Hubbry Logo
Check washingCheck washingMain
Open search
Check washing
Community hub
Check washing
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Check washing
Check washing
Check washing
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Check washing is the process of erasing details from checks to allow them to be rewritten, usually for criminal purposes such as fraudulent withdrawal from the victim's bank account.[1]

Various steps can be taken by the writer of the check to reduce the possibility of falling victim to check washing. These include mailing checks by placing them in secured mailboxes, using secure ink dispensed from a gel, rollerball, or fountain pen, filling in all lines on the check, and careful scrutiny of bank statements.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Check washing

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Check washing is a form of check fraud in which criminals steal legitimate checks, typically from the mail, and use chemicals to erase the ink detailing the payee's name and monetary amount while preserving the signature, enabling them to rewrite and fraudulently deposit the checks for their own gain. This method exploits the vulnerabilities of paper-based payments, allowing thieves to convert small personal checks into larger sums or redirect them to accomplices. The process begins with mail theft, often targeting unsecured mailboxes or U.S. Postal Service collection boxes, where fraudsters intercept outgoing checks in bulk. Common household chemicals such as acetone, , or remover are then applied to dissolve the ink without damaging the paper or signature, after which the altered check is endorsed and deposited via mobile apps or ATMs. Once processed, the original account holder may discover the fraud only after the funds are withdrawn, leading to potential losses that banks may reimburse under federal regulations like Regulation E, though recovery is not guaranteed. Though an antiquated technique that declined with the rise of in the early 2000s, check washing has surged in recent years amid increased mail theft and persistent check usage by businesses and individuals. Suspicious Activity Reports () related to check , including washing, peaked at approximately 680,000 in 2022—nearly double the 2021 figure—and remained high at around 682,000 in 2024, with losses reaching approximately $21 billion in 2023 and exceeding $24 billion in 2024; 63% of organizations reported incidents in 2024. Check accounted for 30% of financial institutions' total losses in 2024. Financial institutions cite check washing as a primary driver, affecting 83% of surveyed banks and credit unions in 2024. To mitigate risks, transitioning to electronic payments such as ACH transfers or online bill pay eliminates the physical vulnerabilities of checks entirely.

Definition and Overview

Definition

Check washing is a form of financial fraud in which criminals use chemical solvents to erase the ink from a legitimate check, enabling them to alter details such as the payee's name or the monetary amount before depositing or cashing the check for unauthorized gain. This method preserves the check's physical structure and the original signature, allowing it to appear authentic and negotiable at financial institutions. Unlike more destructive forms of check tampering, such as tearing or cutting, check washing relies on non-destructive chemical erasure that targets vulnerable inks, particularly those in handwritten or low-quality printed checks. The process exploits the continued use of paper checks in transactions, often targeting those mailed through the postal system where is common. By removing only the erasable elements—typically the payee and amount fields—fraudsters can rewrite the check to inflate its value or redirect funds, while the document's overall integrity supports its processing. This distinguishes check washing from digital check fraud or outright forgery, as it involves physical alteration of an existing, valid instrument rather than creating a new one or manipulating electronic records. Within the broader landscape of check fraud, which encompasses and , check washing specifically emphasizes chemical manipulation to maintain the check's plausibility and reduce detection risks during deposit.

Relation to Check Fraud

Check encompasses a range of illicit activities involving the unauthorized manipulation or creation of negotiable instruments to divert funds, broadly categorized into alteration, counterfeiting, and endorsement fraud. Alteration fraud, which includes check washing, involves modifying an existing legitimate check, such as changing the payee or amount, often through chemical or mechanical means to erase and rewrite information. Counterfeiting entails producing entirely fake checks using stolen account details or templates, while endorsement fraud typically occurs when a thief steals a check and forges the payee's on the back to deposit it unauthorizedly. Check washing specifically falls under alteration fraud as a chemical-based subset, distinguishing it from mechanical alterations like erasure or overwriting. The unique mechanism of check washing lies in its use of readily available chemicals, such as acetone or remover, to dissolve soluble s on legitimate , allowing fraudsters to create a reusable "blank" instrument without leaving obvious traces of permanent alteration like smudges from attempts. Unlike counterfeiting, which requires printing capabilities and often results in detectable discrepancies in quality or magnetic , washing preserves the original check's features, such as watermarks and account routing numbers, making it more likely to pass initial verification. This method's reliance on reversible dissolution rather than additive contributes to its appeal for low-sophistication actors, though organized groups may employ it at scale. Check washing is particularly prevalent in schemes involving stolen mail, where fraudsters intercept outgoing to wash and redirect them, exploiting the continued use of paper payments in the U.S. Overall, check imposes substantial economic burdens, with estimated losses exceeding $21 billion in 2023 alone, driven in part by the simplicity and accessibility of techniques like washing, which accounted for a significant share of alteration cases in reported financial transactions. Mail theft-related check , frequently involving washing, generated over $688 million in suspicious activity across more than 15,000 reports in the first eight months of 2023, underscoring its role as a growing threat within the broader landscape.

Methods and Techniques

Chemical Processes

Check washing primarily relies on organic solvents to dissolve the dyes and pigments in certain inks, allowing fraudsters to erase written information from checks without completely destroying the paper substrate. Common solvents include acetone, which is the active ingredient in nail polish remover, and brake fluid, both of which effectively break down the molecular bonds in solvent-based inks by penetrating the ink layer and solubilizing its components. Household cleaners such as ammonia-based products or bleach can also be used, though they may introduce additional risks due to their reactivity with paper fibers. These chemicals target the non-polar components of inks, such as dyes derived from azo compounds or phthalocyanines, facilitating their removal through dissolution rather than mechanical abrasion. The vulnerability of inks to these solvents depends on their formulation and application method. Ballpoint inks, typically solvent-based and composed of oil-soluble dyes in a glycol or alcohol carrier, react readily to acetone and , often dissolving completely within minutes and leaving minimal residue. In contrast, permanent inks and inks, which use water-insoluble pigments suspended in a matrix or binders, resist washing by these solvents, as the pigments do not dissolve easily and the binders prevent penetration. Blue and ballpoint inks are particularly susceptible due to their common use of acetone-soluble dyes, whereas features in some check inks, like indelible formulations, incorporate additives that cause color changes or residues upon solvent exposure. Application of these chemicals often involves methods to control exposure and minimize . Checks may be soaked in solvents for periods ranging from seconds to over an hour, allowing uniform dissolution. Alternatively, cotton swabs or soft cloths can be used to apply solvents precisely to targeted areas, allowing localized dissolution while absorbing excess liquid to prevent spreading. Fume hoods or well-ventilated areas are recommended to contain volatile vapors from solvents like acetone, which can pose risks. Over-application of solvents, particularly aggressive ones like , risks paper degradation, including discoloration, weakening, or dissolution of the fibers, which could render the check unusable for .

Alteration Steps

Check washing typically begins with the acquisition of a legitimate check through or , most commonly by targeting mailed checks in unsecured mailboxes, postal collection boxes, or during transit. Fraudsters often operate at night or early morning to avoid detection, focusing on high-value items like or payments. Once obtained, the fraudster applies a , such as acetone or , selectively to the targeted areas of the check—including the payee name, numerical and written amount, and sometimes the date—while protecting the signature line, often by tracing it lightly with (which resists solvents) to preserve authenticity, as taping may fail on . The dissolves the without severely damaging the paper, though care must be taken to avoid over-application, which can cause bleeding or weakening of the check's fibers. After application, the fraudster gently rubs the surface to remove the dissolved , then allows the check to dry completely to prevent smudging during rewriting; this drying phase is time-sensitive, typically requiring several minutes to hours depending on the solvent used and environmental conditions. During erasure, features like watermarks or may be compromised if the process affects the paper's integrity, though skilled fraudsters attempt to minimize visibility by working in low light or using magnification. With the check now effectively blank in key areas but retaining the original signature, the fraudster rewrites the payee, amount (often inflating it significantly, e.g., from $50 to thousands), and other details using that closely matches the original in color and type to avoid detection. Common pitfalls here include mismatched tones or visible erasure marks from over-rubbing, which can alert bank tellers or automated scanners. Finally, the altered check is deposited or cashed, frequently through mobile banking apps, ATMs, or accomplices using fake identification to route funds to the fraudster's account before the victim notices the theft. Variations in this final step may involve scanning and reprinting the check for higher quality or selling the washed blanks on underground markets.

History and Prevalence

Historical Development

Check washing, a specific form of check fraud involving the chemical erasure and alteration of check details, emerged in the early amid the widespread use of paper checks in the United States following . The technique capitalized on the increasing volume of checks mailed for payments, which heightened opportunities for theft from postal systems. Early instances were linked to opportunistic criminals exploiting household solvents to dissolve non-permanent inks, allowing rewrites of payee names and amounts while preserving the check's signature and structural integrity. This method gained traction as check usage surged, with U.S. banking systems processing billions of paper transactions annually by the late . The marked a significant rise in check washing due to the easy availability of effective chemicals, such as acetone-based removers, which could selectively erase ballpoint or standard inks without damaging the paper substrate. This period saw the come to light as documented cases increased, often tied to mail interception schemes. By the decade's end, the method had become a staple of check alteration , contributing to broader check losses that ballooned during economic pressures like the . Influential factors included the dominance of physical checks before the proliferation of electronic payments, making paper instruments a prime target for low-tech manipulation. In the , check washers adapted their techniques to circumvent advancements in check security, particularly the (MICR) lines standardized since the 1960s. Fraudsters learned to avoid altering the MICR line—which encodes routing, account, and check numbers using tamper-resistant magnetic ink—focusing instead on handwritten fields like the payee and amount to ensure the check could still clear automated processing systems. This evolution allowed the scam to persist despite banking efforts to reduce fraud through technology. Notable pre-2000 examples included organized postal fraud rings that stole and washed thousands of checks, such as operations uncovered by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service involving interstate networks laundering altered instruments through complicit accounts. The growth of these schemes underscored check washing's ties to the era's peak paper check reliance, before digital alternatives diminished their prevalence.

Modern Incidence and Statistics

In recent years, check washing has emerged as a prominent subset of check , with altered or washed checks identified as the most commonly reported type of fraudulent check activity. According to data from the (FinCEN), approximately 44% of stolen checks involved alteration through washing techniques before being deposited, contributing significantly to the overall rise in check fraud cases. The number of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) related to check fraud nearly doubled from over 350,000 in 2021 to more than 680,000 in 2022, with filings remaining elevated at 665,000 in 2023 and 682,000 in 2024, reflecting sustained high incidence. A 2024 survey by the Financial Services indicated that 83% of financial institutions experienced check washing as a primary driver of fraud events, underscoring its widespread impact. The surge in check washing during 2020-2022 was closely tied to mail delays and increased reliance on mailed amid the , which facilitated theft and alteration opportunities. Mail theft complaints reported to the U.S. Postal Inspection Service rose 161% from March 2020 to February 2021 compared to the previous year, often leading to subsequent washing schemes targeting pandemic relief payments. This period saw a particular vulnerability in check-heavy economies, with higher prevalence in U.S. regions like the Northeast (e.g., New York) and West Coast (e.g., ), where SARs for mail theft-related check fraud were concentrated, though rural and Midwestern areas with persistent check usage also reported elevated risks due to slower adoption of digital alternatives. Demographically, small businesses faced disproportionate targeting through account involving washed , while elderly individuals, who write at rates exceeding 77% among those aged 65 and older, were frequent victims owing to their higher dependence on paper-based payments. From 2023 onward, notable incidents have incorporated hybrid tactics combining traditional mail theft with digital elements, such as remote deposit capture of washed checks via mobile apps, amplifying the threat. FinCEN analysis of February to August 2023 data revealed 15,417 SARs tied to mail theft-related check fraud, encompassing washing, with associated transaction values totaling $688 million—extrapolating to over $1 billion annually when including intercepted fraudulent items reported by postal inspectors. These trends highlight check washing's role in broader check fraud losses, estimated at $21 billion across the Americas in 2023, with U.S. institutions bearing the majority. As of 2025, check washing continues to cost Americans over $1 billion annually, with mail theft-related fraud showing a resurgence.

Detection Methods

Physical Indicators

Physical indicators of check washing can often be identified through careful visual and tactile examination of the check, revealing traces of chemical or mechanical alteration. Common visual cues include smudges or erasure marks where has been incompletely removed, leading to faint outlines of original writing; color inconsistencies in the or , such as faded or grayish tones from exposure; and waviness or torn edges resulting from the drying process after chemical treatment. Additionally, font mismatches or misaligned text may appear if the altered information does not perfectly replicate the original printing style. These signs arise because check washing typically involves like acetone that dissolve non-permanent inks, leaving behind subtle distortions in the check's surface. Tactile signs provide further evidence during manual handling, such as a rough texture from abrasion used to erase or residual chemical buildup, or an unusually soft, bumpy, or slippery finish altered by solvent penetration. The (MICR) line at the bottom of the check may also show degradation, including smudges, misalignment, or inconsistent magnetic properties if the washing process affects this area, which is printed with specialized iron oxide-based . To verify these indicators, basic inspection techniques include holding the check up to a source to detect shadows from incomplete erasures or changes in visibility, which may appear lighter or distorted due to chemical damage. Using a can reveal layering, where new writing overlaps faint remnants of the original, or disruptions in fine features like microprint along edges or lines. These manual methods allow for initial detection without specialized equipment, emphasizing the importance of scrutinizing checks before processing.

Technological Tools

Technological tools for detecting check washing have advanced significantly since the early , leveraging , forensic , and automated systems to identify chemical alterations and discrepancies in checks. These innovations enable banks and forensic experts to detect solvent-based tampering objectively, often in real-time during processing, reducing reliance on manual . technologies, such as (UV) lights and high-resolution scanners, play a central role in revealing of check washing. UV lights expose fluorescent features embedded in check paper, including UV-sensitive fibers and printed patterns, which become damaged or absent if solvents are used to erase . For instance, validation software integrated with UV scanners analyzes these patterns for , flagging irregularities in sensitive areas like the payee and amount fields where washing commonly occurs. High-resolution scanners, often equipped with UV capabilities, capture detailed s at 200 dpi or higher, enabling through image forensics that identifies erased residues or inconsistent printing patterns indicative of chemical alteration. Devices like the CheXpress CX30 UV scanner facilitate this by producing clear grayscale and bitonal outputs for automated screening during remote deposit capture. Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms integrated into banking software enhance pattern recognition for check deposits, identifying washing through behavioral and visual analysis. AI-powered optical character recognition (OCR) systems, such as those using machine learning models, scrutinize handwriting changes, digital tampering, and inconsistencies across data fields, flagging washed checks by comparing them against historical transaction patterns. Specialized tools like Parascript's CheckwashAlert.AI provide targeted detection of alterations to payee names and amount fields in fraudulent deposit schemes. These tools process mobile-captured images in real-time. Banking implementations like positive pay systems further automate detection by matching digital check images and details against presented items. Businesses upload check data—including numbers, amounts, dates, and payee names—to the , which verifies incoming checks and flags discrepancies, such as altered amounts or payees resulting from washing. Payee positive pay variants specifically target name changes, preventing cleared fraudulent payments by allowing businesses to review exceptions before authorization.

Prevention Strategies

Personal Precautions

To safeguard against check washing, individuals should use black gel ink pens when writing , as this indelible ink resists chemical solvents commonly used by fraudsters to erase and alter payee names or amounts. Additionally, avoid leaving blank spaces in the payee line or amount field to prevent easy insertions, and consider using with built-in security features like watermarks or where available. When mailing checks, deposit them directly into blue collection boxes at post offices before the last scheduled pickup or hand them to a postal clerk to minimize exposure to from unsecured residential mailboxes. Opting for certified mail provides tracking and , further reducing risks associated with interception. Vigilant monitoring of financial accounts is essential; set up transaction alerts and review statements monthly for unauthorized alterations, such as mismatched amounts or unfamiliar payees, which may appear as physical indicators like ink smudges. If an alteration is discovered, report it to the immediately—under § 4-406, customers must notify their within a reasonable time not exceeding 30 days after receiving the statement or items to assert claims and limit liability.

Banking and Systemic Measures

Banks have implemented various protocols to mitigate check washing, including the widespread adoption of secure check stock featuring chemical-resistant paper and inks. This specialized paper is designed to react to solvents commonly used in washing attempts, producing visible stains, discolorations, or voids that render the check invalid and alert processors to tampering. For instance, pigment-based inks and heat-sensitive features resist chemical erasure, ensuring that alterations are detectable during verification. To further reduce opportunities for physical interception and manipulation, banks promote remote deposit capture (RDC) systems, which allow customers to scan and transmit check images electronically rather than handling originals through mail or in-person deposits. RDC minimizes the time checks spend in transit, enabling faster processing and verification while limiting exposure to theft and washing. This technology, supported by standards like those from the (FDIC), has become a standard offering for both consumer and business accounts, streamlining operations and enhancing detection through image analysis. Regulatory measures have played a pivotal role in shifting the banking industry toward digital alternatives that indirectly combat check washing. The U.S. , enacted in 2004, authorizes the creation and use of substitute checks—digital images that hold the same legal weight as originals—facilitating electronic clearing and reducing reliance on physical paper transport. This has accelerated the decline in paper check volume and associated vulnerabilities, though it requires complementary security layers for full efficacy. Complementing this, the (ANSI) X9 series, including X9 TR 8-2016 on check security guidelines, establishes benchmarks for fraud-resistant features in check paper and printing, such as pantographs and that deter alterations. These standards guide financial institutions and printers in producing documents resilient to chemical attacks. Collaborative initiatives among industry groups have intensified efforts to address check washing systemically. The American Bankers Association (ABA), as of 2025, leads campaigns like #PracticeSafeChecks, which educate institutions and customers on secure practices while advocating for digital payment adoption to phase out vulnerable paper checks. The ABA also partners with entities such as the U.S. Postal Inspection Service to raise awareness and facilitate information sharing on fraud trends through discussion groups and resources. Additionally, tools like the ABA-supported Treasury Check Verification System, launched in 2025, enable banks to cross-verify government check details against shared federal databases, aiding in the detection of washed or altered instruments across the sector. In April 2025, the Accredited Standards Committee X9 launched the Check Fraud Industry Forum, an open roundtable to facilitate industry discussions on check fraud prevention techniques and to update its technical report on check security guidelines (X9 TR 8). In the United States, check washing is primarily prosecuted as a form of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344, which criminalizes knowingly executing or attempting to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud a financial institution or to obtain any of its property through false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises. This statute applies to the alteration of checks intended for deposit or cashing at federally insured banks, encompassing the deceptive practices involved in erasing and rewriting check details to misappropriate funds. Additionally, under 18 U.S.C. § 513, the uttering or possession of counterfeit or forged securities of private entities, which can include certain commercial checks treated as securities, is prohibited, targeting the fraudulent presentation of altered instruments. Penalties for violations of these federal statutes can reach up to 30 years of imprisonment and fines of $1,000,000 in aggravated cases involving significant financial institutions or repeated offenses. At the state level, check washing is typically classified as , , or fraudulent alteration of financial instruments, with penalties escalating based on the amount defrauded. Most states designate such acts as felonies when the value exceeds thresholds like $500 to $1,000, triggering enhancements such as longer prison terms or mandatory minimums; for instance, in , under Penal Code § 470, by alteration of a check with intent to defraud is punishable by up to three years in state prison, elevated to a felony for amounts over $950. Prosecutorial approaches emphasize intent to defraud and the use of chemicals or tools to alter checks, often leading to charges alongside or mail theft when stolen mail is involved. Internationally, check washing aligns with broad fraud statutes that criminalize deceptive alterations of financial documents. In the , the addresses such conduct under section 1 as fraud by false representation, where dishonestly making a false representation (e.g., altering a check's payee or amount) with intent to gain or cause loss is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. Similarly, in , section 380 of prohibits fraud by deceit or other fraudulent means, including check alterations, with penalties up to 14 years for amounts over $5,000 and up to 2 years for lesser sums. For cross-border cases involving check washing, is feasible under bilateral treaties.

Financial Consequences

Check washing imposes substantial direct financial losses on individuals, businesses, and financial institutions in the United States, with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service recovering over $1 billion in fraudulent checks and money orders each year, highlighting the scale of mail-related check fraud. These losses encompass the altered amounts on washed checks, which are often reimbursed by banks to customers under their policies or provisions of the , alongside expenses for investigations and recovery efforts that can extend for months. For instance, a single altered check might escalate from a modest original value, such as $656, to thousands of dollars before detection, amplifying the immediate economic harm to victims. Beyond direct monetary drains, check washing generates significant indirect operational burdens for banks, including the expansion of dedicated fraud detection departments and heightened monitoring protocols that increase administrative overhead. Financial institutions face ongoing costs for customer reimbursements, regulatory compliance, and technology upgrades to mitigate such threats, contributing to broader check fraud losses estimated at over $24 billion in the U.S. in 2024, with Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) for check fraud reaching 682,276 that year—near record levels. This fraud also erodes public trust in traditional check-based systems, accelerating the transition to digital payments as businesses and consumers seek more secure alternatives to avoid repeated vulnerabilities. On a societal level, the proliferation of check washing elevates premiums for businesses, as insurers adjust rates to offset rising claims related to payment and operational disruptions. Victims, particularly small business owners or individuals, may endure lasting repercussions such as unresolved financial shortfalls leading to credit damage, with recovery delayed by lengthy disputes and insufficient reimbursements in some cases. In severe instances, these impacts can precipitate broader economic strain, including business closures or , underscoring the ripple effects on community .

References

  1. https://www.uspis.gov/news/scam-article/check-washing
  2. https://www.occ.gov/topics/consumers-and-communities/consumer-protection/fraud-resources/check-fraud.html
  3. https://dos.ny.gov/news/consumer-alert-new-york-department-states-division-consumer-protection-provides-tips-avoid-0
  4. https://www.aba.com/news-research/analysis-guides/check-washing-and-check-theft-scams
  5. https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/what-is-check-washing/
  6. https://www.aarp.org/podcasts/the-perfect-scam/info-2023/check-washing-making-comeback.html
  7. https://www.miteksystems.com/blog/42-check-fraud-statistics-your-bank-cant-ignore
  8. https://www.thomsonreuters.com/en-us/posts/corporates/sars-report-2024/
  9. https://www.financialprofessionals.org/training-resources/resources/survey-research-economic-data/details/payments-fraud
  10. https://bankingjournal.aba.com/2025/04/fed-survey-most-fraud-losses-attributable-to-debit-card-check-fraud/
  11. https://www.frbservices.org/binaries/content/assets/crsocms/news/research/2024-risk-officer-survey-results.pdf
  12. https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/stop-check-washers/
  13. https://www.fincen.gov/system/files/shared/FTA-Check-Fraud-FINAL508.pdf
  14. https://orbograph.com/types-of-check-fraud-and-how-banks-can-recognize-a-concise-guide/
  15. https://www.richmondfed.org/-/media/RichmondFedOrg/publications/research/econ_focus/2025/q3/feature2.pdf
  16. https://journal.asqde.org/articles/46/files/663c66b38300e.pdf
  17. https://www.dayspringpens.com/blogs/the-jotted-line/erase-pen-ink-from-paper
  18. https://sqnbankingsystems.com/blog/check-washing-fraud-prevention/
  19. https://www.1stadvantage.org/blog/how-to-protect-your-business-from-check-washing/
  20. https://www.iagforensics.com/check-washing-simple-yet-costly/
  21. https://www.cram.com/essay/Check-Washing/PCBYUFPXT4T
  22. https://www.acfe.com/fraud-resources/fraud-examiner-archives/fraud-examiner-article?s=check-fraud-evolution
  23. https://www.cross-check.com/blog/the-history-of-check-fraud
  24. https://www.refineintelligence.com/resources/check-fraud-statistics-blog/
  25. https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2024/04/223861-majority-of-us-consumers-still-write-checks-and-millions-reportedly-fall-victim-to-check-fraud/
  26. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/check-washing-costs-americans-over-210000527.html
  27. https://verafin.com/2024/09/stolen-check-fraud-four-insights-from-fincens-latest-analysis/
  28. https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidmaimon/2025/10/01/fraud-in-america-2025-the-consumer-threat-landscape/
  29. https://verafin.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/eBook-Understanding-Check-Fraud-Typologies.pdf
  30. https://lifelock.norton.com/learn/fraud/what-is-check-fraud
  31. https://advancedfraudsolutions.com/blog/the-alarming-rise-of-check-washing-scams/
  32. https://www.cathaybank.com/about-us/insights-by-cathay/how-to-recognize-and-avoid-check-fraud
  33. https://digitalcheck.com/brochures/CX30%20UV%20Brochure_Eng.pdf
  34. https://www.parascript.com/products-technology-solutions/fraud-prevention/checkwashalert/
  35. https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2025/PSA250127
  36. https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/4/4-406
  37. https://intuitmarket.intuit.com/resources/fraud-prevention/security-check-features
  38. https://www.smartpayables.com/check-printing-with-banking-standards/
  39. https://checkdepot.net/blogs/news/check-security-features-you-need
  40. https://www.fdic.gov/bank-examinations/remote-deposit-capture-primer
  41. https://trb.bank/business/improve-efficiency-with-remote-deposit-capture/
  42. https://www.insouth.com/electronic-banking/business/cash-management/profile/remote-deposit-capture
  43. https://www.federalreserve.gov/paymentsystems/regcc-faq-check21.htm
  44. https://www.troygroup.com/blog/why-check-21-isnt-enough-to-protect-against-fraud
  45. https://webstore.ansi.org/standards/ascx9/ascx9tr2016-1631918
  46. https://www.aba.com/about-us/press-room/press-releases/bnat-launch-2025
  47. https://www.aba.com/banking-topics/risk-management/fraud/check-fraud
  48. https://www.uspis.gov/aba-and-u-s-postal-inspection-service-announce-partnership-to-combat-check-fraud
  49. https://www.aba.com/about-us/press-room/press-releases/treasury-check-verification-system-launch
  50. https://www.ansi.org/standards-news/member-updates/4-4-25-x9-creates-new-open-forum-to-reduce-check-fraud
  51. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1344
  52. https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/criminal-resource-manual-826-applicability-18-usc-1344
  53. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/513
  54. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-470/
  55. https://www.gorelick-law.com/check-fraud-in-alameda-and-contra-costa-county
  56. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-380.html
  57. https://www.refineintelligence.com/resources/check-fraud-challenges/
  58. https://www.abrigo.com/blog/blog-the-true-cost-of-fraud/
  59. https://insights.conduent.com/conduent-blog/the-rise-of-check-fraud-and-how-digital-payments-can-help-combat-it
  60. https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/industries/financial-services/insurance/financial-crime-in-the-insurance-industry.html
  61. https://www.pillsburylaw.com/en/news-and-insights/consumers-facing-onslaught-check-washing-fraud-scheme.html
  62. https://www.finrafoundation.org/sites/finrafoundation/files/2024-10/taking-action-an-advocates-guide-to-assisting-victims-of-financial-fraud_1_0_0.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.