Cheque Fraud: Rs 180 -> Rs 75,000 cashed out. Original text was overwritten. Please read the details and help.

[#aniket]

Update: Prospective reply to RBI. Please read and comment.
@its_karan


Request from RBI - send your comments, if any, on the reply received from the regulated entity (bank) (attached) or facts (including documentary evidence) if any

Incorrect Claims by PNB Bank:
(Source - attached document (page 3) titled "Altered Cheque presented in branch as per customer information" sent as internal email within PNB Bank.)
PNB Bank Claim 1:
“These details were clear and no alteration from naked eye were found on the cheque.”
Fact:
This claim is incorrect. The cheque has visible signs of alteration visible under the naked eye. Images of cheque attached here - Pen marks are visible under the text “Five Thousand only”.

Thus, this altered cheque should have been discarded.

[Image of Cheque here]

PNB Bank Claim 2:
“Anwar gave pen to MR XXX XXX to write cheque.” Anwar is the name of the scammer who collected the cheque from me.
Fact:
This claim is incorrect. I used my own pen. I filled the cheque myself. My original handwriting is still visible on the cheque as shown in the cheque image attached.

Improper Cheque Handling Process at PNB
(Proof: CC TV footage video)

1. UV-light check of the cheque was not done by PNB Bank.
2. White-light check was also not done.
3. ID verification of the bearer was not done by PNB.
4. Standard precautions were not followed:
   
   1. No previous transaction pattern of Cheque with my account. Withdrawal of this amount has never been done in my account.
   2. This scammer beneficiary named ”XXXX XXX” is not added anywhere in my account
   3. No history of such an amount withdrawn by Cash-over-Counter in my account.

Violation of the following RBI Guidelines done by PNB Bank-

1. Guideline: Banks are advised that payments for Rs.50,000/- and above should be made through banking channels and not in cash.
   
   RBI Circular: Para 2 of DBOD.No.BP.BC.114/C.469(8.1)-91 dated April 19, 1991
   Title: Misuse of banking channels for violation of fiscal laws and evasion of taxes - issued and payments of demand drafts for Rs.50000/- and above

1. Guideline: in case of transactions carried out by a non-account based customer, that is a walk-in customer, where the amount of transaction is equal to or exceeds rupees fifty thousand, whether conducted as a single transaction or several transactions that appear to be connected, the customer’s identity and address should be verified.
   
   RBI Circular: Para 3 (ii) of the circular DBOD.AML,BS.No.68/14.01.001/2009-10 dated January 12, 2010.

Requests to RBI

1. Conduct thorough analysis of cheque to detect alteration.
   1. By taking possession of Cheque
   2. OR by instructing the PNB Bank to conduct a forensic/ UV light analysis of the cheque.
2. Issue a full reimbursement to me for amount Rs 75,000. And a further mental harassment compensation of Rs 1,00,000 or deemed appropriate by RBI.

In my view, some of your contention as well as interpretation, quoted & highlighted by me in red colour are totally wrong.

Where it's mentioned that UV-light check of the cheque must be done for the cheque amounting ₹75,000
by PNB or any other Bank?

2 lac is threshold which can be increased or decreased subject to board of that respective bank.

White-light check was also not done.
ID verification of the bearer was not done by PNB. Why this needs to be checked? Based on what you're making such allegations like it's mandatory to be checked, without which, cheque clearance is wrongful act?

Banks are never advised that payments for Rs.50,000/- and above should be made through banking channels and not in cash. It's only applicable on getting travellers cheques, demand drafts, or making mail or telegraphic transfers.

This Guideline: in case of transactions carried out by a non-account based customer, that is a walk-in customer, where the amount of transaction is equal to or exceeds rupees fifty thousand, whether conducted as a single transaction or several transactions that appear to be connected, the customer’s identity and address should be verified, is mentioned in 3.2.1 b(vi) of Circular – Know Your Customer (KYC) norms / Anti-Money Laundering (AML) standards/Combating Financing of Terrorism (CFT)/Obligation of banks and financial institutions under PMLA, 2002 instead of Para 3 (ii) of the circular DBOD.AML,BS.No.68/14.01.001/2009-10 dated January 12, 2010.

By taking help of the guidelines in the wrong manner, you can't defend making your position greater than that of PNB, in the eye of RBI's BO.

Kindly correct me if I am wrong.

 

[#aniket]

Hasi kyu aa raha hai aap log (@its_karan @doraemon, & @VISHESH_BANSAL ) ko ?

Kya joke maar diya maine?

 

[its_karan]

because it's specifically for demand drafts but not for clearance of cheque as per my interpretation (Guideline: in case of transactions carried out by a non-account based customer, that is a walk-in customer, where the amount of transaction is equal to or exceeds rupees fifty thousand, whether conducted as a single transaction or several transactions that appear to be connected, the customer’s identity and address should be verified) in this case.

Its for cheques. Where is it mentioned Demand Draft.

Kya kar rahe ho @#aniket bro.

Read this article https://www.moneylife.in/article/banks-cannot-insist-on-id-proof-to-cash-bearer-cheque/50044.html



Bhai, I gave him the Rule only after there was precedence that it was applicable on bearer cheques..

 

[its_karan]

Simple case hai:

PNB has not done CIP(Customer Identification Process). Its a guideline,but becomes necessary when transaction is suspicious

Suspicious transaction hai ki nahi kaise decide kiya PNB ne?

Ye shabd and bol dono RBI ke hai.

 

[#aniket]

Its for cheques. Where is it mentioned Demand Draft.

Kya kar rahe ho @#aniket bro.

Read this article https://www.moneylife.in/article/banks-cannot-insist-on-id-proof-to-cash-bearer-cheque/50044.html

View attachment 56909

Bhai, I gave him the Rule only after there was precedence that it was applicable on bearer cheques..

@its_karan Sorry my bad (Edited), I meant to write against this, Banks are advised that payments for Rs.50,000/- and above should be made through banking channels and not in cash. It's only applicable on getting travellers cheques, demand drafts, or making mail or telegraphic transfers.

He quoted: Para 3 (ii) of the circular DBOD.AML,BS.No.68/14.01.001/2009-10 dated January 12, 2010 instead of
3.2.1 b(vi) of Circular – Know Your Customer (KYC) norms / Anti-Money Laundering (AML) standards/Combating Financing of Terrorism (CFT)/Obligation of banks and financial institutions under PMLA, 2002

This leads to such assumption. I am not at fault completely, OP quoted the refrence and guideline inappropriately.

That's why said demand draft instead cheque.

But mistakenly written twice, and in the meantime quoted wrong guideline and supposed you have suggested the same.

That's why I even said correct me if I am wrong, because I was doubious about that one.

You had quoted this one way before in this thread to defend it I remember.

Apart from this, what about others raised questions? What's your take on that?

 

[Batman]

This leads to such assumption. I am not at fault completely, OP quoted the refrence and guideline inappropriately.

Please help me with the correct guideline reference. I think I simply copy pasted from a Court order, but I may have misplaced it.

This email writing to RBI is more hectic than I originally thought. Too many things to think, reason, research and write appropriately. I may have missed somethings.

 

[#aniket]

Please help me with the correct guideline reference. I think I simply copy pasted from a Court order, but I may have misplaced it.

I have had already mentioned, check it in above para, i.e, 3.2.1 b(vi) of Circular – Know Your Customer (KYC) norms / Anti-Money Laundering (AML) standards/Combating Financing of Terrorism (CFT)/Obligation of banks and financial institutions under PMLA, 2002.

This email writing to RBI is more hectic than I originally thought. Too many things to think, reason, research and write appropriately. I may have missed somethings.

Yes, can understand.

 

[Batman]

I have had already mentioned, check it in above para, i.e, 3.2.1 b(vi) of Circular – Know Your Customer (KYC) norms / Anti-Money Laundering (AML) standards/Combating Financing of Terrorism (CFT)/Obligation of banks and financial institutions under PMLA, 2002.

Thank you. The Court order I copied had the same text placed in a different Master Circular from 2010. Your suggestion from PMLA 2002 may be more suited, since it is a famous order.

I will update my draft.

 

[Pack_of_Cards]

Yeah that is what we call crossed cheque

The two lines drawn on left corner

And the scamster wouldn't have dared to alter a crossed cheque

A/C Payee and cross cheque are different.

Crossed Cheque: If i have to make a payment to you & i give you a crossed cheque, then you will have to put it for clearing & the payment will be credited to your bank account. You could also use the same cheque to make a payment to whomever you have owe money of the same value. This is called as endorsement & is not very much in practice today.

A/C payee cheque: If i have to make a payment to you & i give you an A/C payee cheque, then you will have to put it for clearing & the payment will be credited to your bank account. You cannot use it to make your payment. This kind of cheque is non-endorsable.

 

[Pack_of_Cards]

Some tips for writing a cheque safely:

1. Always cross a cheque with words "a/c payee only". Never give anyone you don't trust a bearer cheque. Cut out "or bearer/ya dharak ko" at the end of name row.

2. To make it even more secure, write payee name as "name surname - abc bank". In this way cheque can only be cleared with that name of account at that bank only. Suppose I am giving a cheque to Mr. Periscope, I'll ask him which bank he intends to clear it and account number. If he doesn't have account number handy, then I'll write "Periscope surname - abc bank limited". This cheque now can ONLY be cleared to account of periscope of ONLY abc bank and no other bank of periscope.

3. If Mr periscope remembers account number then I'll write the cheque as "periscope surname - abc bank account no. 1234567890". This is the most secure way of cheque payment.

Point to be noted that no bank clears cheque which has a date earlier than account opening date. So if Mr. Periscope lies to me about abc bank and then goes to abc bank to open an account for clearing cheque, then it won't happen.

MOST IMPORTANT - Write with your own pen. Never borrow pen or allow others to write it.

If possible use cheque writing software and print cheques.

+1 put a cello tape on cheque (amount and name), so if someone tries to remove it for tampering it will tear the cheque itself, very simple solution. Have seen this on a lot of large amount payments cheques.

 

[telescope]

+1 put a cello tape on cheque (amount and name), so if someone tries to remove it for tampering it will tear the cheque itself, very simple solution. Have seen this on a lot of large amount payments cheques.

yes, one of the age old technique, and effective too.

 

[#aniket]

A/C Payee and cross cheque are different.

Both are crossed cheque, to be precise, one is Crossed Generally and other is Crossed Restrictively, A/c Payee is not mentioned anywhere in law, rather it becomes customary/ standard practice in banking industry. Cheque Crossed Generally and Specially are only mentioned.

Crossed Cheque: If i have to make a payment to you & i give you a crossed cheque, then you will have to put it for clearing & the payment will be credited to your bank account. You could also use the same cheque to make a payment to whomever you have owe money of the same value. This is called as endorsement & is not very much in practice today.

A/C payee cheque: If i have to make a payment to you & i give you an A/C payee cheque, then you will have to put it for clearing & the payment will be credited to your bank account. You cannot use it to make your payment. This kind of cheque is non-endorsable.

Yep

 

[Pack_of_Cards]

Both are crossed cheque, to be precise, one is Crossed Generally and other is Crossed Restrictively, A/c Payee is not mentioned anywhere in law, rather it becomes customary/ standard practice in banking industry. Cheque Crossed Generally and Specially are only mentioned.

Yep

yes agreed, but still writing "ac payee" make sure no one can endorse cheque although endorsements have become a thing of past since the dawn of netbanking

 

[#aniket]

yes agreed, but still writing "ac payee" make sure no one can endorse cheque although endorsements have become a thing of past since the dawn of netbanking

Yes, indeed it's, that's why I said RESTRICTIVE, by restrictive it was meant no further transfer/ endorsement is allowed.

 

[Sudip]

This is an awful incident that happened to a neighbor. I am adding details for you all to read. Some of this may sound silly and stupid, but I am stating facts as they are. Please read and help.

1. Scamster posed as Metlife Insurance employee who needed to collect "final installment" of Rs 180 from neighbor. He had accurate details of insurance policy. He visited neighbor's home to collect, but didn't accept cash. Payment could only be made by cheque.
2. Neighbor wrote a cross cheque (account payee) of Rs 180. He clearly wrote the name, amount (text and number), date and signature in pen.
3. The words on cheque were overwritten. Rs 180 -> Rs 75,000. Name, amount, date are changed. Signature is untouched. The cheque has some indication that words are overwritten. I mean, it is like how pencil is erased but some letters are somewhat visible.
4. Neighbor did not have positive pay facility. He received no call from the bank when cheque was cleared.
5. Complaint and escalations - Bank has taken no responsibility and shifted the blame completely on neighbor.
6. FIR not registered - Police has taken a complaint, but refused to register FIR.

I am attaching masked cheque here. Please take a look for yourselves and suggest possible measures. https://postimg.cc/CB0ykmW4. Note that the cheque might look torn, but it is in one peace.
I am willing to escalate to Nodal, Principal Nodal desk and RBI Ombudsman.

Also, I will push neighbor for FIR being registered - what are the grounds for FIR here?

Meanwhile, I have advised neighbor to keep that account empty.


------------
Update: Adding more details based on comments -

1. Neighbor filled the cheque himself. It was a CROSS cheque. Cross was erased.
2. Neighbor had also signed on back of cheque and written policy number etc. All of that was erased, only signature remained visible.
3. MetLife employee details - Neighbor did not verify employee ID. Even if he did, it wouldn't have been difficult to have a fake ID.
4. Neighbor doesn't remember the pen he used. It could have been scammer's pen.
5. Written complaint done to bank, received their reply as well. I'm attaching it below.
6. CCTV footage available of the scammer. What to do with it?
7. The cheque was indeed encashed without taking ID of scammer. How do I proceed here?
8. I have asked neighbor to tell the bank that cheque must not be destroyed or taken away.

Why Bank may be at fault -

1. Bank didn't ID or KYC the scammer, even though cheque was > Rs 50,000. I found this article that states this guideline. Could someone please help me find RBI guideline for the same?
2. Cheque appears overwritten, but how do I enforce that to the bank? Can RBI do that?

Attached Document: Reply from bank -

1. Please read the doc carefully. Half of it is in Hindi. The bank claims no responsibility. Bank says that the cheque did not appear forged or overwritten.
2. It seems like bank hasn't mentioned the clause for ID verification for cheque > Rs 50,000.

Thanks for sharing this incident, learned several things.

I hope the person receives justice, truly feeling bad for the victim.

 

[devine_mortal]

You should ALWAYS click the picture of cheque you are giving someone. I had this habit from the very start. Enough proof that the cheque was forged.

As for the complaint, give a complaint in writing to the bank, email preferred. Forward this complaint to RBI. In such cases, RBI usually sides with customers. I'm amazed why police didn't register the FIR. If needed, speak to senior police officers at the station. They'll help you.

 

[Batman]

You should ALWAYS click the picture of cheque you are giving someone. I had this habit from the very start. Enough proof that the cheque was forged.

Nope. This isn't enough proof for the bank. The bank simply said "no alteration appeared from naked eye", that basically meant this to my neighbour - you can take your picture and shove it up your ____.

And all this when the cheque clearly has signs of overwriting, if one spends just 15 seconds to look at it.

As for the complaint, give a written complaint in writing to the bank, email preferred. Forward this complaint to RBI. In such cases, RBI usually sides with customers. I'm amazed why police didn't register the FIR. If needed, speak to senior police officers at the station. They'll guide you in properly.

All of this is done.

1. Bank has absolved itself of all the blame.
2. Police had taken a complaint but refused to register FIR. Neighbour met with local SP and the SP directed police to make a visit to the bank. That has happened. No FIR yet.
3. RBI has replied with an email asking for additional documents (just in case we wish to add something). RBI hasn't given their final decision yet.

 

[devine_mortal]

Nope. This isn't enough proof for the bank. The bank simply said "no alteration appeared from naked eye", that basically meant this to my neighbour - you can take your picture and shove it up your ____.

That might not be enough proof for bank but certainly is for RBI and the Police and makes your case stronger. Anyways, that was just my suggestion. Following or not following it is individual's choice.

1. RBI has replied with an email asking for additional documents (just in case we wish to add something). RBI hasn't given their final decision yet.

What other docs were requested?

 

[Batman]

What other docs were requested?

RBI did not specify. Just wrote a standard email asking if we wanted to add any docs as proof. No opinion on the case made yet.

Anyways, that was just my suggestion. Following or not following it is individual's choice.

I understand that you are only trying to help others. I am just pissed off at the bank, because my neighbour followed all the standard practices. He did not commit any mistakes. The bank messed up and isn't owning up to their mistake.

You are right, a picture of the cheque would not satisfy the bank. It might satisfy RBI. The cheque itself is a major proof, RBI just needs to take it under their own umbrella and get it analysed. But no updates yet from RBI.

 

[devine_mortal]

RBI did not specify. Just wrote a standard email asking if we wanted to add any docs as proof. No opinion on the case made yet.


I understand that you are only trying to help others. I am just pissed off at the bank, because my neighbour followed all the standard practices. He did not commit any mistakes. The bank messed up and isn't owning up to their mistake.

You are right, a picture of the cheque would not satisfy the bank. It might satisfy RBI. The cheque itself is a major proof, RBI just needs to take it under their own umbrella and get it analysed. But no updates yet from RBI.

Government banks are still a mess. Any sane person would understand the misses on bank's part. Just wait and see how it goes. You've done what you can.

Atleast with these discussions, many more people on the forum would take precautionary steps going forward.