Talk:Cheque fraud

Article title

Is cheque spelled "check" in US english or is the title spelled wrong? --Qirex 02:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, "check" is the US English spelling, which seems to take predominance on Wikipedia (though I've personally been unclear as to whether or not it's policy). Shane Lawrence 09:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It depends, see bank cheque. And yes, that's how it's spelled there. If it's a matter of contention, I guess it could be moved to "Kiting (fraud)". 68.39.174.238 02:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

• Right now, it seems that 'cheque' is mentioned on the article 8 times, compared to 58 times for 'check'. Can we change the title to Check fraud for internal consistency? Also, bank cheque redirects to Cashier's check. CdavM (talk) 06:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have now moved the page. CdavM (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Why the name 'kiting"?

A long time ago I heard an explanation that the word 'kiting' came about because the fraud first started in the early 1900's when personal aircraft became available. A 'kiter' who owned and flew a small plane could write checks and fly between banks in several different cities on the same business day much faster than the banks could keep track of the checks.

Since a slang term for a small aircraft was 'kite', thus the name.

Does anyone know if this is actually true?

76.183.255.50 04:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a good story, Dunno about that one, but (FWIW), the illicit handwritten notes exchanged between inmates in a correctional environment are also referred to as "kites", and slipping them in between cells is called "kiting". No ideas about the etymology, but I've always wondered, about both that type of "kite" and the subject of this article. 74.131.49.227 (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible but unlikely. A simpler explanation is that plane, note, and cheque all took their nicknames from what they do. Most of us have seen pieces of paper or plastic "kiting" across the landscape, borne precariously upon errant breezes. An excited child may also "go kiting off," propelled by erratic impulse and bubbling energy. Bankrupt barnstormers, probably rare compared to empty pocketed saddle bums and penurious riders of railroad or auto, would be unlikely to become a cliché connected to cheques in particular. But the image of paper cheques floating from bank to bank, with nothing to support them but empty air and promises, wouldn't need an aeronautical origin to propel it to popular use. --Egmonster (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

hypothetically, if i was the recipient of a lottery scam ....

and cashed the check at an e z check cash location due to not having an account. ..then later found that that check wss bad after I recieved themoney... who is at fault? Who owes that money? anyone?

Read the fine print: it almost certainly said you agree you are liable for their loss. The check cash business could explain, "We gave you the money; the paper you gave us was worthless. It's not our fault what you did with the money. We've been cheated and must be paid back." But why bother to explain? They have a choice: go after you, or go looking for the fraudster. Which is easier? --Egmonster (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

United States specific?

This information seems to only refer to the illegality of cheque kiting in the US. Does any one know the legal status in other countries? KayVee 12:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do other countries even use cheques? I last saw one more than twenty years ago. Anway, I'm curious about the scale of fraud using cheques compared to other means of payment. If anybody has numbers, this page might be a good place to link them. kzm (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be feasible in the UK. Here if you pay a cheque into your account you can't withdraw the funds until it has cleared, which takes three working days. So the money is only available in at most one account at any given time. 212.135.1.81 00:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The UK still uses cheques although the banks and retail are doing their best to drive them out of business but they're still useful for private transactions and some industrial ones (part of the problem is the lack of a standard alternative one way method of paying someone without knowing their bank details). Back in the 1990s the banks agreed a standard set of maximum times for clearing a cheque as follows:

• (Working) Day 0 - Cheque deposited.
• Day 2 - at the latest the money must start earning interest/reduce overdraft fees (if the account bears interest).
• Day 4 for current accounts/Day 6 for savings accounts - at the latest the funds must be available for withdrawal. (Providing the account allows withdrawal at all - some savings are non-withdrawal accumulative.)
• Day 6 - this is the last day the cheque can be cancelled either due to being fake or the writer cancelling for other reasons.

As you can see there is a theoretical float period of two days and as these are maximum times some banks have offered accounts with faster clearing; however this increases the risk of funds being withdrawn on a failed cheque because the 6 working day rule operates between different banks. However the verification process is a lot faster these days due to online data transfer - so the bank the cheque is written on can signal a lack of funds right at the point when the cheque is first being processed. Also the UK is physically much smaller so the time a cheque physically takes to get back to the original account is shorter than in some US transactions. One of the US tricks was to deposit or cash cheques using a different region's clearing bank - e.g. one of the best known examples is in the film Catch Me If You Can where the protagonist cashes fraudulent cheques in New York that will not be cleared in New York but instead go all the way to San Francisco (posing as an airline pilot gives the perfect cover for not using his own local bank) and this allows him to stay in an area for longer before the fraud is detected. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Needing cleanup

I started to do some light tidying on the main page but now realise that this page needs a lot of work. Specifically, it veers radically between relatively formal language and downright colloquial; it doesn't always cite sources (though it's better than some); and its organisation hierarchy seems questionable. I'll do a bit, but please, someone do more. /blahedo (t) 19:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

digital check number

why not to add a digital check number to the cheque instead of a sequential cheque number. this would enable to check weather the cheque is the original one or a fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.36.244 (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

...What? My best guess is that you're talking about a checksum, but those can be faked too; they're primarily useful for detecting accidental errors. --109.144.253.74 (talk) 00:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cheque fraud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419183216/http://www.union-bulletin.com:80/articles/2009/04/08/local_news/090408local06theftsentence.txt to http://www.union-bulletin.com/articles/2009/04/08/local_news/090408local06theftsentence.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)