initial deposit, since it's available immediately."

Step 3.) Make sure you ask them lots of questions about their services.

Step 4.) Make sure they send you an ATM card. :-) If your first box of checks is free, make sure you ask them to place an order for them.

Step 5.) Make a withdrawal in the amount of exactly the amount you just deposited. Point to truth-in-lending paperwork to remind them that "this money is all available to me immediately upon deposit."

Step 6.) Once you have cash-in-hand, ask to close the account.

Step 7.) Enjoy the look of pain and anguish on the CSR whose hour you just wasted.

Step 8.) Be sure to destroy the ATM card and checks that will surely still arrive as the computer has already flagged them to be ordered, and which the institution has paid for.

Derek, you're a twisted bastard. I love it.

I've never been required, but then again most times I had those checks was in my small hometown where I knew someone at every bank, so it was never an issue. But FalconFire is correct - if I write a check on toilet paper with my routing/account #s the bank is supposed to honor it.

Lastly, you may be better off returning the check and asking for one made out to cash...

The only thing I can think of is this must have been a substantially large amount on the check. I mean I can see in the amount of over $1,000.00, okay maybe even $500...yes, maybe a thumb print, okay....no huge deal here. BUT, and I say, BUT...under that amount...then no, it's upserd. The way you were treated was upserd. The way the security guard made you feel like a complete criminal...upserd. Ughhhh, this is so frustrating to even hear of this. Like you were gonna rob them or something...sheesh for crying out loud, I bet the people witnessing this incident were quick to draw conclusions as well. Totally and completely humiliating and frustrating.

I sold my motorcycle and went to deposit the cashier's check in the amount of $10,000...they required my thumbprint and I agreed, for security reasons...okay, it's understandable,
but to cash a check?

Dude, get another bank or don't frequent BofA again.

Ahhh, and there's a hybrid idea that'd really piss them off:

1) Get the issuer of the check to paint it on a door.

2) Offer to paint your whole hand and stamp it on the door is pressed for a thumbprint.

3) If step 2 is denied, open an account as Derek outlined above. (Bonus style points if you have the balls to ask if your checkbook can be made of doors as well. Double bonus style points if you ask for carbons.)

I don't see what is so bad about giving your fingerprint, I mean...it's your fingerprint...it's meaningless. Frankly, I'd be more concerned with the idea that I have to share my social security number with them.

However, since a thumbprint is so meaningless, the fact that they require it, while doing so apparently breaks federal law, is an asshattery all of itself.

I like Derek's idea. If they want to be all jerky about it, let them pay for their stupidity.

Does it break federal law to require a fingerprint? Then B of A, Wachovia, and who-knows-else got some 'splaining to do. What are they going to require next -- a DNA swab?

I like Derek's account opening idea, but not the return check idea. Which grandchild is going to be the first to assess Grandma a $30 fee and demand cash or money order?

Yeah, I agree with Elizabeth D - I don't like the idea of my fingerprints floating around, although I guess some enterprising soul could lift them off the glass at the place where I had lunch today if they really really wanted to.

Unless I really needed the cash immediately, I would just take the B of A check to my own bank and try cashing it there (not sure what their policy/fee, if any, might be for accountholders), or deposit it into my account (not at B of A) and wait for it to clear.

It sounds like Tycho got treated like SHIT at that branch -- maybe Fran's gone into banking.

I stopped using my BofA account and use a regional chain and a local credit union instead. I pay a lot of individuals and small businesses (like housepainters, etc.) and I know I'd be angry to be asked to be fingerprinted so I don't want to force it on them. My new bank does call me sometimes to confirm checks that are being cashed.

It treats people who don't have accounts in a very suspicious manner - and I think discriminates against poorer consumers who can't afford BofA's high fees. If you're not an account holder your federally issued ID is not as acceptable? With this whole patriot act "real ID" legislation, I find the fingerprinting must be to discourage check cashing by treating customers as if they're suspected of criminal activity, as well as try to force people into opening accounts through inconvenience. (non customers can't use the BofA drive through, either.) If there are fewer people in their lobby they need less tellers.

Yeah, non-customers aren't welcome at Wachovia drive-thrus either.

Last time I re-entered the U.S., I noticed that Immigration requires a thumbprint from all non-U.S. citizens. Even if there's no connection to ICE or the war on terror, I would imagine that banks' thumbprint requirement would have a chilling effect on non-citizens who are trying to cash a B of A check.

As an assistant da who prosecutes check and bank fraud cases, I can tell you that it is pretty standard for banks to require non account holders to provide a print to cash a check. What do they do with the print? The police use it to identify the person who stole an accountholder's check and cashed it. I honestly don't know if the banks are allowed to do it or not - but it has made my job a lot easier over the years.

I've never taken issue to giving BOA my thumbprint; here's why:

Let's say someone steals my checkbook, makes a check out to himself under a pseudonym and has identification with said pseudonym on it. People who do this sort of thing (and there are a LOT of cracked out people who do) have a great chance of having a prior criminal record. Given that they used a false identity, that fingerprint will get the dumbass caught.

Knowing that I'm not a criminal and that I'm not cashing a check under a false pretense gives me no reason to worry. And so I never have.

Jesse McBesse: If you're not a terrorist/criminal, you have nothing to fear.

I've delt with this.

My biggest concern was sticking my thumb in ink that dozens of other people before me stuck their thumb in.

Ewww.

To heck with charging the account owner the $30 fee--just charge it directly to fee-happy BoA!

Having had my checkbook stolen (and the cashed checks made out for "rent" in the memo line, no less), I still don't like the idea of fingerprinting to cash a check. There's no reason that working class folks who can't afford a checking account should have their privacy invaded more than the corporate crooks who raid their employee's pension plans to settle the company's debt when they go bankrupt. To heck with that. The moment BoA's CEO & Board are willing to give me their fingerprints for the privilege of handling my confidential banking information and money is the moment I'll be happy to submit mine.

As for places for complaints, a couple of thoughts:
* State AG office is sometimes a good place to start.
* Federal Trade Commission? Requiring fingerprints to cash a check from non-customers seems like an invasion of privacy that unduly infringes commerce.

Hope it helps. Good luck!

From a BOFA employee:

Fingerprints are required for NON-ACCOUNT holders to deter fraud and indentify them if they did cash a check later.

Angoil: My point EXACTLY. I'm neither and so offering my print does not bother me.

Did I miss the reason why Tycho didn't just cash or deposit the check at his own bank? From what I understand in his story, he tried to cash the check at BoA only because whoever gave him the check has their account there.

I'm not sure if its entirely legal, but of course a bank may refuse to cash a check! I (formerly) worked at BofA for six years as a teller and a manager. At that time, as a non-customer (non-account holder) you needed to provide the required govt. identification and provide your index fingerprint on the top of the check. For certain types of business accounts, a non-customer was required to pay a fee of $5. (I'm not sure if this has increased since 2004.) In any case, a bank can refuse any transaction for any number of reasons, least of all the non-customer OR customer gets rude, starts shouting obscenities or gives the impression that he or she may escalate their behavior to a level that may be a danger to the employees or other customers.

When a non-customer became upset at any of the steps he or she had to take for us to cash the check, I would politely tell them that their options also included taking the item to their own bank or CU and cash it against their account (as that is what they have an acct FOR) attempt to cash the item at a check-cashing facility, or I would refer them to the maker of the item and ask them to give them cash next time. I know it sounds awful, but really...if you're going to cash a check somewhere because you're worried the maker doesn't have the funds in the account, why are you accepting a check from them in the first place?

In any case, a bank can refuse any transaction for any number of reasons, least of all the non-customer OR customer gets rude, starts shouting obscenities or gives the impression that he or she may escalate their behavior to a level that may be a danger to the employees or other customers.

Federal law spells it out, you CAN NOT refuse a non-customer if the check comes from your bank. While you can certainly refuse a person for rude or violent behavior, all banks are obligated to pay out money that is written from a check from their bank.

Not to long ago I would have said that those who are protesting giving a finger print were over reacting. With all of the lost IDs and records being lost over the past year I agree that BofA stepped over the line. Our local Sam's Club required finger prints on all checks for about two months. The uproar caused them to stop that practice.

Falconfire: Yes, banks are obligated to pay out money that is written from a check drawn from their institution, however the method by which that check is negotiated does not need be cash over the counter, from someone coming into the bank. The item can be deposited and the funds transmitted electronically to the payee's bank account where he or she originally deposited it. In terms of the legality of requiring a fingerprint, I have not found a discussion on the web where it states that fingerprinting in an illegal practice, only this..."The federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) warns that "any bank that implements this type of [fingerprinting] plan should exercise care to ensure that it is not applied on a selective basis."

Also, in this case since we are dealing with Bank of America the deposit agreement which each BofA customer agrees to upon account opening reads:

"You [customer] agree that we [Bofa] may impose additional requirements we deem necessary or desirable on a payee or other holder who presents for cashing an item drawn on your account which is otherwise property payable and if that person fails or refuses to satsify such requirements, our refusal to case the item will not be considered wrongful. You [customer] agree that, subject to applicable law, such requirements may include (but are not necessarily limited to) physical...identification requirements..."

Really, I'm not defending these practices, but you have to believe that the financial institutions in question have things sewn up tight to allow for their protection if these kinds of things get messy. That's all.

Angiol: "If you're not a terrorist/criminal, you have nothing to fear."

Back the truck up. We US citizens and residents live in a country FOUNDED ON the fact that law-abiding citizens SHOULD fear invasions of government into our lives. We don't live in a society where "you should be happy to give over your information to the government, the easier to prosecution criminals." We don't live in a totalitarian regime where law-abiding people have to constantly prove they are law-abiding. We live in a society where requests like that should be greeted with a middle-finger salute as our Founding Fathers intended.

(And yeah, this is BofA asking, but they're asking, apparently, in case you turn out to be a criminal, which is a governmental purview BofA is taking on itself here.)

I'm NOT a criminal. That's why they can't have my friggin' thumbprint in their database. But they can have my middle-finger salute on their security camera.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither, quoth Mr. Franklin.

BofA has only been doing this for a few years - I can't see that it has cut down on identity theft, even if it is making mochagirl's job easier. It is actually shocking how short a time it has been going on and now most people think of it as totally routine and necessary. We get the most low tech verification procedure just as our ability to electronically verify a check is the highest?

The point about non-citizens is a good one. Even people legally visiting the US would understandably be paranoid right now, where having the wrong friends, nationality, or donating to the wrong charity can cause you all sorts of extreme problems.

Hmm...It only seems fair that you should ask the teller to give you **her** fingerprint incase she decides to do something fraudulent. Unlikely? Perhaps, but there is no reason that the suspicion shouldn't cut both ways.

Having my fingerprint compromised is not a concern. My concern is when career felon John V. Smith's thumbprint gets switched with "I'm-no-criminal-so-I-don't-have-anything-to-fear" John W. Smith's thumbprint card. Poor John W. How does John W. prove that he didn't cash that forged check when his thumbprint is associated with it?

Doesn't even matter if he can because now he must prove his innocence.

Eyebrows McGee: Word.

I just have to ask... what if someone has no fingers/hands/arms?

get a checking account at a credit union and cash it there, like the rest of us.

I've never been fingerprinted for a damn thing.

Seacub, I would file an ADA discrimination suit against B of A, post haste.

I'd get my favorite attorney, Eyebrows McGee, to represent me. ;-)

I just have to ask... what if someone has no fingers/hands/arms?
_____________

"Eh, doan werry, luv! E's 'armless," he said in a bad cockney accent :)

Maybe they get your nose print? Toe print? Good question.

A retinal scan. From your glass eye.

Like someone said, people can do a lot more damage with the ID you showed them instead of the fingerprint. I could probably open a credit card with the information you showed to her. I can't think of any credit card or bank account that needs a fingerprint . If someone has the resources to access government/police fingerprint databases and can somehow add yours into the system for some purpose, you have a much bigger problem and may want to consider calling Jack Bauer.

If you don't like their policy then too bad, go to another bank. People try to fraud someone all the time, so it's not surprising they make a NON member give a fingerprint. They have zero information on you. If I were a crook trying to cash fake checks, BofA would now be on the bottom of my list because a fingerprint is the one piece of evidence that you cannot change.

I am glad they take the fingerprint. It protects me. Remember, there is a limit set of demographic that will be walking into a bank in which they are not a customer to cash a check. Children that don't have accounts, Dirtbags that are such pieces of crap they dont' have accounts and must go to the BoA and cash the check. And then you have those attempting to commit fraud.

Is it really such a hardship to provide a single finger print? The finger print is only requested when someone is requesting the money directly at that time. If you deposited this in your own bank you would be able to avoid this issue. But since you want the money right there and then, just give up the finger. It will only be used to help investigate fraud.

Oh, I'll give them the finger, Magister.

"It will only be used to help investigate fraud."
Didn't Congress once say that SSNs would only have a VERY restricted list of uses?

"The federal Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) warns that "any bank that implements this type of [fingerprinting] plan should exercise care to ensure that it is not applied on a selective basis."

Yea, I think I'm gonna try to cash a napkin now. That sounds like way too much fun. Or maybe write a napkin at best buy and see how that goes over.

There are a number of legitimate reasons someone may need to cash a check at the issuing bank. Here is one:

I used to work for one of the largest real estate appraisal firms in CA. For any number of reasons an appraisal may need to be expedited, for example a one day turnaround. If we cashed the check in our bank it could take a week or more to clear. If the check came back NSF we had to try and collect from the individual customer who ordered the appraisal. However if we cashed the check before we began work we didn't have to worry about collecting our fees.

When a couple of banks started requiring fingerprints from non-account holders we stopped accepting checks from those banks. Our firm was the sub-contracted appraisal staff for most of the major lenders in the area, which meant that a number of new mortgages and refis were held up for non-payment. The banks had a lot of explaining to do, and in the end gave our firm a waiver on the fingerprint requirement.

Incidentally, we always required the customer to cover any fees imposed by the customer's bank for cashing a check. This practice also led to leniency on the collection of those specious fees.

Well, what happens if a customer is physically unable to provide any fingerprints at the time of attempted check cashing? Never mind the extremes of paraplegic, but, say, a severe hand injury, maybe a burn, or something that doesn't involve a cast?

Would BofA or Wachovia require a doctor's note? I can't say that the bank employees I've dealt with a larger banks seem capable of handling situations that are outside their normal patterns. If someone tries it (I AM NOT SUGGESTING IT), please report back the results?

For those who think the data won't end up in the wrong hands, think again. Most companies just roll over when the government asks for personal data -- remember the airlines and all that traveller data they handed over, no questions asked?

People should protect their privacy as if it were as valuable to them as it is to those who don't have it any more.

I'm back, and I'm with EyebrowsMcGee (who also has one of the best screen names ever).

I remember 20 years ago being outraged when a mall store asked me for my ID *and* Social Security number when I wrote a check for an umbrella. I refused to go along, and left the umbrella there. I despise the use of the SSN as an all-purpose national ID.

Now look where we are. Big Government (run by conservatives, no less -- who used to know better) and recent traumatic events and shameless demogogues have persuaded us that it is not only OK to share our SSN and now, apparently, our fingerprints, they want to make some of us think that those who object are silly, paranoid, and gratuitously uncooperative.

If BofA did this to me, I'd be on the phone to the local ACLU by the time I reached the parking lot. I do not accept that we should surrender every shred of privacy so that the jobs of bank officers and police investigators are made marginally easier. Expediency is always a seductive argument, but before you know it, you're giving away the whole store.

I closed my account at BoA when I found out they were doing this...

I obviously have nothing to hide since I am not a terrorist but I also don't send all my mail on postcards either.

You know that mandatory hold they place on you for out of town checks? Did you know they have the money within a few seconds of hitting the enter key? This isn't the 70s, they're ALL connected. It's all a matter of holding on to your money for just a little bit to make that float money.

Now for you folks who are concerned about giving a social security number here you go: memorize this. 078-05-1120
It's an Eisenhower era specimen SSN that works 99% of the time. (In case you're curious this comes from a Wired article from issue 10.07). There is NO good reason for your cable tv company to have your SSN.

And those customer loyalty cards? I take the Fletch approach I keep them under names like "Ted Nugent", "Igor Stravinsky" and "Alberto Gonzales" (ok Fletch didn't use THAT one).

Be creative folks.