My experience with check fraud(obliviousinvestor.com)

66 pointsby Amorymeltzer4 anni fa177 comments

https://obliviousinvestor.com/check-fraud/

178 comments

I personally experienced check fraud about 7 years ago. 4 fake checks, $6,500 stolen. Fake checks looked real to me, as did my signature. Was confusing to me as the signature looked like mine, I did a triple take trying to figure out if I had written them. Upon further inspection the signature on all 4 checks was absolutely identical, my signature looks slightly different every time I sign, but these 4 were identical in every way (overlaid them in an image processing tool to convince myself).

Figuring they photocopied the signature from an existing check, I went through my archive of cancelled checks until I found a perfect match for the signature. Turns out the signature was copied from a check that was written to a handyman for some maintenance work.

Brought this info to the police and the bank. I don't know if they did anything with it, as they're not allowed to discuss details with me.

Anyhow, long story short, took 3 months, but the $6,500 was eventually returned to me. Much better experience than crypto!

Lastly, I had to close the checking account for fraud and get a new one. When I asked about ordering new checks, the bank manager admonished me "haven't I learned my lesson" and not to ever use checks. All of your personal information, address, and bank account # are in one place he said.

I told him it's terrifying when your bank manager tells you not to use checks on the checking account his bank offers.

I write very few checks now. Thankfully most transfers can now be done digitally (and without crypto I might add).

Sign of the times I guess.

tobyjsullivan4 anni fa

The recurring comparison to crypto is ironic here. The central purpose of crypto is that, when used correctly, it makes exactly this type of fraud impossible. These stories show the fundamental problem with checks is that using them correctly exposes you to the fraud risk.

I'm not pro-crypto or anything. The bar to use it "correctly" is too high to be practical. I'm only highlighting the irony of this particular comparison.

chrisco2554 anni fa

Yeah, to me one of the central problems with both checks and credit cards is you have to expose your private keys (your routing num, acct num, address, etc) to make the transaction. In an era of elliptical curve signatures and other cryptography methods, this sort of practice should be done away with altogether, even for non-blockchain tech.

lordfrito4 anni fa

Great analogy. Agreed, checks are insecure and obsolete technology for the reasons you stated.

It does seem, however, that modern digital payment systems (mainstream, non-crypto) have largely caught up with the times. Your bank password is essentially a private key. It's not foolproof, but the challenge of keeping your password private is no different than keeping your private key private. From an OPSEC standpoint it's a level playfield.

Of course these systems are still vulnerable to social engineering attacks, credential theft, outright fraud etc. These kinds of human problems can't be solved with technology.

The old security holes still exist (check fraud, credit card fraud) as the system continues to support ancient/deprecated payment methods. Eventually they'll be obsoleted. I read a report stating that check use has been declining steadily. In 2000 there were 42.6b check payments, in 2018 there were only 14.5b. I'd say we're getting there. The younger generation embraces the new tech, it's only a matter of time.

If this was 15 years ago, I'd say crypto was providing a solution to a problem. But since then bank systems have caught up, and have additional protections of FDIC, regulations, etc. I'd say that modern digital finance is already largely meeting the promises made by crypto enthusiasts, with none of the downsides.

Put another way, if crypto matures and doesn't die in flames, it will basically look like one more competing digital payment system to those already offered by TradFi.

People get caught up in the tech, but at the end of the day all that matters is you can use a password to digitally move money. We can do that now. Crypto is ubiquitous / crypto is irrelevant.

chrisco2554 anni fa

> It's not foolproof, but the challenge of keeping your password private is no different than keeping your private key private.

It's very different. A private cryptographic key doesn't need to be transmitted or published online over the wire at all, and that makes all the difference. A signature that can be verified to a known public key has many nice features. It can be cancelable, it can be limited in scope, it can have price data embedded in it, it can be assigned to the destination entity's public key to make sure funds don't get routed anywhere else, etc. Very fundamental differences.

Banking systems haven't "caught up". Public-private key encryption is far older than Blockchain and it's still pretty rare to have something like a Yubikey or ECDSA signature involved in banking transactions (which would help tremendously to avoid fraud).

Identity thefts are at all time highs: https://www.fool.com/the-ascent/research/identity-theft-cred...

Bank fraud was up 39% in 2021. Credit card fraud has 10xed in the past 10 years. Please avoid handwavey statements until you understand the scope.

lordfrito4 anni fa

Not trying to be handwavy, there are major technology differences to be sure. But I don't see those as being important to the argument, as the differences can be overcome with technology. The problems trying to be solved are essentially the same. How do I authenticate access to my funds? At some point the technology becomes irrelevant and your primary problem just becomes OPSEC. PC or Macintosh? iOS or Android? No one cares anymore.

And yes fraud continues to be a problem. It will always be a problem where there are humans transacting with each other. It's a never ending arms race unfortunately.

This isn't unique to TradFi, it's just that fraud in TradFi is structured different than fraud in crypto due to differences. TradFi attracts so much fraud because the dollar has much more utility than crypto. At the end of the day criminals want to turn their BTC into $$$, not nearly as many trying to turn $$$ into BTC. This point is lost on many. It's not about crypto at all, it's about $$$.

Fraud and identity theft are worse lately because of all the new attack vectors (and attack surfaces) the internet provides. The internet started out as a curiosity, began disrupting things, and now is well into disrupting TradFi. Identity theft is a relatively new thing, and the real world has some catching up to do. I have no doubt TradFi will survive the disruption as long as there is money to be made along the way.

I do think that some sort of permanent digital identity that follows you around is inevitable at some point. It's the one piece of the puzzle in the real world that is missing from the digital world.

TradFi might attract more fraud, but has evolved well to deal with it. I lost confidence in crypto after my experience dealing with $6,500 in bad checks in the real world. I deeply appreciated the fact I could actually claw my money back with relatively little hassle. In fact, I had little doubt it would be clawed back. Sure it took three months, which was annoying, but I wasn't sweating the money being gone forever.

TradFi simply needs to catch up to modern technology, and the blueprint is already there. But crypto needs to catch up to modern regulations (the human end of things) which in my mind is much harder to pull off.

It's easier to bolt technology onto an evolved trust/accountability system than it is to bolt trust/accountability onto pure technology.

mwint4 anni fa

I’m always surprised it isn’t standard practice to issue credit cards with no numbers and no mag stripe, for use at restaurants and other card-present transactions.

Apple did part of this with their card - no numbers for waitstaff to copy - and for that reason it’s my main “handing it over to anyone” card*.

I’ve thought about degaussing its magstripe to make it truly compromise-proof, but I haven’t gone that far yet.

*well, except when it’s 5% restaurant cash back season at Discover.

bbbbb54 anni fa

But why do Americans insist on handing over their card instead of paying at the table? That's weird.

In the rest of the world this issue has been completely solved by apple pay.

>I’ve thought about degaussing its magstripe to make it truly compromise-proof, but I haven’t gone that far yet.

You know you can just scrape it off, right?

tallanvor4 anni fa

Even in countries with Apple Pay, not every bank supports it or other mobile solutions.

bbbbb54 anni fa

In which countries is it genuinely difficult to switch banks?

GauntletWizard4 anni fa

America had many many years of accepting credit cards before it was feasible to bring the readers to the table, and by then it was ingrained. My impression is that Europe it was much more common to pay at a counter before wireless card readers came about in the late 90s/early 2000s.

It's becoming more common to bring readers to tables in America now, because Visa and MasterCard have realized the security benefits and are encouraging it, but there's literally 50 years of habit.

grecy4 anni fa

> I told him it's terrifying when your bank manager tells you not to use checks on the checking account his bank offers.

It might be terrifying, but it's good honest advice, which is always worth it weight in gold.

The man is an expert. I would take his advice.

stevekemp4 anni fa

As far as I can tell, from reading sites like this, one of the most common uses of checks in America seems to be for paying rent? Other than that I'm kinda curious where you'd use a check at all?

When I was a student, in the UK, cheques were only their way out. I remember once or twice paying for mail-order items with cheques, and paying for groceries at a supermarket with a cheque. (Back then our bank-cards would have "Cheque Guarantee £50", or similar on them, and you had to show the card as proof the cheque would be honoured even if there were insufficient funds.)

In the UK, and here in Finland where I now live, people tend to pay rent/morgtages via automatic fund-transfers scheduled to run once a month, or direct-debit, so the idea of mailing a cheque for rent seems particularly archaic.

derwiki4 anni fa

Vendors who don’t want to pay a processing fee. Handyman example rings true, up through some bigger renovations I had done. Zelle is becoming more common though.

puffoflogic4 anni fa

> as they're not allowed to discuss details with me.

That would not be true if they actually investigated. This is code for "we don't care"; there was simply a miscommunication here when you did not recognize the euphemism.

helsontaveras184 anni fa

Check fraud is a federal crime. I think an investigation did occur.

It's in the banks/police's best interest to withhold details regarding an active investigation, because what if you go tell the suspect the details?

maratc4 anni fa

For all those who tune in to the "checks are so 19th century" tune: please note this is a good story about check fraud, as the OP eventually got his money back.

With Paypal/Venmo/app-du-jour, in the event of an account takeover, the result might be different.

Check fraud is an old problem — as old as the checks themselves — and it's a problem well understood by the banks, the police, investigators, and judges. On the other hand, good luck explaining the police such obscure technical details as "they installed a proxy on my IP" or "they sim-swapped me to intercept the one-time password".

On another note, checks charge 0% commission: to pay someone $5, you need $5.

trollied4 anni fa

>On another note, checks charge 0% commission: to pay someone $5, you need $5.

I can make a direct bank transfer "faster payment", which usually takes a few seconds to arrive in the destination account, for a fee of £0.

maratc4 anni fa

> usually takes a few seconds to arrive in the destination account

This also means that whoever takes over your account, can send the money out and cash it in very fast.

This of course would never happen to me or you, but happened to a relative of mine who got a call from "their bank security" and then were directed to install a "security check app" (remote control tool), and change their password in the banking app. The thieves then got off with money that they transferred out in a matter of seconds, with no recourse.

Nextgrid4 anni fa

> a relative of mine who got a call from "their bank security" and then were directed to install a "security check app" (remote control tool), and change their password in the banking app

Presumably you want their money to be returned, but would you want the same if it was physical thieves pretending to be the alarm/security company that went in to "repair" the physical safe and made off with all its valuables? Would you still want the money to be returned (ultimately subsidised by all other customers of the bank or the taxpayer) if someone physically withdraws all their money in cash and hands it over to someone who pretends to be a bank employee and has a convincing name tag?

Looking at it from the bank's perspective, the user willingly delegated their identity to the scammer by voluntarily handing over control of their authentication instrument. There is not much the bank can do in this case that wouldn't also hinder legitimate usage - this may have very well been a legitimate transaction for buying a car/house deposit/etc.

FYI, there is recourse against authorised push payment fraud, but it's a goodwill scheme that most banks participate in as opposed to a legally mandated feature. Nevertheless, it's worth trying out.

jonp8884 anni fa

Selling the inherent slowness of a transfer method as an anti fraud feature is just absurd.

If a delay is beneficial it can be introduced artificially for those who want/need it

For instance, my bank limits the total daily transfer, with any changes to that amount taking time to take effect.

maratc4 anni fa

> it can be introduced artificially for those who want/need it

If it can be introduced artificially by the user, it can be skipped artificially by the fraudster, so the anti-fraud effectiveness of such an "anti-fraud feature" would be zero.

adql4 anni fa

They need to take over the account, vs fake a bit of paper

[deleted]4 anni fa

yakak4 anni fa

I think people who tell you it is 19th century live in countries that use IBAN/SWIFT to push money instead of checks to tell people an account is available to drain.

porbelm4 anni fa

These countries also usually have bank-supplied or sponsored mobile payment apps (like Vipps in Norway) where the usual fraud protection applies.

That the US is 30 years behind the times in banking is not a shock but still stupid.

rippercushions4 anni fa

Account takeovers are a different beast that are closer to someone breaking and entering your house, then raiding your fridge and stealing your TV. The literal man in the middle attack described in the article here, where a legitimate transaction is hacked into an illegitimate one, is orders of magnitude more difficult to execute for type of any electronic payment.

chrisco2554 anni fa

I would argue it's a lot harder to physically intercept a check and chemically wash it than, for example, a credit card number punched online. There are numerous trivial phishing methods to get someone to punch in or reveal their CC details online. And then again if companies don't store the data properly, they are subject to trivial insider attacks and hacks.

adriancr4 anni fa

They would then need to bypass 3d secure aproval process OR use a website without in which case you get your money back just by calling. (note: instant notification for transactions on phone means you catch it fast)

You could use a bank with disposable one-time credit card numbers.

You could disable online payments and only enable then when you do transactions.

You could set up limits, say 100$ a month, after which transactions get denied unless you alter it. So you wont be incovenienced too much if you do need a card for netflix and other recurring payments.

There are so many ways electronic payments are more secure in new banks that care about this.

maratc4 anni fa

A famous case of Amazon ATO (account take-over) was trivially executed where a fraudster would use one of the Amazon checkout paths with a credit card that they own (e.g. a disposable Visa gift card) but later add a victim's email so that the credit card would get added to the victim's account. The fraudster would then call Amazon support, impersonate the victim, proving their identity by using that credit card number, expiration date, and CVV, and claim that their phone is stolen. Amazon support would then "update" the victim's account with the phone number under fraudster's control. The fraudster would then use the "forgot password" flow to reset the victim's password using the phone. Game over, the fraudster now controls the account (and the real CCs added to it) through no fault of the victim (nor their knowledge). They would go on by purchasing electronic gift cards (iTunes/X-box/etc.) and selling the numbers on eBay for real money.

This specific flow has since been fixed, but ATOs still happen much more than you can imagine.

chrisco2554 anni fa

Yeah all you need is one known website or merchant which sells some relatively fungible good to make out. Plenty of such sites on the web.

You may get your money back, but this is simply because the card company is eating the loss. This is not even uncommon. Over $10B in credit card fraud happens every year: https://www.cardrates.com/advice/credit-card-fraud-statistic...

ghaff4 anni fa

>On another note, checks charge 0% commission: to pay someone $5, you need $5.

I sometimes lead weekend trips for an outdoor organization and for quite a while even after various direct electronic payment arrangements became available, most leaders stuck with checks because there tended to be fees associated with other types of transactions.

I assume dealing with check fraud has become pretty bulletproof. I bought a car for "cash" last summer and I surprised I could just write a check for the post-deposit balance when I picked up the car. I've always had to go to my bank for a cashier's check in the past.

mindslight4 anni fa

For the dealer, there are two failure modes. The first is you are who you say you are, but your personal check bounces. Good standing in the financial surveillance databases alleviates this concern, as it shows that if your personal check does end up bouncing you will rectify the problem rather than trying to play coy. I'd guess someone with a low credit score would still have been told to bring a bank check to eliminate the credit risk.

The second is that the buyer has supplied a fraudulent identity, and forged check. But checking the buyer's ID will get the dealer most of the way there, and bank checks can still be forged. Furthermore, a car is a titled asset where ownership is transferred to the identity supplied. To commit a successful fraud, you'd have to pass a bad check, take possession of the car, and then part it out like it's a stolen car (because it is).

adriancr4 anni fa

> "they installed a proxy on my IP"

This doesn't make sense.

> "they sim-swapped me to intercept the one-time password".

You would notice by losing phone connectivity... so you would know you're compromised before you try to make a transaction.

Being 2FA, the attacker still needs to know the account user/password...

Then there's hardware 2fa for a lot of banks that don't do sms... good luck with that.

Or they use bank app in phone as 2fa. Which should run securely in enclaves.

Even if they have all of the above, you just file a police report for fraud and bank will claw back funds and reinstate you, same as for checks.

maratc4 anni fa

> you just file a police report for fraud and bank will claw back funds and reinstate you

If the fraudster has your password and OTP, and if the money's gone, bank will do nothing — as opposed to the check fraud. That's why TLA is a good check fraud story.

adriancr4 anni fa

How do you prove check fraud for washed check?, it has your signature, check is valid... funds get transferred same as for hacked account.

maratc4 anni fa

> How do you prove check fraud for washed check?

By the law, the bank needs to do the proof, or return your money. Not so with account takeovers. Which is my whole point.

krisoft4 anni fa

> With Paypal/Venmo/app-du-jour, in the event of an account takeover, the result might be different.

You are saying it as if checks vs apps are the only two option.

> On the other hand, good luck explaining the police such obscure technical details as "they installed a proxy on my IP" or "they sim-swapped me to intercept the one-time password".

Why would I explain any such thing? It is not my job to know how the bank got hacked.

maratc4 anni fa

> It is not my job to know how the bank got hacked.

And without any explanations, it's not your bank's job to return your money.

krisoft4 anni fa

The explanation is that you see a transaction you are not recognising. You point at it and say “i didn’t authorise that one” and let them investigate.

They have the logs, you don’t. This is probably the worst day of your life or close to it, while it is just a normal regular occurence for your bank. They have policies to handle it from their side. They will ask a lot of question, perhaps ask you to make a police report.

I ask you this, if you have chest pain and shortness of breath, would you:

a; jurry-rig an oscilloscope to check your ECG, start reading wikipedia all about cardiology, and then find a nurse to tell them about how concerned you are about your QT interval

Or

b; go to a hospital and tell them that you have chest pain and shortness of breath?

maratc4 anni fa

You have a lot of good faith in what your bank would or would not do, and they have a conflict of interest: if they side with you, they would need to make you whole — out of their own pocket. The hospital has the opposite conflict of interest: they are actually interested in helping you — and charging you (or your insurance, or NHS, or somebody).

If you get your case against the bank in front of a judge, you need to prove your claim of an account takeover. The bank does not need to prove anything. If you haven't convinced the judge, no money for you.

adriancr4 anni fa

> they would need to make you whole — out of their own pocket.

Banks have the means to ask for a freeze/for the money back from the other party's bank. Same as credit card companies can do charge backs.

maratc4 anni fa

If the transfer is instantaneous, the fraudster could have cashed out already from the other bank account. There is nothing in the other party’s bank by then.

The chargebacks in credit cards come mostly from the credit card issuer pockets, and are funded by credit card fees. Not the case with banks that don’t take any fees on transfers.

PopAlongKid4 anni fa

>It is not my job to know how the bank got hacked.

But it may be in your best interest to show that you are not the hacker.

fsh4 anni fa

This is a very American perspective. The rest of the world has used bank transfers for decades, and the risk is very well understood. Online banking usually requires 2FA via a phone app, or using the bank card with a separate reader. 2FA via SMS has been mostly phased out due to the risk of SIM-swapping.

Bank transfers are also usually commission free, and are instant in many countries.

mindslight4 anni fa

Okay, but what happens if your device(s) have been compromised, and a payment is misdirected?

From the perspective of suffering large bureaucracies, procedures with obvious possibilities of failure have an advantage in that the bureaucracy will have to entertain the idea that something exceptional happened, rather than simply running your edge case under their steam roller.

I admit this might be a very USian view, as we have extremely unaccountable bureaucracies here.

adriancr4 anni fa

> Okay, but what happens if your device(s) have been compromised, and a payment is misdirected?

File a police report, same as in article with washed /rewritten check...

Then figure out how you got compromised so it doesnt happen again.

maratc4 anni fa

The only difference from the check fraud is this: since the fraudsters — having the password and OTP — are indistinguishable from you, the bank may not return your money (out of his pocket). And since the money was already cashed out, there's nowhere to get it back from. Bottom line, you will eat the damage.

adriancr4 anni fa

How is this different from washed check?

That is also 'indistinguishable from you', check is valid and has your signature.

In both cases you have to hope that funds can be clawed back.

The author does point that it took 3 months to get funds back and it would have been difficult if he could not prove checks as fraud.

I would also rate difficulty of grabbing otp and password as more difficult then intercepting an envelope. (outside cases where people willfully give them away to 'tech support'... in which case they might as well write a blank check)

Police already being aware of 30+ cases in author's context does say its widespread issue even for savvy persons. I could fall victim by simply mailing a check, whereas I can't imagine having my bank account hacked.

maratc4 anni fa

> How is this different from washed check?

I've pointed out the difference: banks, police, and courts understand check fraud. They don't understand account takeovers, as these are much more complicated. They are much more likely to side with you on a case they understand, and reinstate you, and you need them to side with you if you want your money back.

There even may be a law that in the case of check fraud, the customer should be made whole. I seriously doubt there is such a law in the cases of email takeover.

> The author does point that it took 3 months to get funds back

As opposed to the cases where it took people much longer and they did NOT get their funds back?

adriancr4 anni fa

> banks, police, and courts understand check fraud.

How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on a valid check?

You fail to realise same issue is in both cases.

Same procedures work in both cases.

If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for epayments.

They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment.

mindslight4 anni fa

> If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for epayments.

The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Rather they rely on crude pattern matching, with regulations to protect your rights. If a bank is able to close your case as a matter of "user error" and move on, it is likely to do so.

You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things that are apparently very similar in the society you are used to, but not in others. In the US, there have been plenty of cases of people having to fight their bank because of forged transactions on some new "100% secure" digital scheme - the all too common trope of humans believing computers as authoritative sources rather than critically examining their workings. So, please enjoy your society where you can rely on the system to behave reasonably in the face of newer technology, and please stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not.

adriancr4 anni fa

> The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities.

Are you basing this on something other then assumptions?

If you go to the police and say you are a victim of fraud they will help, how it happened is secondary.

Why so little faith in authorities?

> You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things

What I did say is police should help you if you are a victim, how it happened is secondary. That is on top of saying checks are a lot more insecure and its a lot more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives.

> stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not

You can enjoy the alternatives, just search for them. (one of the banks I'm using is revolut which is in the usa too and easy to set up on your phone...)

As for gaslighting... That's just incredulity towards dismissiveness... If it seems like bad faith, it's not, surprised it would be interpreted as such so I'll stop.

mindslight4 anni fa

I really hate making narratives about race and class and privilege, rather than just sticking to the general concept of rights we should uniformly enjoy, but that is an example of one of the major reasons police cannot be universally counted on to help.

You yourself admit this when you throw out the following, as if it is a correct and just answer:

> They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment.

So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome?

> more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives

You continue to say this as if it's an unquestionable benefit, when the point of this entire thread is there is a downside to people generally thinking things like this.

> and easy to set up on your phone

A phone? One of the least secure types of devices, that's easily lost or stolen due to carrying it everywhere? That's really your suggestion?

Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank's most advanced anal probe technology. You go to the police, they actually do the work of questioning the person whose account the money went to, who says that the payment was for buying a used phone from them on Craigslist. The police think this sounds an awful lot like a euphemism for drugs, but don't have any evidence to investigate further, so they just conclude they'd rather not help you rip off your dealer and send you on your way. You talk to your bank who says the transaction looks fully authorized, the police don't think there has been a crime, and oh by the way even if you were jumped you still shouldn't have pressed send if you didn't want to lose the money. This is the type of bureaucratic nightmare that's created when a model becomes unassailable.

adriancr4 anni fa

> So if you appear to be more dodgy than the account opened by whomever defrauded you, you're just out of luck? And that's a sensible outcome?

Why twist things to fit race or other prejudices. I had no prejudices in comment.

What I meant is: You file a police report and bring it to the bank, Bank asks other account holder to freeze assets for this transaction while investigation proceeds.

If multiple people do the same with the same target account then it becomes easier to prove malfeasance.

Objective facts/investigation.

Nowhere does race or anything come in... (hard for me to comprehend this issue that usa has btw)

> Envision this scenario - you are walking down the street, get jumped, your attackers force to you transfer a decent sum to them, authenticating the transaction using your bank...

I have been jumped, I have gone to the police, they were very helpful, rode around with them and they got list of cameras in area, they showed a list of usual suspects, next day the guy was under arrest and I got my phone back. They did manage to guess pin and attempt to make transactions, i did get refunds from bank since i called on way to police.(not that they could get more then 150e without 2fa hardware token)

You are being very negative for no reason and make wild assumptions.

You will get support.

Unless the contrary actually happened to you then please excuse my skepticism

And before you say 'privilege', I'm not special in any way where I live.

maratc4 anni fa

> Why so little faith in authorities?

I have dealt with the authorities on the account of fraud. My little faith in them comes from experience.

maratc4 anni fa

> How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on a valid check?

"Here is the picture of the check that I put in the mail"

> they should be willing to do the same for epayments.

Leaving "should" aside, sadly this is not how it works in practice.

fsh4 anni fa

In Europe, banks, police, and courts do understand account takeovers. They have roughly the same consequences (a lot of faffing around with the bank), but are much harder to pull off than check fraud. I really don't see a downside.

Amezarak4 anni fa

By law, the bank is liable for accepting a forged check, not you. They are required to reimburse you unless you did something very careless.

https://www.helpwithmybank.gov/help-topics/fraud-scams/forge....

adriancr4 anni fa

surprisingly, they should also refund you for fraud, identity theft, etc...

Under the same conditions - that you haven't acted ‘grossly negligent’

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/banking/ban...

maratc4 anni fa

For a perspective, I'm not American, and I don't feel comfortable giving my bank details to random people.

I can also get checks with dates in the future, and know that I will collect the money (this way or another). If someone promises you a future money transfer, you can't be sure that they will actually deliver the way you can when you have their check in hand.

kevincox4 anni fa

Checks have your bank details on them. It's the funny numbers at the bottom.

If they didn't how would the receiving bank be able to get the money from your account?

maratc4 anni fa

When I want someone (who needs to pay me) to give me the check, my bank account details are not supplied to them. I just deposit their check. The check has their bank details printed on it, not mine.

When I want someone (who needs to pay me) to transfer money into my account, I need to provide them with my account number.

In the first case, my bank details are kept private, but in the second case, not so much.

shortcake274 anni fa

In Australia you can make instant bank transfers using phone numbers, email addresses, ABNs etc. Although I’ve never been too bothered about giving out my bank account details - they’re designed to be public.

cuteboy194 anni fa

You never give your bank details out to anyone.

For example with UPI the only thing you need to send are disposable virtual addresses which are basically like email IDs. By themselves these IDs can't authorize any transactions which is always 2FA

mbesto4 anni fa

> I don't feel comfortable giving my bank details to random people.

What specifically makes you feel uncomfortable? If the person is truly "random" then guessing your account number is just as "random", no?

maratc4 anni fa

> What specifically makes you feel uncomfortable?

The thought that they can call my bank, impersonate me, and drain my account with no recourse for me. That should be much harder if they don't know my bank details to begin with.

mbesto4 anni fa

> impersonate me

No bank should be using your account details as a secret used to identify you.

maratc4 anni fa

Banks use other secrets, like my birthday, or the date my national ID card was issued on. These can be found out by fraudsters, too. But not having my bank details public helps.

crazygringo4 anni fa

This is exactly why the USPS started replacing the blue box opening slots with a narrower version in New York City and surrounding areas starting back in 2019 [1], to prevent "mail fishing" -- retrieving envelopes from people paying bills, specifically to wash found checks in order commit fraud.

Which, if you used to use the blue boxes for mailing thin packages, is a huge annoyance because you can't anymore. :(

Seriously, these days nobody should be writing personal checks using a pen. If you do need a check for a transaction, use a cashier's check (different from a personal check, it's drawn on the bank) for occasional large amounts (like apartment deposit or buying a used car), or most banks allow you to send a paper check via online banking for routine needs -- you fill out the details online and it mails a paper check to the recipient that, AFAIK, can't be washed for check fraud. (All of this is USA specific, to be clear.)

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/21/nyregion/mailbox-theft-fi...

rippercushions4 anni fa

> Seriously, these days nobody should be writing personal checks

FTFY. The US is the only country in the world that I know of where writing personal checks is still commonplace. In Europe they're thoroughly obsolete, and in Asia, where they were mostly uncommon in the first place, even the few once check-happy countries like Singapore have pretty much migrated off.

tnjm4 anni fa

French resident here. Received a bill from this week from a medical lab for some tests; the only payment options are either visit the lab in person (an hour's drive away) or mail a personal check. This is not uncommon here, and even most large supermarket chains still accept checks.

nicbou4 anni fa

Really? I’m approaching 10 years in Germany and I have never seen a cheque in Europe. SEPA transfers are the standard, and this is in the land of the faxes.

Mikushi4 anni fa

I can attest that France still uses checks a lot. Just over this summer I wrote something like 5 checks.

Mostly for work to be done on a house, and otherwise to get around the absurdly low limit on bank cards.

Thlom4 anni fa

Wow. I’m a year away from 40 and have handled exactly one check my entire life. A gift from my uncle for my confirmation. I have never seen them used in shops and I have never heard of paying bills with checks. These days I get most bills straight into my online bank and just have to confirm the payment. It’s been more or less like this my entire adult life.

Norway BTW. Perhaps our small population makes it easier to just end old legacy shit?

Ichthypresbyter4 anni fa

Certainly up to about 5-10 years ago in the UK university societies ran on cheques (not sure if they still do). It was AIUI the only simple way of requiring the approval of any two of a number of committee members to spend money.

secretsatan4 anni fa

I think the last time I wrote a cheque was just before leaving the UK 16 years ago.

I was surprised in Switzerland they have kind of a reverse cheques (probably the wrong term), when you buy many things online, or dealing with taxes, the firm will send you a payment slip, you can then take that to your bank (or now scan with the banks app) and authorise the funds.

kerneis4 anni fa

They're still used in France even if mostly by old people.

MerelyMortal4 anni fa

I've never had one of my checks washed, but in second or third grade, a classmate tried "washing" one of my worksheets.

Thankfully the teacher called me to her desk to why didn't I turn in my worksheet (I had), and thankfully my worksheet was on top of the stack which allowed me to see it and point out that I turned it in, and someone else erased my name (still somewhat visible) and wrote theirs.

It seems that many people aren't observant, don't care, and/or don't want the confrontation.

adql4 anni fa

The credit/debit card must be signed by owner.

In my history of using debit cards for most, and now for near everything not a single time anyone bothered to check. Even back when the magnetic stripe was used.

I also was using out of date identity document for good 6 months and datacenter staff also haven't bothered to check that.

ghaff4 anni fa

I'll add that my signature at this point is a totally undecipherable inconsistent scrawl that is even more so in a thin box on the back of a card. I assume I'm not that unusual, especially given that I actually did learn Palmer script once upon a time. I sort of have to laugh whenever I still sometimes need to sign a credit card receipt.

kylehotchkiss4 anni fa

One thing I dislike is the inability to disable ACH for a given account. I really want to use an account for safekeeping that can’t have a check or ACH transaction run against it, rather I’d have to use banks internal tool to move funds. Does this exist?

raincom4 anni fa

Chase and other banks have something like "ACH & Check block". Usually, such a thing is available for business accounts.

xbeta4 anni fa

What's the Americans obsession with checks? I worked and lived in other countries , including Asia, Europe and Latin America. Most of them moved on to digital payment (especially China) where I found the US and Canada still heavily relied on a piece of paper to process a large amount of funds with no security.

In US, I realized even buying groceries they accept checks written at the counter.

Why can't the US just move on from checks?

ridgered44 anni fa

I'm in the US and I use checks for some bills because they charge me a fee to pay with other methods (off the top of my head, my property taxes and electric bill have these drawbacks). I tend to use the bank bill pay system for these instead of writing an actual check though.

MerelyMortal4 anni fa

My bank allows me to have multiple checking accounts. I have money direct deposited in one account, and I transfer over just as much money as I need for checks into another account, and transfer over just as much money as I need for autobilling into a third account.

I trust the entity that does the direct deposit, otherwise I would set up a fourth account just for that.

spicymaki4 anni fa

Really good story about check fraud.

I refuse to use personal checks. It has your account number and personal information listed on them! If I am forced to use checks I will have my bank issue the check by mail or I will go to the bank and have them issue a bank check. If I am in a pinch I will use a money order from the post office.

I once had a business account (one where they stated they did signature matching) and someone performed fraud by withdrawing money using a ripped piece of looseleaf with some sketchy writing on it. I went into the bank to ask them about the withdrawal and they produced an image of the "withdrawal slip" and they were quite frankly embarrassed that they cashed it (no authentication at all). That bank is no longer in business btw.

beej714 anni fa

Property taxes are the only place I still use them. I can pay with a credit card, but they charge a percentage "convenience fee". The county does have a drop box for paying, though.

ghaff4 anni fa

What happens a lot of the time is that towns farm out their epayments to a private company for "free" that, reasonably enough, needs to recoup their expenses and make a profit. I just use my bank's bill pay that will cut a check and mail it for free if they can't do an electronic transfer.

MerelyMortal4 anni fa

Apparently a simple line after the spelled-out amount isn't enough, as it's clearly visible on the low resolution scan.

nerdponx4 anni fa

Indeed. I think the most surprising thing here is that the check was accepted with those horizontal lines left in it.

porbelm4 anni fa

Checks existing at all is just mindboggling. Most countries quit that crap thirty years ago.

wdb4 anni fa

Can still remember when I received a check in the early 2000s from an American company. I just didn't know what to do with it. Luckily, the local bank branch knew what to do. Even 15-20 years ago checks were pretty uncommon in my part of Europe

peter3034 anni fa

The only physical check I have written in the past four years was to the US Passport Office. They refuse any electronic payment method.

The next most recent paper check was a wedding gift. But modern wedding registries accept digital payments now.

bayindirh4 anni fa

This is why Uniball has SuperInk, and Noodler’s has Bulletproof.

puffoflogic4 anni fa

Bulletproof is pretty dangerous stuff though. Granted, I never had any issues with it when I was using it to write rent checks monthly, but I think long term it's likely to require a carpet replacement or two!

Overtonwindow4 anni fa

I am genuinely surprised people in America are still using checks. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but… A check? If you have checks laying around, you should destroy them. If you need something like a check, get a money order.

zippergz4 anni fa

Last time I had a plumber at my house on short notice, they required payment on site and didn’t take credit cards. Are you suggesting I keep large piles of cash sitting around for such occasions?

adql4 anni fa

Leasing a terminal costs around $15 here so many handymen just... have it.

The worst case you can just get to the closest ATM.

[deleted]4 anni fa

scatters4 anni fa

Why wouldn't you pay by direct transfer?

throwaway987974 anni fa

i find keeping a grand enough to cover most emergencies, without being so much that i’m worried for it.

MerelyMortal4 anni fa

It then seems reasonable to store the checks in the same place one would store a grand of cash.

(That's where I keep my checkbook; I only just keep a single, blank, folded-up check in my wallet for the unexpected need.)

mindslight4 anni fa

Actually with the way bank regulations around check fraud works, timely knowing (/reporting) that your physical checks have gone missing is important, so you do not want to hide them out of the way. Despite being just pieces of paper, there are different regulations depending on if a fraudulent check was created from one of your bona fide checks, or whether it was forged from whole cloth.

alkonaut4 anni fa

Don’t they normally send an invoice?

toast04 anni fa

My regular plumbers are happy to send invoices, but emergency plumbers tend to want payment at time of service. Of course, if my regular plumbers are available on short notice, I'll use them, but sometimes you can't wait.

jjav4 anni fa

> If you need something like a check, get a money order.

That would be silly. So now intead of being able to quickly write a check on the spot for free, you'd expect me to go to the post office (or other place that sells money orders), stand in line, pay extra for it? That doesn't make any sense neither from convenience nor cost perspective.

Overtonwindow4 anni fa

Yes. How often do you use checks? Do you even know where they are?

jjav4 anni fa

My checks are in the top drawer of my home office desk and I use them at least monthly to pay the mortgage. And any kind of occasional payment that can't be set to autopay via credit card (for free, I won't pay extra fees for that).

sneak4 anni fa

I can write a check in my home or office, put it in an envelope with a stamp, and put it in the outgoing post, all without going anywhere or paying anyone. I can complete the whole payment task in 5 minutes.

Money orders have a fee and require time and gasoline to go somewhere to get them. In 5 minutes I haven't even arrived at the nearest location to purchase a money order.

bbbbb54 anni fa

>I can write a check in my home or office, put it in an envelope with a stamp, and put it in the outgoing post, all without going anywhere or paying anyone. I can complete the whole payment task in 5 minutes.

Is that better than logging into your online banking, making an instant transfer? No need to go anywhere or pay anyone.

sneak4 anni fa

Every time I do that to a new recipient I have never paid before (especially when my client IP is in another country (where I spend more than half each year), but also even just in the US), Chase bank locks the entire account, including all debit and credit cards, and demands an in-person (in USA) visit with ID to unlock it, because US retail banks have not figured out unphishable web authentication yet.

Paying a new person is at a minimum a 3 hour process using online payments for me if they don't accept credit card payments.

Also, my checks don't have my full name or billing address on them. Credit card payments require disclosing at least part of these (at a minimum, billing address zip code) to the payee. Wire transfers disclose the full name on the account. I want to send money, not PII.

adriancr4 anni fa

find a better bank... Revolut has been great for me so far, seems to be in the usa as well, check them out at least for transfers

> Also, my checks don't have my full name or billing address on them.

Return address on envelope does...

Also, aren't you worried someone will intercept check like in article and rewrite it?, non issue with electronic payments

ghaff4 anni fa

In fairness, you don't have to put your return address on the envelope.

Historically, places could be fussy about accepting checks without an address although I expect that's not generally an issue today. (Of course, lots of other ways to get someone's address especially if they own a house. It's public information in general in the US.)

But, yeah, I've never heard of this account locking thing. I can go to my major brick and mortar bank's web site and add a new payee in 30 seconds. Done.

[deleted]4 anni fa

jjav4 anni fa

> Is that better than logging into your online banking, making an instant transfer? No need to go anywhere or pay anyone.

If I have their bank routing number and account number, sure I can do that (then it's effectively the same thing as a check but without the slip of paper). But I don't always have that info particularly for informal one-off payments (e.g. yard cleaner that came to haul debris away) so it's easiest to hand them a check.

adriancr4 anni fa

In the EU I can do instant payments from phone... no need to even write the check, get an envelope, buy stamps, going out to mail it...

It would also arrive instantaneously on the other side if done during business hours...

No fee...

If i need to transfer to mates i just look them up from phone contacts and send money... Or they can send a payment request... or show a qr code that i scan...

Tor34 anni fa

> In the EU I can do instant payments from phone...

^ This. I'm not sure if this is actually EU wide yet.. but there are several payment systems available, which aren't AFAIK yet usable across countries or at least not many countries. They're in any case members of the European Mobile Payment Systems Association. The goal is to make an EU/EEC-wide mobile payment system.

Unlike Paypal, Venmo etc. these are directly managed by the banks, i.e. nothing like the horrors you sometimes hear about from those private companies. With the variant I use I just need the/a phone number from the recipient, I enter it in my app, I see a name come up, I pay (with a pin), either directly from a bank account or from e.g. a credit card - I can choose at pay time. So, for that example where you need to pay someone doing garden work for you you don't hand over a check, you simply ask for the phone number, enter the details, show the guy "Is that you?", if "yes", then pay, show the guy the receipt on your phone, deal done. Instant, if it's paid from your account, or "Real Soon Now" if from your credit card (the transaction will fail if you don't have the credit - you don't get a receipt to show. You do get an instant receipt if your credit card works, so there's no doubt on the receiver's end that the money will come).

Very convenient. Works in lots of shops too, and, as it's free up to a certain amount, and you only need a phone number you don't have to invest/rent anything, as in getting a card reader. When that's said, until this became popular you could more often than not use a credit card for anything including flea market sellers, parking meters, everything. The only limitation I've run into is with, of all things, doctor's offices where their payment machines for some reason only accept bank (direct debit) cards, not CC. The dentists accept everything though, and everybody else accepts everything too. But the phone payment is so extremely easy, and safe, that it's taking over everything. Splitting a bill at the restaurant? Phone transfer. Someone forgot their credit card at the gasoline pump? Phone the amount to someone who's got a CC and then the person with the CC can fill up the car. I do prefer contactless CC payment in shops though.

mistrial94 anni fa

a check gives transaction control to the parties directly participating.. a check can be physically held on private property. Why people cry out that this is "ancient" just says to me that people are conditioned to depend on outside companies for every aspect of financial life, minute by minute.

jameshart4 anni fa

A check is literally an instruction to a bank to talk to another bank and get some money, a process which, in the US, they usually complete by sending the check to a federal reserve clearinghouse. In what way does that give the parties directly participating in the transaction independent ‘control’?

mindslight4 anni fa

OP overstated the case as being free of centralized parties, but checks do give individuals more rights - checks have been around long enough that even the US has had to develop sane regulations around them. Whereas digital payment services can just send you a text message saying "your whole account is frozen. see you in binding arbitration!". Maybe that will change in five decades, but it doesn't help us now.

jameshart4 anni fa

It’s interesting that I guess I’m so used to reading takes on fintech touting ‘independence’ and ‘decentralization’ coming solely from a libertarian perspective which would assume that ‘government’ involvement was inherently centralized, it didn’t occur to me to consider that OP might actually believe in society, and consider law enforcement around check fraud and regulations on banks as something that enables individual freedom.

Good reminder that sometimes it’s possible to read more into what someone’s saying than is there in the words.

mindslight4 anni fa

Well I can't speak for OP, but there are aspects of checks that are decentralized regardless of how brashly libertarian your perspective is. Like the idea that you yourself are effectively creating your own quasi-currency note by writing on a piece of paper, regardless of the machinery making it so that can work is more centralized.

In general, there is much libertarian thinking that shortsightedly focuses on the unilateral "exit" without thinking about what comes next. It's a reaction to how complex and overbearing our institutions have become, spurred on by capital looking to digest the proceeds. I'm a libertarian, but I recognize that it's ultimately a yin-yang - if there is a "completely free" power vacuum, some other power will often fill it, creating a de facto government by another name - one that generally won't have any mechanisms of accountability. The approach of defining rights axiomatically simply does not work, due to the contradictions created by layered complexity. An example of how this plays out after the first step is the current web 2.0 catastrophe. The first amendment definition of free speech may be necessary, but it is not sufficient - unaccountable companies have consumed the power vacuum at scale, digested it, and spit it back out in terms of heavily editorialized spaces that we still try to use as if they're public venues.

(And just to be clear on my immediate practical stance, I think the current "free speech" marketing campaign of Twitter et al is utterly specious. The problem is the amassing of such power in the first place, due to the centralizing technologies webapps are built on. Changing the flavor of the Kool-Aid doesn't fix the fundamental problem.)

mistrial94 anni fa

clearing the check is centralized obviously.. Think for a minute about the sequence of steps of a transaction. Payment for ________ upon the completion of _________; a third party escrow; conditional transactions of every flavor.

jameshart4 anni fa

I guess by ‘independent’ you mean that with physical checks people are able to make up kind of ‘folk protocols’ for transactions involving steps like ‘party x holds on to a check written by party y’. - without the banks having to know that that’s what they’re doing, or having to involve some third party to handle that like PayPal or someone?

That seems like a pretty weak argument for checks. The range of cases where those processes are useful, in terms of mutual trust (or lack thereof), quantities of funds involved, etc, seem pretty narrow. Like, I don’t trust you enough that I want to ask you to cut a check in advance, and I know you don’t trust me enough to not cash it right away so we’re going to have someone else hold it… but I trust you enough not to cancel the check, and that you’ll be holding sufficient funds so that when I do get the check I know it will actually clear…

Surely we’d be better off using a proper escrow service for that?

I get that pre-electronic-banking this sort of folk-banking was all people could do but it should be easy to do this sort of thing better electronically

mistrial94 anni fa

weak => a check can be held while the electricity is out; while someone is having a health emergency; while someone changes their mind, their plans, their decision

drukenemo4 anni fa

Most countries in Western Europe and South America (that I know of) have stopped using checks at least 10 years ago.

debesyla4 anni fa

And Baltic countries (like Lithuania) never used checks at all - now it's only instant and free SEPA bank transfers.

alkonaut4 anni fa

25 I’d say. I stopped using cash 10-15 years ago. I mean entirely, no exceptions.

owlbite4 anni fa

Moving from the UK to the US a few years ago was like going back in time 20 years in finance tech. No-one supported contactless payment, cards didn't implement it, despite it having been standard tech in the UK for years.

The UK de-facto deprecated cheques in 2011 when the cheque-guarantee scheme was closed, so it was very shocking to need one to rent an apartment in the US. (The UK would just use a bank transfer).

Even with improvements seemingly brought on by covid, the US still seems massively behind the times - for example ACH still takes several days to do a bank transfer that is instant in the UK, and venmo or whatever seems to be overcomplicating it.

javajosh4 anni fa

Yes, and moving to the EU was like moving forward 20 years. The IBAN system is fantastic! The seller gives you their IBAN number, and you tell your bank to send money to that number. It happens instantly and for 0% commission. There are no routing number/account numbers. (Granted, I never had to deal with fraud so I'm not sure how that goes. I doubt that credit card style charge backs are possible.) It's also interesting that in some parts of Europe (esp Germany) cash is still the normal way of paying, even for large amounts.

hnbad4 anni fa

> I doubt that credit card style charge backs are possible.

Actually they are, but only for SEPA direct debit (i.e. you giving your IBAN to the seller to authorize a recurring charge). Also I'm not sure if this is automatic or just standard practice but failed SEPA charges will invalidate the mandate, so you'll have to issue a new one if it ever bounces.

Some(?) banks also allow you to reverse a bank transfer in online banking but I'm not sure if this just an "undo" before the transfer has actually gone through or an actual reverse charge. You can also set up recurring transfers in most online banking software for free but again they're not usually reversible like SEPA direct debit payments are.

As for cash payments in Germany: the pandemic led to a lot of retail adoption of debit card payments but if you don't know in advance whether you'll be able to pay by card, it's good to keep cash on hand. Most larger retail stores (clothing, pharmacies, etc) and pricier restaurants take debit cards, grocerers/bakers and non-chain fast food places often only take cash. You probably can't pay for your Currywurst with your debit card but you can pick up your prescription (if it's not fully covered by health insurance) or pay for a fancy dinner. In the latter case they might even take credit cards, if they're particularly fancy.

a9ex4 anni fa

I never used a check my entire life, it‘s just not a thing in Europe (:

In the pre-internet-banking times, you would just fill out one of these forms [0] to send money from your account directly to someone else.

[0] https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zahlschein#/media/Datei%3AZa...

sneak4 anni fa

Checks are basically the same thing, they're just given to the payee to give to their bank (to give to your bank) instead.

The high penalties (historically) for writing bad checks meant that if you had a signed check in hand, you had at least a small level of confidence that you had actually been paid the money, much like cash in hand (it could of course be counterfeit, but you can assume to some extent that it is not).

vladvasiliu4 anni fa

> I never used a check my entire life, it‘s just not a thing in Europe (:

Which parts of Europe? I use them all the time in France. A bunch of taxes companies have to pay can't be paid by credit card. It's either check or bank transfer.

hnbad4 anni fa

In Germany I haven't seen one since the 1990s. I was horrified to learn that they're still in use but apparently there have been only 8.3 million transactions with checks in Germany in 2019 compared to some 11000 million direct debit, 6600 million bank transfers and 6300 debit card transactions.

Apparently there was a Eurocheque system that enabled guarantees for international cheque payments in the EU but ended in 2001. This is generally cited as one of the main reasons cheques rapidly became irrelevant given that EC debit cards were still available and online banking became a thing.

silvestrov4 anni fa

In Denmark checks are not supported payment anymore, not even at banks: https://danskebank.dk/privat/find-hjaelp/betalinger-og-overf...

Everything is debit card, bank transfer or MobilePay. Creditcards are only really used for travel and payment of US companies.

Nextgrid4 anni fa

I've seen checks being used in France in the past but that was almost a decade ago and I haven't been there since. Are they still prevalent, and if so, why? Is the bank transfer UX not good?

vladvasiliu4 anni fa

For one-off payments, it's a bit involved. Have to add the receiver, wait for an SMS / other confirmation over the phone app, make the transfer. If the transfer is "unusual" (usually a "high amount"), it will likely be flagged, and you'll have to wait for someone from the bank to call you and confirm it was really you who did the transfer.

Add to that that snail mail is still the main way people who ask for money communicate with you, so now you'll have to type in the IBAN by copying it from a piece of paper. The IBAN is also not authenticated, so you don't really know who you're transferring money to.

This may vary with the banks, but in some cases their website is horrendous. It's the case for my bank, BNP Paribas. I very much prefer to write a check and send it over snail mail if it means I can limit my use of their site.

bigbacaloa4 anni fa

In Spain I've never seen a check except ones sent to me from the US and bank checks to pay mortgages.

harperlee4 anni fa

In Spain it’s quite rare although they’re still used for things like mortgages and inheritances.

heisenbit4 anni fa

Which reminds me, being in Germany of one night I dropped such an order into the bank mailbox to pay my taxes as this exceeded the online limits. Where it then likely was retrieved and the information on it was used to wire 5000€ to the U.K. where probably a money mule was forwarding it. Bank eventually returned it.

jccalhoun4 anni fa

I'm in the USA and I write maybe three checks a year. When I was renting I would pay with check but I don't rent any more. Now I write a check to pay the person who is doing work on the house. I can't remember the last time I sent one through the mail or wrote one at a store.

nibbleshifter4 anni fa

I've used cheques a few times in Europe. They aren't common (especially since SEPA), but they do still exist.

pettycashstash24 anni fa

Check writing is very common and embedded in American culture. Yes there are risks, however there are more risks with scams with VENMo, PayPal, cash app, app du jour. yes more people are moving to these services , but checks are still needed for many formal transactions: ex purchase a home, or fill up my kids lunch account without being charged A CONVeniance fee.

ghaff4 anni fa

I'm sure a lot of it is that I'm used to them. But, for the most part, checks either written by myself or by my bank via their web site work pretty well with a few exceptions.

For an individual, receiving especially a large check in exchange for something you're selling carries risk that you can't wholly mitigate. (Maybe some of the systems available to merchants are available to individuals who need something like this once in a blue moon--but I've never heard of such.)

Another case is chasing down checks for people who have signed up for some activity and/or handling last minute waiting lists etc. I dealt with this sort of thing for many years and electronic transfers are a lot less hassle.

devilbunny4 anni fa

> receiving especially a large check in exchange for something you're selling carries risk that you can't wholly mitigate.

I mean, if you accompany them to their bank, and have them issue a cashier's check, you're definitely getting paid unless the entire bank is insolvent, because you're not counting on the check clearinghouse to handle the whole matter - the bank is staking its own reputation on willingness to pay.

ghaff4 anni fa

Which adds a ton of friction to the transaction. For that matter you can require them to pay you in cash.

My point is that, historically, personal checks were the default for a lot of person to person transactions in the US but they carried some risk--depending on the situation.

devilbunny4 anni fa

It does, but if you're selling a used car for $10k, it's well worth it. Unless we use the same bank, I'm not walking around with that much cash and triggering reporting requirements. And if we use the same bank, we'll just do a transfer within it.

ghaff4 anni fa

I guess I'd just ask for them to bring a bank cashier's check under those circumstances and if I felt forgery was still too risky, I would just ask for cash.

hnbad4 anni fa

I was going to say that as a German writing a check to buy a home feels absurd but given all the other (legal) transactions involved (including taking out a loan) boil down to signing a lot of paper, I guess it wouldn't even really stand out much. In fact when I took out a loan I had to write out my bank account details by hand, so this was kind of the reverse experience of writing a check.

It just feels extremely fussy for regular recurring expenses like rent and utilities. On the other hand, transactions on personal accounts are free with most banks (not so for business accounts but the cost is negligible) so there would be no benefit to doing it that way.

technothrasher4 anni fa

Ok, separate from the fraud, this guy wrote a personal check instead of using the organization's funds to pay a state fee? That feels pretty sloppy for somebody running an organization "dedicated to improving financial literacy." While clearly innocent and done just for convenience, taking short cuts with a 501(c)(3) org is a bad idea. To keep the accounting straight, he'd end up having to get them to do up donation paperwork on it, which removes his goal of not bothering people over a small amount. Otherwise, it's co-mingling of funds.

PopAlongKid4 anni fa

> I decided it was simpler to pay the fee myself, rather than bothering Ben Holland (Treasurer for the Center) to have the Center pay the fee.

But what does Ben Holland say?

Yes, it is very sloppy to say the least. I recently completed a two-year term as the treasurer for a non-profit professional association, and I would have been highly peeved had one of the other board members gone ahead and done this without first "bothering" me.

It is the treasurer's job to make sure essential payments are made and recorded on the books. Also, while my org does both make and receive payments electronically, we also have highly fraud-resistant business-style checks (watermarks etc) for times when check payments were easiest or required.

pilotneko4 anni fa

He just ate the cost. It’s five dollars.

hayyyyydos4 anni fa

> To keep the accounting straight

bigbacaloa4 anni fa

Unbelievable that anyone still uses handwritten checks. Unbelievable that anyone has done so in the current century. There exist diverse alternatives both more secure and easier to use and they have existed for many, many years.

sethd4 anni fa

For larger purchases there’s often a fee to pay by credit card. If the fee is equal to or lower than my cash back rate, I’ll pay by card, but sometimes checks are the only feasible option.

Recent example: Tree trimming company. They accepted check (no fee) or card with 3% fee. The highest cash back card I have for generic purchase is 2%, so I paid by check instead.

bigbacaloa4 anni fa

Literally I've not seen a check in twenty+ years except for bank checks used to pay a mortgage. Where I live one can pay by direct bank transfer or debit card, usually with no fee while checks carry exorbitant fees and one has to make an appointment at the bank to cash one.

alkonaut4 anni fa

Now I’m more shocked to learn that having work done by a professional doesn’t result in an invoice but instead requires immediate payment?

Card fees in Europe I think can’t be shifted to the customer but that obviously means they are just part of the price. But - the price is the same regardless of payment method, so there is no money saved by avoiding cards. That’s why I consider everything to be 0-fee (invoice, card, money transfer).

jjav4 anni fa

> Unbelievable that anyone still uses handwritten checks. Unbelievable that anyone has done so in the current century. There exist diverse alternatives both more secure and easier to use and they have existed for many, many years.

Can you tell us what these supposedly more secure alternatives are? At least in the US, I don't believe there is anything better at the end of the day.

Credit cards can be more convenient, but not all places accept them and of the ones who do sometimes they charge an inordinate fee.

All the private companies (paypal, venmo, etc) are out because it is well known they'll freeze your account without reason and without recourse. So if you need a secure mechanism, stay away from those.

That leaves checks as the most universal, overhead-free and secure mechanism, other than plain cash but that's inconvenient for large amounts.

daveoc644 anni fa

>Credit cards can be more convenient, but not all places accept them and of the ones who do sometimes they charge an inordinate fee.

Card acceptance is very high in the UK now, and fees for paying by credit or debit card have been illegal for a few years.

Banks in the UK wanted to get rid of cheques because they're expensive to process, so the alternatives have really improved.

jjav4 anni fa

> Card acceptance is very high in the UK now, and fees for paying by credit or debit card have been illegal for a few years.

It's somewhat the opposite in the US. Many recurring payments can't be paid with credit cards (loans in particular, since they don't want you paying credit with credit). And many places, but government and municipal services in particular, charge extra fees for credit card use (I understand why, because it costs them more to accept a credit card, but I'm not interested in paying more so I give them a check to save money).

bigbacaloa4 anni fa

Literally any alternative is more secure than a handwritten check which is the most easily forger financial document ever invented.

jjav4 anni fa

Could you describe which alternatives (by name, more detail than "literally any") are more secure, and specifically against which exact threat model?

Earliest in my career I worked with many banks developing cryptographic alternatives to check payments. Definitely a big culture clash between us from the crypto world (crypto = cryptography to be clear) who expected everything had to be mathematically secure and the banking teams who didn't care about any of that which seemed baffling to me.

The misconception you express, shared by my younger self, is that the security of a check is somehow related to what's on the piece of paper. That's wrong. Everything on the piece of paper is right there in cleartext trivially reproducible by anyone. Nobody pretends it has any security, it doesn't need any. The security of the checking system is in the process and the laws and verifications fine tuned over more than a century of resisting attacks. So turns out it works very well. A battle hardened system that can't be matched by any "move fast break things" fintech startup.

Not concidentally, this is very analogous to the cryptocurrency world which thought all finance regulation was nonsense and are now collapsing with fraud every which way. Turns out all that regulation (at least most of it) has been written from the experience of centuries of financial fraud and has good reasons.

[deleted]4 anni fa

cuteboy194 anni fa

The last time I ever used a check was in 2007, when my grandfather handed me a birthday present. It's such an ancient concept in the non US world that it's now reserved only for ceremony

hrns4 anni fa

Living in central Europe, when Air Canada gave me check (compensation for the rescheduled flight) I went through a lot of effort to cash it. Once in a lifetime experience!

chollida14 anni fa

Interesting. What constitutes "a lot of effort to cash it"?

I'm Canadian and I rarely use them but our banking app just lets you take a picture of both sides and that's it.

Also you can just put them into an ATM as a deposit and your done.

Also you can go into the bank and hand it to the teller and your done.

I'd be interested in why you had to go through alot of effort to cash your check.

wiredfool4 anni fa

For me, in Ireland, cashing a US check through my bank teller costs 150ish eur (that's one hundred and fifty, not a buck fifty) and takes 6 weeks. They basically have to hand process it and send it to their US correspondent bank.

At one point, I got tax refund and stimulus checks from the Treasury, and it turned out to just be easier to endorse them to my remaining US account and mail them to the branch that has my account.

In theory I could use the bank's remote deposit capture service, but: 1) The checks were too big, there's a ~$2500 limit on RDC, and 2) The bank has complained in the past that I'm not supposed to use it when I'm overseas. There's some regulation that they're worried about.

I've seen a couple of checks in Ireland that haven't been from the US, mainly tax refunds IIRC, but they're super rare and no ATMs will take them. They'll take Euros for deposits, but not checks. So it's a trip into see the Cash desk at the bank.

ghaff4 anni fa

Foreign currency can be less straightforward.

Admittedly a number of years back, a Canadian company paid me for a photo of mine they found online that they wanted for an article.

Ended up having to go to a human bank teller to deposit it.

hrns4 anni fa

Only one bank in Poland handles them, I had to open a separate account just to cash it. As far as I remember the cashing in process took some time (about a week maybe?) and the fees were about 25% of the check value (operations + currency exchange).

There's no option in doing it from the app/ATM afaik.

chollida14 anni fa

I don't want to dox you but I have to ask, what bank in Poland do you use that wouldn't take a check?

I've got a friend there and he says he has no problem cashing checks at his bank and has never heard of a bank not taking a check and there were no fees for cashing checks.

The exchange rate sucks but that has nothing todo with a check

EDIT he did say it can take a week for the money to clear, so that is a big downside.

hrns4 anni fa

Well, my bank did not handle them - the cashier told me that there is only one bank that handles them (Pekao SA) so I didn't waste time searching for others.

Maybe your friend has a company/businesses account? The services may be different than for a personal one.

chollida14 anni fa

Good to know.

I appreciate you teaching me something today!!

krisoft4 anni fa

> I'd be interested in why you had to go through alot of effort to cash your check.

I’m not the commenter you are asking from I also used to live in central europe. There as far as I can tell the concept of a “check” simply doesn’t exist. So much so that I don’t even know what is the equivalent word in the local language. If I would get one I would need to go to my bank in person and ask them if they can do anything with. I would already count that as a hassle, but I just looked it up online and it seems my bank doesn’t handle checks. There are rummours online that some other banks do cash checks, but it seems some of those have changed their policy since and they are no longer accepting checks either.

All in all it works as well as being paid with a rai stone or a cowry sea shell, while lacking the aesthetic benefits of those.

maxerickson4 anni fa

That's how they are used in the US too, if you look at things a bit askew.

Other payment methods work fine and are widespread, so the vast majority of uses of checks are by people who have confused ideas about how they work (they prefer the ceremony of writing a check compared to the effort of understanding), or in particular circumstances where they were used traditionally and maybe satisfy some antiquated legal mechanism (almost a literal ceremonial money transfer).

bbbbb54 anni fa

My Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore banks have issued me cheque books. Clearly some people use them outside of the US, although I'm not quite sure for what.

cuteboy194 anni fa

Oh yes, chequebooks are still issued, but no one uses them. Chequebooks used to be these thick 50-100 page ones which used to cost a lot too. Nowadays you would be lucky to get a 15 page leaflet