Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!indri!polyslo!csun!srhqla!kosman!kevin
From: kevin@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Laser Printable Checks?
Message-ID: <763@kosman.UUCP>
Date: 8 May 89 14:02:41 GMT
References: <12810@jade.BBN.COM> <555@lzaz.ATT.COM> <4354@ttidca.TTI.COM> <1384@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM>
Reply-To: kevin@kosman.UUCP (Root)
Organization: K.O.'s Manor - Vital Computer Systems, Oxnard, CA 93035
Lines: 58

In article <1384@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM> brian@ncrcan.Toronto.NCR.COM (Brian Onn) writes:
>In article <4354@ttidca.TTI.COM> hollombe@ttidcb.tti.com (The Polymath) writes:
>>The question also raises serious security problems.  You don't want just
>>anyone able to print your checks at will.  I once worked for a division of
>>L.A.  County that sent out welfare checks.  They used pre-printed checks
>>that had the amounts printed by computer and were signed by a special
>>machine.  Once someone got into the vault where they stored the blank
>>checks, stole a pile of them out of the bottom of a box and printed
>>themselves several hundred thousand dollars worth.  The out of sequence
>>numbers eventually tripped them up.
>>
>>Imagine if they'd been able to print signed, valid checks on blank paper
>>with any numbers they wanted _on their own machine at home_.  If I were in
>>charge of such things, I'd definitely make laser-printed checks invalid,
>>if not illegal.
>
>(What I am about to say is not authoritative, and certainly has not been
>researched, but is based strictly on what I have heard to be true)
>
>I am under the impression that checks (hereinafter referred to as 'cheques')
>can be printed on anything, in any size, and the banks must honour it.  This
>is what makes it possible for those huge marketing gimmick cheques, made out
>for charity by big organisations on 2 x 5 foot cardboard.
>
>Thus you can write cheques on toilet paper, aluminum foil, or the back of
>your lunch banana peel!
>
>That's just what I heard :-)  (laser printer cheques seem kinda lame next to
>this :-))
>
>Brian.

Oooh, this is too much fun to pass up.  I love totally frivolous topics.

My comments are completely non-authoritative, and are based on nothing
more than a lifetime of omphaloscepsis.

It is true that banks must honor checks written in the ways you mention,
and even odder things: like the hide of a cow with the living cow still
inside of it.

However, this does not stop the bank from taking its own sweet time verifying
the validity of the check.

It also does not affect anyone except the bank on which the check is drawn.
It does not affect the bank of the recipient, which is under no obligation
of law to accept such things.  More importantly, it does not affect the
Federal Reserve System in the USA (and whatever you use in Canada and
elsewhere).  The Federal Reserve is responsible for much of the movement
of checks from where they are cashed to the bank of the check-writer.

Thus, checks without machine-readable routing and account information have
been outlawed in this country in the sense that the Federal Reserve will
no longer forward them.  They could outlaw other stuff too, on the same
basis.

Other than that, a valid check needs only the name of the bank, the payee,
a date and a signature.