Google Answers: CHEXSYSTEMS: What ID info do they have access to?

View Question

Q: CHEXSYSTEMS: What ID info do they have access to? ( Answered 5 out of 5 stars

Question

Subject: CHEXSYSTEMS: What ID info do they have access to?
Category: Business and Money
Asked by: henry041696-ga
List Price: $75.00

Posted: 02 Apr 2003 16:20 PST
Expires: 02 May 2003 17:20 PDT
Question ID: 185139

Hi, If an individual does NOT have a bad credit history, what identification information does ChexSystems retrieve when a bank contacts them? In other words, apparently ChexSystems "verifies" social security numbers, a banker told me. When ChexSystems enters a social security number or driver's license number, precisely what information do they come up with -- e.g., name, address, date of birth, mother's maiden name? Or, do they simply retrieve a name matching a social security number if there is no bad credit info? Would greatly appreciate a speedy response.
Request for Question Clarification by robertskelton-ga on 02 Apr 2003 19:05 PST Hi there, They are obviously not going to be forthcoming with their precise methods. I found a white paper on their efunds site which looked promising, but they do not divulge their sources. Identity Verification: Product White Paper http://www.efunds.com/us/en/about_efunds/whitepapers/000951.pdf#TopOfPage Another paper says only: "Various industry partners supply demographic data and verification information, such as phone/zip code matching." eFunds and Data Privacy http://www.efunds.com/us/en/about_efunds/whitepapers/000950.pdf#TopOfPage If you want, I can provide you with information on where and how companies like theirs can obtain information like drivers license, date of birth, SSN# verification.
Clarification of Question by henry041696-ga on 02 Apr 2003 20:55 PST I guess what I'm wondering is whether they go to the trouble of doing anything other than checking that an SSN matches a name for someone applying for a checking account, for example. That is, if they don't get negative information popping up for that individual. Negative reports might contain personal info such as DL#, DOB, SSN, etc. But, when there is no negative info, since they run this check in less than a minute in that case, they apparently have info that automatically pops up when they input an SSN or DL#. Or, maybe nothing pops up at all if there is no negative info. I did get the impression that they do, at least, verify that the SSN given by a bank customer matches the name given by that customer. I'm trying to find out if further info comes up when there is no negative credit history on file, such as DOB, etc. I hope that clarified things a little. Thanks!
Request for Question Clarification by missy-ga on 03 Apr 2003 10:40 PST Hello Henry, I have an answer for you, but my banker spoke on the condition of anonymity. I don't want to post information that you can't verify for yourself unless you are comfortable with that. She has known me for seven years and trusts that I will not compromise her position - I cannot name her OR her bank. I took a printed copy of your question to her and asked her to explain the process. It's very brief. I can provide you with the publicly available information, as well as the explanation given by my banker. Is this acceptable to you? --Missy
Clarification of Question by henry041696-ga on 03 Apr 2003 12:06 PST Missy, That would be fine and probably best answer my question. I thought about making this question to your attention, originally, but wasn't sure if you would still be available. Thanks very much. Henry

Answer

Subject: Re: CHEXSYSTEMS: What ID info do they have access to?
Answered By: missy-ga on 03 Apr 2003 13:22 PST
Rated: 5 out of 5 stars

Hello Henry! I'm surprised you remembered me! Yes, I'm available, I plan to stay with Google Answers til the men in the white coats come to pry my mouse out of my hand! You probably already know this, but it does need to be included - this is what happens when there is something on your ChexSystems report: Sample Consumer Report https://www.chexhelp.com:447/ChexHelp/chex/english/publik/sample.htm It's a little different when there are no negative entries. When I spoke with my banker this morning, she explained the process of verifying an account through ChexSystems. When one applies for an account at this particular bank, they require your Social Security number and your Driver's License or State Issued Identification card. ChexSystems is then called for verification. They ask the following questions: -- What is the applicant's date of birth? -- What is the applicant's Social Security number? -- What is the applicant's Driver's License/State ID number and state of issue? -- Has the applicant been a resident of [ insert state here ] for the past five years? (If the answer is no, they will ask for the previous state of residence.) If no negative information is in their files, the following information is returned: -- Date Social Security Number was issued -- Whether or not the Driver's License/State ID number is a valid format for the state of issue. -- Whether ChexSystems has recently been queried for an applicant, and what name, Social Security number, Driver's License/ID number and state of current or previous residence was used on the application. (My banker tells me the time frame for retention of "recent" inquiries is typically 6 - 8 weeks, but may be longer in some cases.) That's it. No other information is in the ChexSystems database unless one has been reported to ChexSystems by a financial institution for a "mis-handled account". Financial institutions, as well as Deluxe Check Printers (and their affiliates) routinely report information to ChexSystems: "U.S. banks and credit unions report "mis-handled accounts" to ChexSystems to protect themselves and other banks in the future. Some of these incidents include: * Account closed "for cause". Banks differ greatly between them as to what valid reasons are for closing an account. * Bank was unable to collect for an overdraft, ATM transaction, or automatic payment that they honored on insufficient funds. Banks report this to ChexSystems regardless of amount and often without waiting more than a few days after mailing a notice! * Multiple overdrafts. * Savings Account, debit card or ATM abuse. * Fraud. * Providing false information in opening account." [...] "The company that owns ChexSystems, Deluxe Corporation, also owns Current Checks (AKA Checks Unlimited), Designer Checks, EFunds Corporation, SCAN (a.k.a. Shared Check Authorization Network), the Debit Bureau, which tracks your check-writing history, and Deluxe Direct Marketing Services." [...] " Every time you order blank checks from Deluxe or one of their subsidiaries, information about you is sent to ChexSystems and their collections agency and direct marketing relationships. This information includes private, personal information such as your bank account number, current addres, and more. This occurs only when you order checks from Deluxe, Current Checks, Checks Unlimited, or Designer checks. They transmit this information to their sister companies ChexSystems, Debit Bureau, EFunds and SCAN." [...] "Along the same lines, did you know that information that you provide to a bank in your bank account application also is given to ChexSystems, Debit Bureau, EFunds and SCAN?" ChexSystems Bites! About ChexSystems (from Google's cache) http://makeashorterlink.com/?B28B31414 My banker confirms that this article is accurate. Once an applicant's name and information is used to query ChexSystems, the company shares that information with all of its affiliates, ostensibly to help combat fraud. She says it is indeed effective - applicants who manage to secure accounts for the purposes of fraud are invariably tripped up when they try to obtain checks for these accounts, but with information that is different from what they listed on their applications. On a side note, relating to information given to check printers - it may appear that using a check printing program such as VersaCheck will keep "off the radar" of the above listed companies. This isn't so. I print my own checks because I refuse to pay upwards of $15 for a box of checks and no one offers checks with a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge on them, and discovered that rather than keep you "off the radar", such home printed checks will increase your scrutiny. My account was flagged as possibly fraudulent by a merchant who accepted a home printed check from me. The check cleared just fine, but the merchant reported it to SCAN anyway "for my protection". My banker notified me of this one morning when a new teller called her over and whispered frantically that the account had been flagged. She explained "That's because she prints her own checks. It's OK, she's been a customer here for years, and she's always printed her own." My account had been flagged for three years, but I was never informed before, because the tellers knew me and just ignored the flag. She went on to explain that if I tried to cash one of my home printed checks at another financial institution, they would have to call my banker to verify the validity of the account - if they deigned to cash the check at all! Imagine my surprise. Advise your client to use a bank that avails themselves of Harland Check Printers, as that company does not report information to ChexSystems, SCAN or any of their affiliates. I hope this helps you, Henry! Please let me know if I can be of further assistance! --Missy
Request for Answer Clarification by henry041696-ga on 03 Apr 2003 19:43 PST Missy, Of course I remembered you. I should have followed my intuition and posted this to your attention in the beginning! It's good to know you'll be around at Google for contact in the future. You're a great writer and provide excellent information, as well. I have a couple of questions related to your response, which was a very informative one. There are a few things that I'm wondering about and could probably pose as another question, but I don't want to draw that much attention to some of these issues. So, I'll consider this as you answering additional questions and try to include fair additional payment in the tip. Hope that's OK; I prefer it also because I believe the tip goes directly to you and isn't "shared." If there is any way that you can make this portion of the question, or the question altogether, private and not viewable by the public, that would be reassuring. It's possible that this may be beyond the scope of what you can deal with, but if you do know how to obtain answers/info, I'd appreciate it. I'm not in the best position to be drawing attention to this matter, politically, so to speak, and I'm not sure I could come up with any attorneys who would know as much about it as yourself/your banker. If you recall, I'm not actually sure how much I said about this, but some of my other questions made it apparent, I believe -- I have "clients" who are often women trying to escape abusive/stalking situations. Sometimes they have children, sometimes pets, sometimes they're on their own entirely. This can create a very desperate situation for these women, esp. if their lives, or their children's or pets lives, are being threatened and they don't have other family members to rely on. Often, they must leave their homes abruptly, without all of their belongings, and move into a different state quickly. Typically, they are not financially prepared for this. Thus, some of them become "creative" about obtaining cash that doesn't really belong to them, but in a manner that doesn't harm anyone (other than an institution, like a bank, that they "borrow" money from without permission, essentially; of course, with the assumption that the bank is insured for what they "borrowed" and didn't return, or with the hope that they can someday pay it back). The idea is that what they are doing is non-violent and typically discloses their identity, unlike other types of "robbery" or "theft" where identities are hidden. When I connect with some of these women, they have already done what I will describe below, and I am trying to determine how to advise them regarding this. Many of them fear they will be arrested if they don't stay hidden, although I have not yet heard of that occurring (but it may happen to others I haven't met). They feel they need to go "underground" because of what they have done financially, as well as to hide from their respective stalkers, considering the woman's fear of children or pets not having her to care for them if she gets arrested or killed/injured. The first part of my question is this: what exactly is considered as "fraud" by the banks/ChexSystems? For example, if a woman simultaneously opens several checking accounts before she has a negative history, deposits a check from her original bank into each account, knowing the checks won't clear (an average check amount is ~$750), and then withdraws the funds when they become available (before the check bounces), she has essentially written numerous bad checks (NSF) that she collected the funds on. This does not seem like it would be fraud since she used her own checks, although sometimes from an account that has been previously closed -- maybe that would make it fraud? What kind of crime do banks consider this to be? Also, it seems that the banks don't tend to report it to police or courts, but to ChexSystems -- is this correct? Maybe it depends on the amount that was withdrawn but not covered? Sometimes they will deposit several of their own checks over two days or so and then withdraw perhaps $2,500 before the checks bounce (i.e., original bank responds with "account closed" or "insufficient funds"). So, if the total loss to a bank is under a certain amount, would that explain why they don't go to the police or court system with a complaint (e.g., maybe it's not worth their time/cost)? In another scenario, I have come across women using a deceased woman's SSN, where the last name is the same as theirs but the birth date and first name are different. What they use for 'mother's maiden name' doesn't seem to matter; does that make sense? If ChexSystems doesn't get that info, since you didn't mention it, then I guess they wouldn't know the difference there. These women seem to be able to talk their way through the first name being different (e.g., say to clerk: "I use my middle name as my first name, which is how my DL reads, but you might find my first name recorded with ChexSystems as [the other woman's first name]"), and they tell me they gave the banks their own birth dates since that is what was on their DL/ID, even when the SSN came from someone decades older than themselves. They use their own actual photo identification/driver's licenses when they do this. This would seem more like fraud because they are not using their own SSN's (this would be at a point when they needed more cash but their SSN was registering negatively with ChexSystems). I am surprised, though, that the Driver's License or photo ID number did not connect them to their own ChexSystems record, even though the SSN was different. The SSN's are chosen from a death long enough ago that it would not have a credit report of any form. Apparently, ChexSystems does not know if an SSN belongs to a deceased person; maybe they don't get a name to match an SSN at all unless there is negative history? It's possible that this was luck or circumstance, but based on what you told me, I would think they would need a DL/ID from a new state along with this fraudulent SSN to avoid the negative ChexSystems history or getting caught using another's SSN. Perhaps they did this; I know some did, but it seems that some didn't (get a new DL# from a new state). One woman told me she was questioned about the different first name that ChexSystems had, but the differing birthdates never came up (however, the questions seemed to arise because she used an SSN from someone who was living). Ultimately, they simply wanted her to come back with her social security card. So, she just never returned to that particular bank. That is the only time, of many, that I heard of a bank even being concerned about this at all. Apparently, some accounts did get flagged and funds were held too long to be withdrawn before bouncing, but that only occurred after the fraudulent SSN had been used several times to withdraw funds (leaving behind overdrawn accounts). I am trying to understand this so that I can determine how much trouble they might be in (or might not, criminally). These women have good reason to be desperate and I understand why they do this. The government should have a better system for protecting them, as in making it a little easier for them to get a new identity. A lot has been written about this governmental shortcoming as many women "on the run" or "ready to run" from abusers/stalkers get killed and the perpetrator is not always sentenced for it (lack of evidence, etc.). While I lobby for governmental support for this problem, which is the only answer I see for this (more police protection and identity protection/change once they leave), I would rather see this type of crime being committed than a violent crime or the risk involved with street peddling/begging, esp. w/children. I don't suggest that these women do this at banks, but I do want to get the proper counsel for them if they are likely to face criminal charges for doing it. If it only affects their credit/ChexSystems, they won't be concerned about that immediatly and it is something they might be able to take care of down the road. But, if it is possible that criminal charges would be filed, I want to be aware of that so that if they can be arrested once they publicize their identity, I'll have someone on hand to represent them and try to settle the matter if that's possible (rather than doing jail time, which I assume is a possible outcome). You mentioned that ChexSystems asks for the applicant's date of birth. I am a little puzzled that they ask for that but then let SSN's pass that have different dates of birth than those the applicants above give via their IDs. Also, these applicants often give false previous states of residence because they are avoiding connection with the state where the stalker resides, in case he might somehow be made aware of their new state of residence (unlikely, but they're fearful). I'm wondering if some of this information is only paid attention to when there is negative information on file? If the date the SSN was issued is returned to ChexSystems, that must come from the Social Security Administration, ultimately. If they get a date back that is before the applicant was born, I guess there would be some concern. Maybe that is one of the reasons they ask for the DOB, along with double-checking the IDs on any negative info that shows up. Since it doesn't seem that they match the DOB on the license with the DOB that goes with the SSN? Also, since these women have often opened up numerous bank accounts within the same day or couple of weeks, I would think that would be an issue. Considering they use the same name and, typically, the same DL and SSN for numerous accounts, I'm surprised this wasn't a problem (flagged for numerous bank applications). Is it possible that there are different levels of ChexSystems "surveillance," depending on what a bank pays for? If ChexSystems checks on all of these things, I am concerned that somehow these women slipped through the cracks perhaps because the clerks trusted them, and may be in some pretty serious trouble. Bottom line, you could say that they stole, for example, $750-$2,500 from 3-10 different banks (~$7,500-$15,000 total, on average) over a period of one-8 weeks, to get resettled. I wonder if ChexSystems would report such trends to the police or if they leave these things up to the banks? The names and birth dates would remain the same, while they may have switched SSNs and/or DLs during the process. I am really surprised that numerous women have gotten away with this. But, my role is to make sure there is someone on hand for legal counsel if there is a chance they could be arrested for this. That, of course, would depend on whether banks tend to report these things criminally or whether ChexSystems might, I suppose. Since these women were sent checks from every institution they opened an account with, that also makes it surprising that they weren't caught doing this. They all did this independently and did not know each other, so I wonder if there's some kind of advising going on about this in crisis groups. I don't want my posting here to end up putting ChexSystems on alert, so I hope that can't happen. I think these banks can probably afford to make a donation to a woman/children in need considering they probably give sizable donations to other organizations. I wouldn't advise people to do this because I'd be concerned that they'd get in some serious trouble, but I don't want to blow the whistle on this either... not for this group, anyway. They're not "stealing" drug money, you know? I hate to say it, but more aggressive people in their states of desperation might be violently stealing money with absolutely no intention of making restitution for it. These women talk about making donations once they're settled again to compensate for what they "borrowed" if it isn't practical to pay the banks back. They're not criminally-minded people. Well, sorry this is so long. I'm hoping you might be able to make some sense out of this for me. I plan to pass it on to a legal counselor (everyone is anonymous, of course) who can then advise these women, assuming that might be necessary. If you tell me banks aren't likely to press criminal charges for this type of thing, I won't feel like I need to have someone available for this in the event they get arrested. But, I will counsel them about finding other ways to come up with funds. They aren't the type of people to continue this type of activity, though, they just needed something to get them into a new, safe life. Again, if it's possible to delete this portion somehow, after you respond to it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Henry
Clarification of Answer by missy-ga on 03 Apr 2003 22:53 PST Oh, Henry. These ladies need attorneys. They are in trouble, and if they continue to try to obtain bank accounts in this manner, they're only going to make their situations worse, not better by any means. Let me address the ChexSystems information first: If there is no negative information in the ChexSystems database, it only confirms the date that the Social Security Number was issued, and that the format of the Driver's License/State ID number is valid. It does not confirm the name of the holder of the SSN or the name associated with the DL/ID. It does not confirm the validity of the DL/ID itself, only the format of the number. For example, if Ohio's format is AB-CD-12345-67-E, and someone uses what purports to be an Ohio ID with the format ABC-1234-DE-56, ChexSystem will say only "Invalid format for Ohio". This of course would raise a flag - it doesn't mean the bank will automatically decline to open an account, but it may prompt them to ask questions. The same is true for the validity of an SSN - if your client is 45, and the SSN was issued the same year she was born or even a few years after, banks will typically not pay this any attention. It's common to apply for a child's SSN right from your hospital bed (when my children were born, they brought the papers right to my room!) If she's 45 and the SSN was issued recently, banks might look askance, or they might just assume that her purse had been stolen and she opted to apply for a brand new SSN. My banker did not specify how soon application data is submitted to ChexSystems or how long it takes them to process it. It may very well be that it takes them several days to add it to their system, which would account for the women who've "slipped past". It may also be that the bankers noted that the SSN and DL numbers were the same, but the names were only slightly different and shrugged it off. It's not unusual for people to use their nickname or alias out of habit when filling out forms (I signed my check "Missy" the other day!), and inattentive bankers will sometimes let this slide or will accept the explanation that "I'm called Missy at work!". (Or they used to, at any rate. Since the passage of the USA-PATRIOT act in 2001, most banks are tightening scrutiny. I am doubtful that these women could pull this off today.) How soon negative information is added to the ChexSystems database depends on state statutes. In most states, banks cannot submit the information until the person who bounced the check has had 10 days from the date they were notified to make restitution. It may take up to ten days to determine whether a check has cleared. If Jill writes a check to her Ohio bank, drawn on her closed California bank account on April 1, her bank may release the funds the next day, but not actually know if the check was good until April 10. They will then send a notice to her, which will likely be postmarked on the 11th and delivered on the 12th. She has until the 22nd to make good on the check. If she doesn't, the bank may (as my bank does) charge her a $5 per item per day "sustained overdraft" fee for up to 10 more business days before closing the account and reporting her to ChexSystems. That brings us to May 2 before her information is reported, and it may take several days after that for it to be processed and fully entered into the system. By that time, she's moved on to a different identification set. (This is not good, incidentally. This will only get her into more trouble further down the line. A lot more.) ChexSystems does not alert police to anything. Like credit bureaus, they are merely information repositories. Likewise, the information you've provided here isn't going to "alert" ChexSystems. ChexSystems accepts specific information (names, account numbers, SSNs, etc.) from financial institutions, not general information from research websites. It's up to the individual banks to report their losses - and most of them do. How vigorously this sort of fraud is prosecuted depends largely on the bank's policies, not on the amount lost. This varies wildly from state to state and bank to bank - some banks simply turn it over to a collection agency, others turn it over to the State Attorney General's office. Now, about those bounced checks... Regardless of the circumstances surrounding their check "kiting", and regardless of the amount, writing a check in the full knowledge that it will bounce is a criminal act in every state of the union, no matter whose account the check is drawn on. Even if it's only for a dollar, if you know it will bounce, it's fraud. The dollar amount only determines whether it's a smaller fraud or a gigantic fraud (misdemeanor or felony). In Missouri, willfully bouncing a check of $150 or more is a FELONY! "In Missouri, bouncing a check for more than $150 is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Checks for less than that amount are punishable by up to $1,000 fine and one year in the county jail." Official expects ’01 bad-check collections to top $1 million (from the ST.LOUIS POST-DISPATCH January 11, 2001) http://www.djonesassoc.com/bcps_newspaper.htm Cherokee County (GA) calls it "Deposit Account Fraud": "O.C.G.A. 16-9-20 - Deposit Account Fraud. (a) A person commits the offense of deposit account fraud when such person makes, draws, utters, executes, or delivers an instrument for the payment of money on any bank or other depository in exchange for a present consideration or wages, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee." They prosecute, too: "(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection and subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of deposit account fraud shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as follows: (A) When the instrument is for less than $100.00, a fine of not more than $500.00 or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, or both; (B) When the instrument is for $100.00 or more but less than $300.00, a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, or both; or (C) When more than one instrument is involved and such instruments were drawn within 90 days of one another and each is in an amount less than $100.00, the amounts of such separate instruments may be added together to arrive at and be punishable under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection and subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of deposit account fraud, when the instrument is for an amount of not less than $300.00 nor more than $499.99, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. When more than one instrument is involved and such instruments were given to the same entity within a 15 day period and the cumulative total of such instruments is not less than $300.00 nor more than $499.99, the person drawing and giving such instruments shall upon conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. (3) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of deposit account fraud, when the instrument is for $500.00 or more, shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500.00 nor more than $5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not more than three years, or both. (4) Upon conviction of a first or any subsequent offense under this subsection or subsection (c) of this Code section, in addition to any other punishment provided by this Code section, the defendant shall be required to make restitution of the amount of the instrument, together with all costs of bringing a complaint under this Code section. Costs shall be determined by the court from competent evidence of costs provided by the party causing the criminal warrant or citation to issue; provided, however, that the minimum costs shall not be less than $25.00. Restitution may be made while the defendant is serving a probated or suspended sentence. (c) A person who commits the offense of deposit account fraud by the making, drawing, uttering, executing, or delivering of an instrument on a bank of another state shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years or by a fine in an amount of up to $1,000.00, or both." Criminal Bad Check Statute http://www.cccourt.com/16920.shtml The Tennessee Wortheless Check Law is briefly summarized here: "FRAUDULENT INTENT A bad check is a criminal matter only when the perpetrator passes it knowingly or with fraudulent intent. This intent is one of the elements which must be proved in court. In the real world many people occasionally bounce a check due to carelessness, sloppy arithmetic, or various other innocent accidents. This does not excuse them from making the check good so that the victim is not "out," but the matter is nevertheless not criminal unless it is established that the perpetrator knew when he passed the check that it would be no good, and that he did so intending to defraud the victim. " Bad Check Prosecution - Basic Bad Check Law http://www.attorneygeneral.org/gencheck.html The Los Angeles District Attorney has a special program for bounced checks: Bad Check Restitution Program http://da.co.la.ca.us/badcheck/default.htm Every state has such laws, some much harsher than others. If you know you're passing a worthless check you could find yourself in some very, very hot water. If you continue to do so, no matter what your reasons or circumstances, it will just get hotter. It gets worse. Look what Federal law says about the use of false identification: "1501 False Identification -- 18 U.S.C. � 1028 -- Overview The False Identification Crime Control Act of 1982, Public Law 97-398, 96 Stat. 2009 (approved December 31, 1982) was the culmination of a ten-year legislative process to improve federal criminal statutes relating to the false identification problem. It was the outgrowth of a comprehensive study on the criminal use of false identification made by the Justice Department sponsored Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification (FACFI) in the mid-1970's. The Department of Justice strongly supported the legislative effort. The False Identification Crime Control Act created two new statutes: (1) 18 U.S.C. � 1028, entitled "Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents," which deals with governmental identification documents; and (2) 18 U.S.C. � 1738, entitled "Mailing private identification documents without a disclaimer," which deals with non-governmental identification documents." 1501 False Identification -- 18 U.S.C. � 1028 -- Overview http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01501.htm "1502 Prosecuting Violations of 18 U.S.C � 1028 Section 1028 of Title 18 does not supplant or replace any existing criminal provision which may be applicable to a particular identification document. However, because of its broad coverage and realistic penalties, it will normally be the vehicle by which many false identification violations are pursued. Of course, depending upon the particular circumstances of an individual situation, other provisions of applicable federal statutes may be utilized where the prosecutor believes that to be warranted." 1502 Prosecuting Violations of 18 U.S.C � 1028 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01502.htm In other words, if you get caught using false ID, depending on the circumstances under which you used it, you may be subject to Federal prosecution. It's for reasons such as the cases you've described that there has been a push for a Federal identification system. The following testimony before the House Judiciary Committee may be of some interest to you: U.S. SECRET SERVICE Statement of Larry F. Stewart, Asst. Laboratory Director, U.S. Secret Service For Presentation to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims July 22, 1999 http://www.house.gov/judiciary/stew0722.htm While I understand your sympathy for these women (and they certainly have mine), what they are doing is illegal and their actions do ultimately hurt other people, as well as themselves. Banks pass on the costs of fraud in the form of higher fees and even more stringent security. They're actually helping to make it harder for women in their situation to get bank accounts or even emergency loans to help get them out of their situations. It's because of fraud such as this that the honest fella who accidentally forgets to record a check and ends up bouncing one gets charged $30 for his mistake, instead of the $1 or $2 it actually costs to process the error, and the battered woman with the very sketchy credit history can't get a loan sufficient to cover the expense of escaping her abuser. There is no lenience anymore, because of increased demand to combat fraud. Please, Henry, do not encourage these women to continue, and urge those that have done this to get an attorney and arrange to make restitution. Although the statutes call for prison terms as possible punishment, it's not mandatory in most cases. These ladies will need to discuss their options with an attorney who specializes in "battered women" cases (Referrals can be had from the State Bar Association), and get arrangements made to begin making restitution. A competent attorney may be able to help obtain arrangements that result in probation or suspended sentence (no jail time) and reduced or waived fines while restitution is being made. In the meantime, Henry, I urge you to have these women avail themselves of legal means to escape their abusers/stalkers. There are numerous shelters across the country which provide resources and assistance for getting women out of dangerous situations. If you'd like a Researcher to investigate these options, you may post a question about them. With respect to making your query private, I'm afraid I am unable to do that myself. Questions and answers posted to Google Answers are publicly viewable. However, if you are uncomfortable with leaving this public after you've closed out the question (rated, commented on, etc.), you may write to the Editors [ answers-editors@google.com ] to have the whole thing removed. On a different note, I'd like to thank you for your kind compliment. I'm glad that you are pleased with my work and that you trust me to handle your information. --Missy
Clarification of Answer by missy-ga on 03 Apr 2003 23:48 PST Henry, While poking around a bit more, I came across some reporting statistics that might interest you (how long it takes for banks to report negative information to ChexSystems): "Bank Referrals to ChexSystems The banking industry does not have uniform policies for reporting borrower checking account information to the ChexSystems database. Banks have different tolerances regarding the amount of an overdraft and the number of days of an overdraft before they report to ChexSystems. Two banks responding to the survey reported that policies varied within their organization by branch or by region. Five banks indicated that they had both a dollar amount and a time threshold that they applied for deciding when to report borrower account information to ChexSystems. One bank waited 60 days to see if an overdraft would be repaid before reporting to ChexSystems. The least amount of time a surveyed bank waited was 30 days, and the average time period of surveyed banks was 45 days. Two banks did not report customer account history to ChexSystems until the overdraft exceeded $100. On the other end of the scale, one bank reported an overdraft if the overdraft dollar amount was more than $35. Another bank changed its dollar threshold from $50 in 1999 to $100 in 2000. The average dollar threshold in 1999 was $67 for the banks surveyed (average threshold dollar amounts are not reported for 2000 because only one bank changed its threshold level from 1999 to 2000). Before closing an account, one bank stated that it informed a checking account holder two to three times via mail that the failure to pay off an overdraft would result in the closing of an account and a report to a credit agency. The bank with the lowest dollar threshold level referred the most customers to ChexSystems (5 percent of checking account customers in 1999 and 4 percent in 2000). The bank with one of the more lenient policies in terms of dollar and time period threshold only referred .2 percent of their checking account customers to ChexSystems in 1999 and 2000. On average, surveyed banks referred 2.6 percent of their customers to ChexSystems in 1999 and 1.8 percent in 2000. While two banks became more lenient in their policies in 2000, it cannot be concluded that the change in policy alone resulted in a reduction of referrals to the ChexSystem. The survey sample size is too small and cannot adequately account for differences in regional economic conditions to reach definitive conclusions regarding the impact of policy changes on referral rates. However, survey results certainly suggest that the banks with the more lenient policies refer fewer customers to ChexSystems." ChexSystems: Disenfranchisement or Risk Management Tool? I've made the report available for you to download in full here: http://www.darkfriends.net/princessmoo/extras/ChexSystemReport.rtf --Missy

henry041696-ga rated this answer: 5 out of 5 stars

and gave an additional tip of: $75.00

Missy,

Wow! I'm really glad I asked you about this. It's not something I
would normally post, but I had a feeling you might be able to shed
light on this. You did a very encompassing, outstanding job of
informing me here, and actually fully responded to two topics. I
didn't realize how bad this situation was for these women, although I
assumed the banks could press criminal charges. But, I had no idea how
intense this could get. I will need to find an attorney who will work
with them on this. I'm sitting here feeling a little stunned because I
really should have been more emphatic that they not continue to do
this. I was worried that I might be giving someone ideas if they read
the details here, but I feel a little better since it's followed by
all of your citations against it -- that ought to dissuade people.
Well, thank you once again for an exceptional and speedy job. Take
care and I imagine I'll have a question for you again in the future,

Henry

Comments

Subject: Re: CHEXSYSTEMS: What ID info do they have access to?
From: sparkles21-ga on 19 Jan 2005 09:12 PST

I found a great source for ChexSystems information 
http://aboutmycredit.com/chexsystems_solutions.htm

This other site tells you step by step how to get removed from Chexsystems. 

http://badcreditinfo.com/how_to_get_off_chexsystems.htm

I even found a list of non Chexsystems banks!

http://badcreditinfo.com/non_chexsystems_banks.htm

Important Disclaimer: Answers and comments provided on Google Answers are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Google does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. Please read carefully the Google Answers Terms of Service.

If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by emailing us at answers-support@google.com with the question ID listed above. Thank you.

Search Google Answers for

Google Home - Answers FAQ - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy

Hello Henry! I'm surprised you remembered me! Yes, I'm available, I plan to stay with Google Answers til the men in the white coats come to pry my mouse out of my hand! You probably already know this, but it does need to be included - this is what happens when there is something on your ChexSystems report: Sample Consumer Report https://www.chexhelp.com:447/ChexHelp/chex/english/publik/sample.htm It's a little different when there are no negative entries. When I spoke with my banker this morning, she explained the process of verifying an account through ChexSystems. When one applies for an account at this particular bank, they require your Social Security number and your Driver's License or State Issued Identification card. ChexSystems is then called for verification. They ask the following questions: -- What is the applicant's date of birth? -- What is the applicant's Social Security number? -- What is the applicant's Driver's License/State ID number and state of issue? -- Has the applicant been a resident of [ insert state here ] for the past five years? (If the answer is no, they will ask for the previous state of residence.) If no negative information is in their files, the following information is returned: -- Date Social Security Number was issued -- Whether or not the Driver's License/State ID number is a valid format for the state of issue. -- Whether ChexSystems has recently been queried for an applicant, and what name, Social Security number, Driver's License/ID number and state of current or previous residence was used on the application. (My banker tells me the time frame for retention of "recent" inquiries is typically 6 - 8 weeks, but may be longer in some cases.) That's it. No other information is in the ChexSystems database unless one has been reported to ChexSystems by a financial institution for a "mis-handled account". Financial institutions, as well as Deluxe Check Printers (and their affiliates) routinely report information to ChexSystems: "U.S. banks and credit unions report "mis-handled accounts" to ChexSystems to protect themselves and other banks in the future. Some of these incidents include: * Account closed "for cause". Banks differ greatly between them as to what valid reasons are for closing an account. * Bank was unable to collect for an overdraft, ATM transaction, or automatic payment that they honored on insufficient funds. Banks report this to ChexSystems regardless of amount and often without waiting more than a few days after mailing a notice! * Multiple overdrafts. * Savings Account, debit card or ATM abuse. * Fraud. * Providing false information in opening account." [...] "The company that owns ChexSystems, Deluxe Corporation, also owns Current Checks (AKA Checks Unlimited), Designer Checks, EFunds Corporation, SCAN (a.k.a. Shared Check Authorization Network), the Debit Bureau, which tracks your check-writing history, and Deluxe Direct Marketing Services." [...] " Every time you order blank checks from Deluxe or one of their subsidiaries, information about you is sent to ChexSystems and their collections agency and direct marketing relationships. This information includes private, personal information such as your bank account number, current addres, and more. This occurs only when you order checks from Deluxe, Current Checks, Checks Unlimited, or Designer checks. They transmit this information to their sister companies ChexSystems, Debit Bureau, EFunds and SCAN." [...] "Along the same lines, did you know that information that you provide to a bank in your bank account application also is given to ChexSystems, Debit Bureau, EFunds and SCAN?" ChexSystems Bites! About ChexSystems (from Google's cache) http://makeashorterlink.com/?B28B31414 My banker confirms that this article is accurate. Once an applicant's name and information is used to query ChexSystems, the company shares that information with all of its affiliates, ostensibly to help combat fraud. She says it is indeed effective - applicants who manage to secure accounts for the purposes of fraud are invariably tripped up when they try to obtain checks for these accounts, but with information that is different from what they listed on their applications. On a side note, relating to information given to check printers - it may appear that using a check printing program such as VersaCheck will keep "off the radar" of the above listed companies. This isn't so. I print my own checks because I refuse to pay upwards of $15 for a box of checks and no one offers checks with a picture of the Golden Gate Bridge on them, and discovered that rather than keep you "off the radar", such home printed checks will increase your scrutiny. My account was flagged as possibly fraudulent by a merchant who accepted a home printed check from me. The check cleared just fine, but the merchant reported it to SCAN anyway "for my protection". My banker notified me of this one morning when a new teller called her over and whispered frantically that the account had been flagged. She explained "That's because she prints her own checks. It's OK, she's been a customer here for years, and she's always printed her own." My account had been flagged for three years, but I was never informed before, because the tellers knew me and just ignored the flag. She went on to explain that if I tried to cash one of my home printed checks at another financial institution, they would have to call my banker to verify the validity of the account - if they deigned to cash the check at all! Imagine my surprise. Advise your client to use a bank that avails themselves of Harland Check Printers, as that company does not report information to ChexSystems, SCAN or any of their affiliates. I hope this helps you, Henry! Please let me know if I can be of further assistance! --Missy
Request for Answer Clarification by henry041696-ga on 03 Apr 2003 19:43 PST Missy, Of course I remembered you. I should have followed my intuition and posted this to your attention in the beginning! It's good to know you'll be around at Google for contact in the future. You're a great writer and provide excellent information, as well. I have a couple of questions related to your response, which was a very informative one. There are a few things that I'm wondering about and could probably pose as another question, but I don't want to draw that much attention to some of these issues. So, I'll consider this as you answering additional questions and try to include fair additional payment in the tip. Hope that's OK; I prefer it also because I believe the tip goes directly to you and isn't "shared." If there is any way that you can make this portion of the question, or the question altogether, private and not viewable by the public, that would be reassuring. It's possible that this may be beyond the scope of what you can deal with, but if you do know how to obtain answers/info, I'd appreciate it. I'm not in the best position to be drawing attention to this matter, politically, so to speak, and I'm not sure I could come up with any attorneys who would know as much about it as yourself/your banker. If you recall, I'm not actually sure how much I said about this, but some of my other questions made it apparent, I believe -- I have "clients" who are often women trying to escape abusive/stalking situations. Sometimes they have children, sometimes pets, sometimes they're on their own entirely. This can create a very desperate situation for these women, esp. if their lives, or their children's or pets lives, are being threatened and they don't have other family members to rely on. Often, they must leave their homes abruptly, without all of their belongings, and move into a different state quickly. Typically, they are not financially prepared for this. Thus, some of them become "creative" about obtaining cash that doesn't really belong to them, but in a manner that doesn't harm anyone (other than an institution, like a bank, that they "borrow" money from without permission, essentially; of course, with the assumption that the bank is insured for what they "borrowed" and didn't return, or with the hope that they can someday pay it back). The idea is that what they are doing is non-violent and typically discloses their identity, unlike other types of "robbery" or "theft" where identities are hidden. When I connect with some of these women, they have already done what I will describe below, and I am trying to determine how to advise them regarding this. Many of them fear they will be arrested if they don't stay hidden, although I have not yet heard of that occurring (but it may happen to others I haven't met). They feel they need to go "underground" because of what they have done financially, as well as to hide from their respective stalkers, considering the woman's fear of children or pets not having her to care for them if she gets arrested or killed/injured. The first part of my question is this: what exactly is considered as "fraud" by the banks/ChexSystems? For example, if a woman simultaneously opens several checking accounts before she has a negative history, deposits a check from her original bank into each account, knowing the checks won't clear (an average check amount is ~$750), and then withdraws the funds when they become available (before the check bounces), she has essentially written numerous bad checks (NSF) that she collected the funds on. This does not seem like it would be fraud since she used her own checks, although sometimes from an account that has been previously closed -- maybe that would make it fraud? What kind of crime do banks consider this to be? Also, it seems that the banks don't tend to report it to police or courts, but to ChexSystems -- is this correct? Maybe it depends on the amount that was withdrawn but not covered? Sometimes they will deposit several of their own checks over two days or so and then withdraw perhaps $2,500 before the checks bounce (i.e., original bank responds with "account closed" or "insufficient funds"). So, if the total loss to a bank is under a certain amount, would that explain why they don't go to the police or court system with a complaint (e.g., maybe it's not worth their time/cost)? In another scenario, I have come across women using a deceased woman's SSN, where the last name is the same as theirs but the birth date and first name are different. What they use for 'mother's maiden name' doesn't seem to matter; does that make sense? If ChexSystems doesn't get that info, since you didn't mention it, then I guess they wouldn't know the difference there. These women seem to be able to talk their way through the first name being different (e.g., say to clerk: "I use my middle name as my first name, which is how my DL reads, but you might find my first name recorded with ChexSystems as [the other woman's first name]"), and they tell me they gave the banks their own birth dates since that is what was on their DL/ID, even when the SSN came from someone decades older than themselves. They use their own actual photo identification/driver's licenses when they do this. This would seem more like fraud because they are not using their own SSN's (this would be at a point when they needed more cash but their SSN was registering negatively with ChexSystems). I am surprised, though, that the Driver's License or photo ID number did not connect them to their own ChexSystems record, even though the SSN was different. The SSN's are chosen from a death long enough ago that it would not have a credit report of any form. Apparently, ChexSystems does not know if an SSN belongs to a deceased person; maybe they don't get a name to match an SSN at all unless there is negative history? It's possible that this was luck or circumstance, but based on what you told me, I would think they would need a DL/ID from a new state along with this fraudulent SSN to avoid the negative ChexSystems history or getting caught using another's SSN. Perhaps they did this; I know some did, but it seems that some didn't (get a new DL# from a new state). One woman told me she was questioned about the different first name that ChexSystems had, but the differing birthdates never came up (however, the questions seemed to arise because she used an SSN from someone who was living). Ultimately, they simply wanted her to come back with her social security card. So, she just never returned to that particular bank. That is the only time, of many, that I heard of a bank even being concerned about this at all. Apparently, some accounts did get flagged and funds were held too long to be withdrawn before bouncing, but that only occurred after the fraudulent SSN had been used several times to withdraw funds (leaving behind overdrawn accounts). I am trying to understand this so that I can determine how much trouble they might be in (or might not, criminally). These women have good reason to be desperate and I understand why they do this. The government should have a better system for protecting them, as in making it a little easier for them to get a new identity. A lot has been written about this governmental shortcoming as many women "on the run" or "ready to run" from abusers/stalkers get killed and the perpetrator is not always sentenced for it (lack of evidence, etc.). While I lobby for governmental support for this problem, which is the only answer I see for this (more police protection and identity protection/change once they leave), I would rather see this type of crime being committed than a violent crime or the risk involved with street peddling/begging, esp. w/children. I don't suggest that these women do this at banks, but I do want to get the proper counsel for them if they are likely to face criminal charges for doing it. If it only affects their credit/ChexSystems, they won't be concerned about that immediatly and it is something they might be able to take care of down the road. But, if it is possible that criminal charges would be filed, I want to be aware of that so that if they can be arrested once they publicize their identity, I'll have someone on hand to represent them and try to settle the matter if that's possible (rather than doing jail time, which I assume is a possible outcome). You mentioned that ChexSystems asks for the applicant's date of birth. I am a little puzzled that they ask for that but then let SSN's pass that have different dates of birth than those the applicants above give via their IDs. Also, these applicants often give false previous states of residence because they are avoiding connection with the state where the stalker resides, in case he might somehow be made aware of their new state of residence (unlikely, but they're fearful). I'm wondering if some of this information is only paid attention to when there is negative information on file? If the date the SSN was issued is returned to ChexSystems, that must come from the Social Security Administration, ultimately. If they get a date back that is before the applicant was born, I guess there would be some concern. Maybe that is one of the reasons they ask for the DOB, along with double-checking the IDs on any negative info that shows up. Since it doesn't seem that they match the DOB on the license with the DOB that goes with the SSN? Also, since these women have often opened up numerous bank accounts within the same day or couple of weeks, I would think that would be an issue. Considering they use the same name and, typically, the same DL and SSN for numerous accounts, I'm surprised this wasn't a problem (flagged for numerous bank applications). Is it possible that there are different levels of ChexSystems "surveillance," depending on what a bank pays for? If ChexSystems checks on all of these things, I am concerned that somehow these women slipped through the cracks perhaps because the clerks trusted them, and may be in some pretty serious trouble. Bottom line, you could say that they stole, for example, $750-$2,500 from 3-10 different banks (~$7,500-$15,000 total, on average) over a period of one-8 weeks, to get resettled. I wonder if ChexSystems would report such trends to the police or if they leave these things up to the banks? The names and birth dates would remain the same, while they may have switched SSNs and/or DLs during the process. I am really surprised that numerous women have gotten away with this. But, my role is to make sure there is someone on hand for legal counsel if there is a chance they could be arrested for this. That, of course, would depend on whether banks tend to report these things criminally or whether ChexSystems might, I suppose. Since these women were sent checks from every institution they opened an account with, that also makes it surprising that they weren't caught doing this. They all did this independently and did not know each other, so I wonder if there's some kind of advising going on about this in crisis groups. I don't want my posting here to end up putting ChexSystems on alert, so I hope that can't happen. I think these banks can probably afford to make a donation to a woman/children in need considering they probably give sizable donations to other organizations. I wouldn't advise people to do this because I'd be concerned that they'd get in some serious trouble, but I don't want to blow the whistle on this either... not for this group, anyway. They're not "stealing" drug money, you know? I hate to say it, but more aggressive people in their states of desperation might be violently stealing money with absolutely no intention of making restitution for it. These women talk about making donations once they're settled again to compensate for what they "borrowed" if it isn't practical to pay the banks back. They're not criminally-minded people. Well, sorry this is so long. I'm hoping you might be able to make some sense out of this for me. I plan to pass it on to a legal counselor (everyone is anonymous, of course) who can then advise these women, assuming that might be necessary. If you tell me banks aren't likely to press criminal charges for this type of thing, I won't feel like I need to have someone available for this in the event they get arrested. But, I will counsel them about finding other ways to come up with funds. They aren't the type of people to continue this type of activity, though, they just needed something to get them into a new, safe life. Again, if it's possible to delete this portion somehow, after you respond to it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Henry
Clarification of Answer by missy-ga on 03 Apr 2003 22:53 PST Oh, Henry. These ladies need attorneys. They are in trouble, and if they continue to try to obtain bank accounts in this manner, they're only going to make their situations worse, not better by any means. Let me address the ChexSystems information first: If there is no negative information in the ChexSystems database, it only confirms the date that the Social Security Number was issued, and that the format of the Driver's License/State ID number is valid. It does not confirm the name of the holder of the SSN or the name associated with the DL/ID. It does not confirm the validity of the DL/ID itself, only the format of the number. For example, if Ohio's format is AB-CD-12345-67-E, and someone uses what purports to be an Ohio ID with the format ABC-1234-DE-56, ChexSystem will say only "Invalid format for Ohio". This of course would raise a flag - it doesn't mean the bank will automatically decline to open an account, but it may prompt them to ask questions. The same is true for the validity of an SSN - if your client is 45, and the SSN was issued the same year she was born or even a few years after, banks will typically not pay this any attention. It's common to apply for a child's SSN right from your hospital bed (when my children were born, they brought the papers right to my room!) If she's 45 and the SSN was issued recently, banks might look askance, or they might just assume that her purse had been stolen and she opted to apply for a brand new SSN. My banker did not specify how soon application data is submitted to ChexSystems or how long it takes them to process it. It may very well be that it takes them several days to add it to their system, which would account for the women who've "slipped past". It may also be that the bankers noted that the SSN and DL numbers were the same, but the names were only slightly different and shrugged it off. It's not unusual for people to use their nickname or alias out of habit when filling out forms (I signed my check "Missy" the other day!), and inattentive bankers will sometimes let this slide or will accept the explanation that "I'm called Missy at work!". (Or they used to, at any rate. Since the passage of the USA-PATRIOT act in 2001, most banks are tightening scrutiny. I am doubtful that these women could pull this off today.) How soon negative information is added to the ChexSystems database depends on state statutes. In most states, banks cannot submit the information until the person who bounced the check has had 10 days from the date they were notified to make restitution. It may take up to ten days to determine whether a check has cleared. If Jill writes a check to her Ohio bank, drawn on her closed California bank account on April 1, her bank may release the funds the next day, but not actually know if the check was good until April 10. They will then send a notice to her, which will likely be postmarked on the 11th and delivered on the 12th. She has until the 22nd to make good on the check. If she doesn't, the bank may (as my bank does) charge her a $5 per item per day "sustained overdraft" fee for up to 10 more business days before closing the account and reporting her to ChexSystems. That brings us to May 2 before her information is reported, and it may take several days after that for it to be processed and fully entered into the system. By that time, she's moved on to a different identification set. (This is not good, incidentally. This will only get her into more trouble further down the line. A lot more.) ChexSystems does not alert police to anything. Like credit bureaus, they are merely information repositories. Likewise, the information you've provided here isn't going to "alert" ChexSystems. ChexSystems accepts specific information (names, account numbers, SSNs, etc.) from financial institutions, not general information from research websites. It's up to the individual banks to report their losses - and most of them do. How vigorously this sort of fraud is prosecuted depends largely on the bank's policies, not on the amount lost. This varies wildly from state to state and bank to bank - some banks simply turn it over to a collection agency, others turn it over to the State Attorney General's office. Now, about those bounced checks... Regardless of the circumstances surrounding their check "kiting", and regardless of the amount, writing a check in the full knowledge that it will bounce is a criminal act in every state of the union, no matter whose account the check is drawn on. Even if it's only for a dollar, if you know it will bounce, it's fraud. The dollar amount only determines whether it's a smaller fraud or a gigantic fraud (misdemeanor or felony). In Missouri, willfully bouncing a check of $150 or more is a FELONY! "In Missouri, bouncing a check for more than $150 is a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Checks for less than that amount are punishable by up to $1,000 fine and one year in the county jail." Official expects ’01 bad-check collections to top $1 million (from the ST.LOUIS POST-DISPATCH January 11, 2001) http://www.djonesassoc.com/bcps_newspaper.htm Cherokee County (GA) calls it "Deposit Account Fraud": "O.C.G.A. 16-9-20 - Deposit Account Fraud. (a) A person commits the offense of deposit account fraud when such person makes, draws, utters, executes, or delivers an instrument for the payment of money on any bank or other depository in exchange for a present consideration or wages, knowing that it will not be honored by the drawee." They prosecute, too: "(b) (1) Except as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) of this subsection and subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of deposit account fraud shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished as follows: (A) When the instrument is for less than $100.00, a fine of not more than $500.00 or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, or both; (B) When the instrument is for $100.00 or more but less than $300.00, a fine of not more than $1,000.00 or imprisonment not to exceed 12 months, or both; or (C) When more than one instrument is involved and such instruments were drawn within 90 days of one another and each is in an amount less than $100.00, the amounts of such separate instruments may be added together to arrive at and be punishable under subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. (2) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection and subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of deposit account fraud, when the instrument is for an amount of not less than $300.00 nor more than $499.99, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. When more than one instrument is involved and such instruments were given to the same entity within a 15 day period and the cumulative total of such instruments is not less than $300.00 nor more than $499.99, the person drawing and giving such instruments shall upon conviction be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. (3) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this Code section, a person convicted of the offense of deposit account fraud, when the instrument is for $500.00 or more, shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not less than $500.00 nor more than $5,000.00 or by imprisonment for not more than three years, or both. (4) Upon conviction of a first or any subsequent offense under this subsection or subsection (c) of this Code section, in addition to any other punishment provided by this Code section, the defendant shall be required to make restitution of the amount of the instrument, together with all costs of bringing a complaint under this Code section. Costs shall be determined by the court from competent evidence of costs provided by the party causing the criminal warrant or citation to issue; provided, however, that the minimum costs shall not be less than $25.00. Restitution may be made while the defendant is serving a probated or suspended sentence. (c) A person who commits the offense of deposit account fraud by the making, drawing, uttering, executing, or delivering of an instrument on a bank of another state shall be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years or by a fine in an amount of up to $1,000.00, or both." Criminal Bad Check Statute http://www.cccourt.com/16920.shtml The Tennessee Wortheless Check Law is briefly summarized here: "FRAUDULENT INTENT A bad check is a criminal matter only when the perpetrator passes it knowingly or with fraudulent intent. This intent is one of the elements which must be proved in court. In the real world many people occasionally bounce a check due to carelessness, sloppy arithmetic, or various other innocent accidents. This does not excuse them from making the check good so that the victim is not "out," but the matter is nevertheless not criminal unless it is established that the perpetrator knew when he passed the check that it would be no good, and that he did so intending to defraud the victim. " Bad Check Prosecution - Basic Bad Check Law http://www.attorneygeneral.org/gencheck.html The Los Angeles District Attorney has a special program for bounced checks: Bad Check Restitution Program http://da.co.la.ca.us/badcheck/default.htm Every state has such laws, some much harsher than others. If you know you're passing a worthless check you could find yourself in some very, very hot water. If you continue to do so, no matter what your reasons or circumstances, it will just get hotter. It gets worse. Look what Federal law says about the use of false identification: "1501 False Identification -- 18 U.S.C. � 1028 -- Overview The False Identification Crime Control Act of 1982, Public Law 97-398, 96 Stat. 2009 (approved December 31, 1982) was the culmination of a ten-year legislative process to improve federal criminal statutes relating to the false identification problem. It was the outgrowth of a comprehensive study on the criminal use of false identification made by the Justice Department sponsored Federal Advisory Committee on False Identification (FACFI) in the mid-1970's. The Department of Justice strongly supported the legislative effort. The False Identification Crime Control Act created two new statutes: (1) 18 U.S.C. � 1028, entitled "Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents," which deals with governmental identification documents; and (2) 18 U.S.C. � 1738, entitled "Mailing private identification documents without a disclaimer," which deals with non-governmental identification documents." 1501 False Identification -- 18 U.S.C. � 1028 -- Overview http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01501.htm "1502 Prosecuting Violations of 18 U.S.C � 1028 Section 1028 of Title 18 does not supplant or replace any existing criminal provision which may be applicable to a particular identification document. However, because of its broad coverage and realistic penalties, it will normally be the vehicle by which many false identification violations are pursued. Of course, depending upon the particular circumstances of an individual situation, other provisions of applicable federal statutes may be utilized where the prosecutor believes that to be warranted." 1502 Prosecuting Violations of 18 U.S.C � 1028 http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm01502.htm In other words, if you get caught using false ID, depending on the circumstances under which you used it, you may be subject to Federal prosecution. It's for reasons such as the cases you've described that there has been a push for a Federal identification system. The following testimony before the House Judiciary Committee may be of some interest to you: U.S. SECRET SERVICE Statement of Larry F. Stewart, Asst. Laboratory Director, U.S. Secret Service For Presentation to the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims July 22, 1999 http://www.house.gov/judiciary/stew0722.htm While I understand your sympathy for these women (and they certainly have mine), what they are doing is illegal and their actions do ultimately hurt other people, as well as themselves. Banks pass on the costs of fraud in the form of higher fees and even more stringent security. They're actually helping to make it harder for women in their situation to get bank accounts or even emergency loans to help get them out of their situations. It's because of fraud such as this that the honest fella who accidentally forgets to record a check and ends up bouncing one gets charged $30 for his mistake, instead of the $1 or $2 it actually costs to process the error, and the battered woman with the very sketchy credit history can't get a loan sufficient to cover the expense of escaping her abuser. There is no lenience anymore, because of increased demand to combat fraud. Please, Henry, do not encourage these women to continue, and urge those that have done this to get an attorney and arrange to make restitution. Although the statutes call for prison terms as possible punishment, it's not mandatory in most cases. These ladies will need to discuss their options with an attorney who specializes in "battered women" cases (Referrals can be had from the State Bar Association), and get arrangements made to begin making restitution. A competent attorney may be able to help obtain arrangements that result in probation or suspended sentence (no jail time) and reduced or waived fines while restitution is being made. In the meantime, Henry, I urge you to have these women avail themselves of legal means to escape their abusers/stalkers. There are numerous shelters across the country which provide resources and assistance for getting women out of dangerous situations. If you'd like a Researcher to investigate these options, you may post a question about them. With respect to making your query private, I'm afraid I am unable to do that myself. Questions and answers posted to Google Answers are publicly viewable. However, if you are uncomfortable with leaving this public after you've closed out the question (rated, commented on, etc.), you may write to the Editors [ answers-editors@google.com ] to have the whole thing removed. On a different note, I'd like to thank you for your kind compliment. I'm glad that you are pleased with my work and that you trust me to handle your information. --Missy
Clarification of Answer by missy-ga on 03 Apr 2003 23:48 PST Henry, While poking around a bit more, I came across some reporting statistics that might interest you (how long it takes for banks to report negative information to ChexSystems): "Bank Referrals to ChexSystems The banking industry does not have uniform policies for reporting borrower checking account information to the ChexSystems database. Banks have different tolerances regarding the amount of an overdraft and the number of days of an overdraft before they report to ChexSystems. Two banks responding to the survey reported that policies varied within their organization by branch or by region. Five banks indicated that they had both a dollar amount and a time threshold that they applied for deciding when to report borrower account information to ChexSystems. One bank waited 60 days to see if an overdraft would be repaid before reporting to ChexSystems. The least amount of time a surveyed bank waited was 30 days, and the average time period of surveyed banks was 45 days. Two banks did not report customer account history to ChexSystems until the overdraft exceeded $100. On the other end of the scale, one bank reported an overdraft if the overdraft dollar amount was more than $35. Another bank changed its dollar threshold from $50 in 1999 to $100 in 2000. The average dollar threshold in 1999 was $67 for the banks surveyed (average threshold dollar amounts are not reported for 2000 because only one bank changed its threshold level from 1999 to 2000). Before closing an account, one bank stated that it informed a checking account holder two to three times via mail that the failure to pay off an overdraft would result in the closing of an account and a report to a credit agency. The bank with the lowest dollar threshold level referred the most customers to ChexSystems (5 percent of checking account customers in 1999 and 4 percent in 2000). The bank with one of the more lenient policies in terms of dollar and time period threshold only referred .2 percent of their checking account customers to ChexSystems in 1999 and 2000. On average, surveyed banks referred 2.6 percent of their customers to ChexSystems in 1999 and 1.8 percent in 2000. While two banks became more lenient in their policies in 2000, it cannot be concluded that the change in policy alone resulted in a reduction of referrals to the ChexSystem. The survey sample size is too small and cannot adequately account for differences in regional economic conditions to reach definitive conclusions regarding the impact of policy changes on referral rates. However, survey results certainly suggest that the banks with the more lenient policies refer fewer customers to ChexSystems." ChexSystems: Disenfranchisement or Risk Management Tool? I've made the report available for you to download in full here: http://www.darkfriends.net/princessmoo/extras/ChexSystemReport.rtf --Missy