Is a bank required to have adequate cash (FRN) on hand to cash out a large check?

[Magnus the Destroyer]

Having no bank account and minimal ID (a state ID card I got merely for the purpose of being able to cash checks at banks and postal money orders without hassle) I will take checks that I receive in payment to a branch of the bank upon which the check is drawn and cash them there. Usually I have no problems, other than verification of the check with the issuer.

I have in my possession a check for a low five-figure amount (in the teens) drawn on a state-chartered bank. I went to a branch to cash it on the same day it was issued but they claimed they did not have the cash on hand and would have to order it. I expressed the fact that I was miffed at this but instructed them to go ahead and order the cash and have it delivered to my hometown branch, and I let them know I would be expecting to go there and cash it the next day, and that didn't seem to be a problem. I got the branch manager's business card and was instructed to call her the next day to confirm arrangements.

The next day (yesterday) I called the branch manager at the first location but she was out to lunch. Before I went over to the local branch, I called the Federal Reserve with the intent of asking what the regulations were regarding whether a bank was required to have the FRN on hand for a cashing a check of size, but all I got was a voicemail box, so I left a message. Being impatient, I went into the local branch to cash the check, but the branch manager said he had not heard anything about it from the other branch, then gave me the same line as at the other branch, that they don't have that amount of cash on hand and it would need to be ordered, and the soonest it would be was next Tuesday. At this point I expressed my displeasure with the bank's policy and accused them of check kiting. I told them that if I present a check for payment and they didn't have the funds then it was no different from if I had written a check for which funds were not available: it's fraud. The branch manager was unswayed.

I called their corporate office and asked to speak with the CEO. I was able to get a hold of his executive assistant, who told me he was in a meeting and unable to talk to me at the moment. I told her I just wanted to talk to someone with authority to get my check cashed without any further delay. She took notes about my complaint and got my contact information and told me she would have someone get back to me. I did not hear back from anyone by end of day.

When I went back to my office yesterday I did some research in California Jurisprudence and so far have only found information dealing with the criminal aspect of knowingly passing checks with insufficient funds. This does not cover the present situation, where the check is good (the drawing entity certainly has the funds) but the bank claims they don't have the FRN to cash it. I did get a call back later in the day from someone at the FR but she was unable to help, as the bank is FDIC regulated. She also was unable to cite off-hand any regulation regarding the amount of FRN a bank must have on hand for daily operations. I submitted a complaint to the FDIC via their website but the form said if they can answer the inquiry without having to call the bank in question then I would receive a response within 10 days, but if they had to consult with the bank then the reply would be within 60 days. Egads.

Now, this situation is not confined to banks. Would you believe the US Postal Service is one of the worst check-kiting offenders out there? TWICE now, once a couple weeks ago and again yesterday, I brought in a money order that the clerks admitted they could not honor because they didn't have the money in their tills. In the first instance it was a MO for $800, and yesterday's attempt was for $500. Apparently, the only FRN they have at their disposal is what they get from customers that day, and if there isn't enough in the tills to cover it then they basically tell you that you are SOL. Numerous calls to the local and regional and national Postmasters General resulted in getting NOWHERE. Absolute cluelessness seems to reign supreme at the USPS these days.

What is going on here? I thought that if I take a check--certainly a money order--into the institution upon which it is drawn, they have to give me the cash. With the banks, I can kind of see where they would get an out, because they are banks, and banks are apparently immune from the requirements of banking and contract law these days. But with the post office money order, which is supposed to be as good as cash, I don't see how them not having enough money to cash one on demand is anything but a fraud. In both cases, I was able to have the MO honored later on in the day, after the PO had done sufficient business to fill their tills with cash. However, I don't deem it acceptable to be told to "come back later". I don't want to come back later; my time is valuable and gas costs money, and you're supposed to honor these stupid pieces of paper on demand.

Does anyone have any insight on this matter that they can share with me?

Thank you.

[Magnus the Destroyer]

I still don't have an answer to my question, but here's an update on my check:

In short, going to the top does result in action, and the branch manager learned something new today: one is not required to provide a social security number to cash a check over $10,000, despite what some newer regulations might say.

The CEO's office did have someone get back to me, and she was very friendly and extremely helpful. She said she was going to find the cash for me, and where would be the most convenient branch to pick it up? I told her my first and second preferences, and she said to give her a little bit of time but she would be back to me with the word. Sure enough, a couple hours later she told me the cash was waiting for me at my hometown branch.

When I first went in, the branch manager greeted me warmly and invited me over to his desk. We exchanged trivialities and then got down to business. He informed me that they would need me to provide them with additional information because the amount of the check was over $10,000, of which the CEO's assistant already informed me. He handed me a "Check Cashing Application" to fill out. I was slightly agitated by this because I did not know for what I as applying (begging). I filled out my full name, c/o address, and left the SSN, occupation and phone number fields blank. I handed it back to him and when he got around to looking at it he said he would need me to fill it out completely. I then asked him, why is this an application, what am I applying for? He replied that it's an application form for cashing a check over $10,000, which was an obvious answer, but I guess he didn't know how to answer such a stupid question. So I stated that I wasn't interested in applying for anything, and scratched out the words "Application" in two places, then proceeded to fill in my occupation as "Consultant" (I'm sure there's something better I can use in the future, like maybe prepending "Private" to some description of my craft) and my phone number (since they already had it). I put a line in the SSN area and handed it back to him. He then asked me, you don't have a "social"? To which I honestly replied, no (a "social"? don't got one). He then said the only thing he was capable of saying in such a situation, which was "We need to have a social to cash this check", to which I again replied with a very straight face, I don't have one.

Flustered, he excused himself and made a call and spoke to someone in a very quiet voice and explained the situation. He received some instruction, then hung up and told me someone was looking into this and he would have an answer shortly. I told him no problem. He sent off an e-mail with some information to his overseer and we waited. After several long moments, he began typing something on his computer. Being optimistic, I figured it was him replying by e-mail and confirming that everything was a go and he would cash the check. And that's exactly what it was, everything was fine and he just needed to go get the cash from the vault. A few minutes later after some note counting and I was walking out of there with an envelope stuffed with crisp 2006 series hundos in sequential serial number order.

So, no, you do not have to give a social security number to complete a transaction in excess of $10,000 if you are not an account holder of the bank, or you do not have a social security number. That myth is busted

[David Merrill]

Same with the driver license.

Welcome to the furums Destroyer! If you had been around here any longer you would have demanded lawful money and added another victory lap!

Without endorsement of private credit, without your consent and collusion to having less funds in the vault than might be demanded - which FDIC is supposed to handle expeditiously by the way - you might have walked out with your funds within minutes instead of days.

Hopefully you handle large checks often and can tell us how that goes in the near future.

[Jethro]

Magnus -- Would you be able to provide a link to a copy of the "Check Cashing Application" you were asked to fill out? (I have a theory that these "applications" may be mandatory for the bank to submit, but you are under no obligation to help them fill it out).

[David Merrill]

Indeed that brings up the question will they even give you a blank application?

[Magnus the Destroyer]

David, au contraire, my unwitting mentor. I have followed your work casually for a couple years now, and I endorse EVERYTHING of a fiduciary nature with "REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411" and then my signature.

However, you just clued me in to something I obviously missed along the way: by demanding lawful money I am not subject to unspoken rules regarding availability of funds on hand? If this is the case, it is something I will definitely pursue the next time. I will be earning more 4&5 figure checks in the future, and will be happy to do some experimenting. A pointer to what I should be studying is welcome.

Of note was that the upper level fixer that rounded up the money for me volunteered some additional information that was interesting: she said when she spoke to my hometown branch she asked if they could handle cashing the check and she told me that they told her yes; she then said she asked them if it would impact their reserves at all and she told me they said no. So it would seem the only reason they gave me grief was not because they didn't have the cash but because (speculating) their policy did not allow the cashing of such a check to a non-customer without prior arrangements. Otherwise, their reserves can handle it.

[Magnus the Destroyer]

Jethro, it didn't occur to me to get a copy of the application. It was the size of a deposit slip (which in this bank's case is a third of an 8.5x11 page, i.e. like the size of 1800s dollar bills) and was pretty basic. It asked for the usual information: name, address, city, state, zip, phone number, SSN, occupation. At the bottom it specified to write in the amount of the check, then write the numeric amount, then a line for a signature (dang it, just realized I did not qualify my signature, oh well) and date.

When I was relating the story to a colleague later on in the day it occurred to me that the bank was perhaps going to securitize the application, because I've heard say that things like loan or mortgage applications might be getting securitized without our knowledge.

As an aside, I had at the ready an executed alternate W-8BEN form that I had prepared for a customer I had done work for a few weeks ago. It is a form I prepared myself with simply my full name, country ("USA"), entity type ("Individual (Man)"), and domicile (qualified postal address without the US), plus a mandatory IRS disclaimer with which I did not have any problems. I figured at some point it may be necessary to produce it but as it turns out it was not required.

If anyone is interested in a copy just PM me and I'll provide it, or will post it publicly if there's a proper place for it. It's pretty basic, but I know how much nicer it is to start with something that is already developed

[David Merrill]

David, au contraire, my unwitting mentor. I have followed your work casually for a couple years now, and I endorse EVERYTHING of a fiduciary nature with "REDEEMED IN LAWFUL MONEY PER 12 USC 411" and then my signature.

However, you just clued me in to something I obviously missed along the way: by demanding lawful money I am not subject to unspoken rules regarding availability of funds on hand? If this is the case, it is something I will definitely pursue the next time. I will be earning more 4&5 figure checks in the future, and will be happy to do some experimenting. A pointer to what I should be studying is welcome.

Of note was that the upper level fixer that rounded up the money for me volunteered some additional information that was interesting: she said when she spoke to my hometown branch she asked if they could handle cashing the check and she told me that they told her yes; she then said she asked them if it would impact their reserves at all and she told me they said no. So it would seem the only reason they gave me grief was not because they didn't have the cash but because (speculating) their policy did not allow the cashing of such a check to a non-customer without prior arrangements. Otherwise, their reserves can handle it.

Adjusting to the new information then...

If you had been endorsing the FDIC would have had it covered. So the waiting and grief they gave you was probably because you were outside the scope of fractional lending with your Demand?

I love how very revealing this is.

[David Merrill]

Jethro, it didn't occur to me to get a copy of the application. It was the size of a deposit slip (which in this bank's case is a third of an 8.5x11 page, i.e. like the size of 1800s dollar bills) and was pretty basic. It asked for the usual information: name, address, city, state, zip, phone number, SSN, occupation. At the bottom it specified to write in the amount of the check, then write the numeric amount, then a line for a signature (dang it, just realized I did not qualify my signature, oh well) and date.

When I was relating the story to a colleague later on in the day it occurred to me that the bank was perhaps going to securitize the application, because I've heard say that things like loan or mortgage applications might be getting securitized without our knowledge.

As an aside, I had at the ready an executed alternate W-8BEN form that I had prepared for a customer I had done work for a few weeks ago. It is a form I prepared myself with simply my full name, country ("USA"), entity type ("Individual (Man)"), and domicile (qualified postal address without the US), plus a mandatory IRS disclaimer with which I did not have any problems. I figured at some point it may be necessary to produce it but as it turns out it was not required.

If anyone is interested in a copy just PM me and I'll provide it, or will post it publicly if there's a proper place for it. It's pretty basic, but I know how much nicer it is to start with something that is already developed

You can Go Advanced and have Attachments available. Please sanitize to your liking carefully including bleed thru ink stamping on the backside.

Here is some Crosstalk from the brain trust:

On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 4:21 AM, David Merrill <> wrote:

I read your sentence a few times True Name, and still find it quite perplexing:







There is something prophetic about your treatment of time.



Also in the second link we find the author inspired by an influenza-inspired fever! I like that.




Wisdom A Rare Interview with Helen SCHUCMAN (A Course in Miracles).







-----Original Message-----
From: suitor
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 5:16 PM
To: David Merrill
Cc:
Subject: Re: FW: OCC News Release: Comptroller Statement Regarding Civil Money Penalty Against JPMorgan Chase, N.A.



Yes. which prompted a recall about JP shorting the dollar that I heard a while ago, so present that

Now see this

https://www.google.ca/?gws_rd=cr&ei=XtY8UrX9GdG84APoyoDACg#q=jp+morgan+going+long+on+gold

And might as well add this

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/09/20/the-cloud-no-name-no-docs-no-terms-no-balance-due-mbs-investors-screwed-and-taking-borrowers-down-with-them/

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 9:18 PM, David Merrill <> wrote:

These three emails seem significant.

-----Original Message-----
From: OCC Public Affairs [mailtoccpublicaffairs@occ.treas.gov]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2013 7:55 AM
To: sanitized
Subject: OCC News Release: Comptroller Statement Regarding Civil Money Penalty Against JPMorgan Chase, N.A.

NR 2013-141http://www.occ.gov. To receive OCC press releases and issuances by e-mail, subscribe at http://www.occ.gov/tools-forms/subsc...t-service.html.

Subscribe / Unsubscribe to receive OCC press releases and issuances by e-mail.

Interestingly this penalty is the same amount backing the original US notes. A rare glimpse inside a Treasury vault on the SE Corner of the Golden Rectangle Survey reveals a lot about this. One might understand my emphasis better by remembering that the SW Corner is the 1861 Capital of the Territory where Governor GILPIN first issued the fiat that led to the US notes from Washington. GILPIN.

Perhaps more interestingly the best comprehensive collection of history is on the NW Corner - at the Freemason library and museum.



P.S. Enjoy this!

[allysman4evr]

[David Merrill]

Welcome to the forums!

I hear no gist about any looks Magnus got for redeeming lawful money. His point was that he did not need a SSN. Very true.

I do not have a SSN myself. And in the situation Magnus did not have a SSN. This probably requires a transform or paradigm shift about ownership. This is the Lesson Plan for new suitors.

1) identity
2) record forming
3) redeeming lawful money

Since Magnus has been studying for a while I presume his State ID card is signed True Name... First and Middle only. When he uses it he should explain that the State required he make up that trust name but it is better functionally than ID cards from other sources than government.

Having no bank account and minimal ID (a state ID card I got merely for the purpose of being able to cash checks at banks and postal money orders without hassle) I will take checks that I receive in payment to a branch of the bank upon which the check is drawn and cash them there.

I sense a little conditioning but if you think it through, the State ID card is a much higher ID card than the State Driver License - at least it is designed for identification whereas there are actually state statutes I have seen specifying that the Driver License, quite like the SS Card is not to be used for identification purposes. The driver license is competency evidence but it has a photograph and is very handy because it tags the competency to the driver by likeness of the photograph and physical description. This takes a while to grasp too - like my having no SSN.

This is from a transcript that a suitor shared in the brain trust.

That snapshot is for the revenue cause admission but it also demonstrates that the ID Card is for identification and is purchased and remains in possession of the "owner".

If you Search for Crosstalk you may get some insight that there is a brain trust in the background and often it is much easier to just bring a brain trust broadcast Copy and Paste here than rewrite about a topic. Suitors in the brain trust have evidence repositories (2) record forming. Taking these actions and especially executing a default judgment help bring the new suitor through a series of revelations like about possession and ownership.

Magnus did not have a State ID card until he produced one at the bank.

It may be difficult to wrap your mind around that and then, maybe not.

[Chex]

Interesting subject on ID cards. Googled ID card looks like a driver license, but is used for identification purposes only.

Here is what some had to say

http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,1607,7-127-1627_8668---,00.html

http://www.dds.ga.gov/drivers/DLdata...47740603&ty=dl

http://www.dds.ga.gov/secureid/accepteddocs.aspx

http://www.gathergoget.com/

There are two types of identification licenses which may be obtained for identification purposes only. No testing is required (LOL) Why thank you. http://tn.gov/safety/driverlicense/idonly.shtml

Identification (ID) cards. DMV issues ID cards to persons of any age. The ID card looks like a driver license, but is used for identification purposes only. A regular ID card is valid for six years, and a senior citizen ID card is valid for 10 years. To qualify for a senior citizen ID card, you must be age 62 or older. http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/dl_info.htm#idcard

[Moxie]

Browsing one of the above links, I found this quote:

Any applicant who does not have a Social Security Number (SSN) shall complete an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, affirming that the applicant has never been issued a SSN,

If someone has been issued a SS, how does one get around this?

Or, if the SS is already on the drivers license application on file, how does one get around the clerk to correct it?

[keith]

[David Merrill]

It probably falls into "identification requirements" of the bank.

Your post seems to lack an important piece of information. Do you have an account? Or are you cashing the check at your boss's bank? I think that either a trust account # or SSN is required to open an account. If you supply a trust account # the First Trustee must provide the SSN too.

I came across something when declined for a fishing license due to not providing a SSN.





Now if you look up that citation you find the Sporting Goods store is responsible to provide that information. Then you look even closer to find that the SSN is not for identification purposes but that the SSA has been allowed by Congress to share the number for "identification purposes".

So there you have it. At least this smacks of it. The OCC and Homeland Security have the bank manager, not you. "Your" SSN still remains private. But you need that paycheck and if your pal at the bank cannot help you through your privacy issues then I doubt the bank on the other corner will.

Learn trust law. I have found that I came to peace with these things and am much, much happier after doing so. Another approach is my Lesson Plan. We have developed novel process in central banking, outside the scope of central banking - Redemption. So far, so good. If you look at the Albany Remand keep in mind please that for these several "incidents" there are probably a thousand successful lawful money refunds of withholdings. Plus that we can find the mistake that any IRS attorney would have seen in the demand/return process for these "incidents".

The frivolous penalty stalls. We have only seen one 2645C Letter and that is always good news! It usually means full refunds are on the way. Even including penalties and interest for the delay after your claim was made.