Redeeming lawful money at a Canadian bank

I used a different verbage on the back of my check this last check, and I also struck out the words 'to the order of' on the face. When presented to the teller today to be cashed, there was no asking to swipe my client card in the reader at the teller even though the card was visible in my hand, and was ready to do it. I also used 'dollars' in the written line.
Usually, they make me swipe the card before they'll look at the check. This could be a fluke as I went to school with the teller.

Also, I redid the signature card to say 'lawful money only', but I doubt that would have shown up without my swiping the client card.
Wondering if the "Pay to" only was the difference... She only checked the account the check was drawn on. Not the regular client account. (I have a business account with a corporation that I work under, and a personal account there.)

Also, she didn't ask me to sign a transaction receipt at the end of the transaction, either...

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/...2FuYWRhAAAAAAE
A court case about lawful money.
Kinda interesting that certain types of insurances are exempt from taxation when paid out, while others are taxed. Some in statute are said to be paid in lawful money of canada. I'm wondering if there will be a correlation between the 2 types. I'll have to look into this further...

Again today to see if the previous was a fluke, I cashed 2 checks at 2 separate tellers. Both of the checks were modified with 'the order of' crossed out, and non-endorsed the previous way, except that there was no signature or autograph on the back. Both tellers looked carefully at the front of the checks, read the backs, then asked what denominations I would want. Also, this time, as with the time before, they did not write the account number on the back of the check, and they didn't stamp it before putting it away.
Unlike before where they had given me heck about not signing the checks, or putting 'per:' in front of the signature, not a peep was to be heard about it today... There was no request to swipe the client card, which before they gave me a lot of grief over my not wanting to, and there was no receipt to sign at the end.
I had a check from my company to deposit, and I had to swipe the card, and sign a receipt, even though there was a non endorsement on that. I printed 'LAWFUL MONEY' on receipt.
Adventures in banking land... lol

Hmm, that would indicate that you truly converted the check into lawful money, since they didn't track the transaction by requiring to know your bank account, and by not stamping it. Since they didn't stamp it, that'd indicate that those checks will be handled SEPARATELY, i.e. not through fractional lending. So 'Pay to the order of' might indicate the statutory person JOHN DOE, while 'Pay to' would indicate the real man John Doe.

Banks track all transactions with FRNs since that involves credit from FedRes, which adds to the national debt, but would have no interest in tracking transactions with lawful money, since that is OUT of their corporate Matrix, and so doesn't constitute income.
What exactly did you put on the back?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amosfella

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/...2FuYWRhAAAAAAE
A court case about lawful money.
Kinda interesting that certain types of insurances are exempt from taxation when paid out, while others are taxed. Some in statute are said to be paid in lawful money of canada. I'm wondering if there will be a correlation between the 2 types. I'll have to look into this further...

---

Funny for you to mention certain types of insurances are exempt from taxation when paid out.
http://pros.palmbeachletter.com/1309...PNUP/PPBLPB08/

770

Thanks for that court case.

I've been doing more reading on this, and all policies executed are paid out in lawful money and are not taxable, while policies cashed in early are not. policies cashed in early are subject to tax on the increase in the value of the policy over what is paid. I believe that's called capital gains.
Interesting that this is posted on a Canadian Government website.

http://www.btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tpv...LAWFUL%20MONEY

In the province that I"m from, the insurance act section 528.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/sta...NhbmFkYQAAAAAB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaro

Hmm, that would indicate that you truly converted the check into lawful money, since they didn't track the transaction by requiring to know your bank account, and by not stamping it. Since they didn't stamp it, that'd indicate that those checks will be handled SEPARATELY, i.e. not through fractional lending. So 'Pay to the order of' might indicate the statutory person JOHN DOE, while 'Pay to' would indicate the real man John Doe.

Banks track all transactions with FRNs since that involves credit from FedRes, which adds to the national debt, but would have no interest in tracking transactions with lawful money, since that is OUT of their corporate Matrix, and so doesn't constitute income.
What exactly did you put on the back?

---

'Demand for Lawful Money in the form of Non-Negotiable Bank of Canada Notes at Par Value only. Without Recourse.' I don't put a signature on the back of the check.

For academic interest's sake, I'll describe the normal process of cashing a check at the bank.
I'll skip the lineup and eating the complementary cookies/baking part of the process as it's not uniform... :D
I walk up to the teller. Hand her a check, and tell her I want to cash it. She tells me to swipe me client card (About which I continually grumbled). Then she flips the check over and writes the number of my checking account on the back of the check, (I had a lawful money demand on the back of the check even then, and it seemed to be ignored) then types the amount of the check into the robin print type of calculator. She writes my account number on the top of that as well, then draws a line in the middle underneath the amount of the check. Then on one side she writes the bill denominations that she will give me, then writes the number of bills of those denominations on the other. (I assume that's for cashing out audit purposes.) Once that is done, she prints out a receipt for me to sign, and I would sign it, and she would then count out the money, and give me a second receipt. Then she'd ask me if there's anything else I needed today, and if not, tell me to have a good day.

With what has been going on recently, with the new wording on the back, and striking out 'the order of', I walk up to the counter, hand her the check, and tell her that I want to cash it. She looks at the front and the back, and asks me how I want the bills to come. I say what I want, and she types in the check amount in that paper calculator, and does the same as above without writing the account numbers. (Makes me think that it's for audit purposes or end of shift cash out.) Then she hands me the bills, and asks if there's anything else I need today. I often times see the calculator tape and check attached by paper clip, and in the drawer and the drawer closed before she asks me if I need anything else. She doesn't stamp it either.

Is the process similar at banks in the US??

This behavior makes me wonder if one could write only one's first and middle name, without a surname on the check. Or the surname in brackets, like so: [SURNAME]. I have to find it again, but I read a bulletin from CRA (Canada's IRS) that said that any moneys received under and alias was not taxable. I believe that the IRS had the same thing. Now, if deleting the surname from the check creates and alias, that might form another layer of security. Or putting the surname in in brackets, as brackets are only there for reference.

It would appear that the original meaning of the 'Pay to the order of'' was "Pay xx Dollars to the order of John Doe'. So if you cross out 'to the order of', there remains only 'Pay'.. John Doe xx Dollars. And since it no longer orders the bank to pay a specific person, then it'd be a BEARER note, and so wouldn't even require a signature to cash it. That's a wild guess, but it's about the only thing that'd explain why they cashed the check for the Canadian guy, even though he didn't sign it on the back.

Some old checks even said 'Pay to the order of John Doe OR BEARER xx Dollars', so it would appear that as the account holder you can specify whether a specific person can only cash the check, or anyone can.

Ok, so today, I did the same thing with a refund check. Teller I didn't know, she just made me swipe the card for ID purposes, and asked me to sign the back, which I signed in a box. She didn't ask me to sign a receipt or anything. I didn't see her write the account number on the back, either... After I left, I went to the atm, and watched her in the mirror close by. She was standing there looking at the back of that check for about 3 min before she put it away. She didn't pick up a pen that I saw. Seemed like she was rusty with the process. She's the branch manager...
There are possibly big flashing warning signs on the account when I swiped the card. I did change the sig card a while back.

Again today. Same teller that previously carded me was there to serve me. When I asked her to cash the check, she asked if I had an account at their bank. Just goofing off, I said 'sometimes'. There was a bit of hilarity as her brain was brought to a screeching halt with her mouth in mid motion...
Anyways, she cashed the check, and after stamping and giving me the cash, asked me to endorse the back of the check as proof that she had given me the money. So, I printed [:First-Middle: Last] on the back, and went my merry way. I used the braces as well. She had this 'oh well, I tried' look on her face... lol