Check fraud claims worked from the paid check: the type decided from the evidence, and the affidavit, warranty claim and recredit approved together
Recredit the next day, and recover the loss from the bank that took the deposit.
See one case, screen by screen ↓Check Fraud Claims is software for bank claims teams that work check fraud claims: forged and altered checks, from the customer's report to the recovery. Eight agents decide the claim type from the paid image, work out who bears the loss under UCC Articles 3 and 4 and Regulation CC, and assemble the affidavit, the warranty claim and the recredit as one packet. A specialist approves it as the maker and a manager gives the second approval.
AI use cases in banking: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for bank and credit union operations →
Updated
When a customer reports a washed or forged check, four clocks start: the affidavit, the recredit, the notice to the depositary bank and its reply. A specialist pulls the image from the check image archive, compares it by eye with what the customer says they wrote, and decides whether the item was altered, counterfeit, forged at the signature or forged at the indorsement. That decision moves the loss. An altered check or a forged indorsement can be recovered from the depositary bank under the presentment warranties of UCC Articles 3 and 4 and Regulation CC; a forged drawer's signature or a counterfeit usually stays with the paying bank.
Then comes the warranty claim: find the other bank's claims contact, write the letter, attach the images and the affidavit, and send it within 30 days of knowing of the breach, under UCC § 4-208(e). Then the chase, in spreadsheets and email, and replies that deny with "counterfeit, not altered", "untimely" or a part payment of "the balance remaining". A misread type, a late notice or a part payment taken as a settlement becomes a write-off. Check Fraud Claims puts eight agents in front of that work, so the specialist starts from the type decided with its evidence and a packet ready to approve.
Estimated split of a specialist's minutes on one altered-check claim, by hand and with the agents, from the report to the depositary bank's answer. Our estimate, kept modest.
Eight agents read the check against what was written, decide who bears the loss and assemble the packet; a specialist approves it and a manager gives the second approval.
Ruth Calloway, a Corvane National Bank customer since 2009, wrote check 2318 on September 30 for $1,285.00 to Lakeshore Water Utility and mailed it from a street mailbox. It was washed and paid on October 8 for $9,285.00 to Darnell Fitch, deposited by mobile deposit at Fennick Valley Bank. A past-due notice from the utility told her. Here is her claim, CFC-26-41873, screen by screen in the working solution.
Ruth calls the contact center. The intake agent finds item 2318, opens the claim and starts three clocks: the affidavit, the recredit one business day after it is signed, and the warranty notice. The drafting agent fills the affidavit of altered check from the call note and sends it for e-signature at 4:52 PM. Ruth signs at 6:12 PM and uploads her duplicate copy and the utility bill.
E-signed by Ruth A. Calloway · October 21, 2026, 6:12 PM · E-SIGN consent recorded
The comparison agent reads the paid image against her duplicate copy, the bill and six earlier checks. Three fields changed and six are the same: the payee went from Lakeshore Water Utility to Darnell Fitch and the amount from $1,285.00 to $9,285.00, with "Nine thousand" over "One thousand". The signature matches her earlier checks at 0.92 to 0.96, and the stock is Corvane's own, from her March 4, 2026 order, serials 2201 to 2400.
Why not a counterfeit: Corvane's own stock, from Ruth's order of March 4, 2026, serials 2201–2400
Renata opens the claim. At the top, the type the agents decided and why it moves the loss to the depositary bank, with the two rejected types and their scores. On the left, the paid check with five findings pinned to the image. On the right, the claim packet in three parts: the affidavit, signed; the warranty claim to Fennick Valley Bank, send by November 20; the $9,285.00 recredit, due today.
Altered item: payee and amount · confidence 0.96 · floor 0.85
On the back, two more pins: the indorsement "Darnell Fitch", for mobile deposit only at Fennick Valley Bank, and that bank's own stamp, routing 000071946, dated October 6, 2026. Each finding opens its source in one click.
Five questions, each answered with the evidence and the rule. Did Ruth sign this check? Yes. Is it Corvane's own stock? Yes. Was it changed after she wrote it? Yes. Did she meet her duties? Yes, she reported 13 days after payment. Who bears the loss? Fennick Valley Bank, which warranted the item was not altered, under UCC § 4-208(a)(2), § 3-417 and 12 CFR 229.34; as an image, the item is presumed altered under 12 CFR 229.38(i).
"Notice came too late": it goes today, one day after Corvane knew. The limit is November 20.
The notice of breach of presentment warranty states what changed, cites UCC § 4-208(a)(2), 12 CFR 229.34 and 12 CFR 229.38(i), and demands $9,285.00 by November 13, 2026. Five enclosures go with it, with Ruth's phone and address redacted. It is addressed to Fennick Valley Bank's claims manager from the fraud contact directory and goes through the interbank claims exchange, on day 1 of 30.
Renata approves the packet as the maker; she cannot give the second approval herself. Marcus sees exactly what his approval will do before he gives it, with "Return with a reason" beside it.
Renata Solis approved as the maker at 9:24 AM. Approving posts the recredit of $9,285.00 to ··6604 and sends the warranty claim to Fennick Valley Bank.
Marcus approves. The recredit posts from claims suspense and the warranty claim goes to Fennick Valley Bank: reply due November 13, chases on October 29 and November 5, escalation to Marcus if there is no answer. The packet reads 3 of 3 complete, and the next claim is offered: Harold Benning, same depositor.
Fennick Valley Bank owes $9,285.00 by November 13
Ruth's claim is one of seven mailed from ZIP 49441 between September 29 and October 3: $31,644.00 paid on checks written for $1,712.00, at three depositary banks. Three, Ruth's among them, were deposited by the same depositor at Fennick Valley Bank. The pattern agent drafts the referral to BSA investigations with the FinCEN key term FIN-2023-MAILTHEFT, for a maker and a checker to approve.
Never on: customer letters, online banking, statements, branch notes
Brenner Plains Bank denies Gail Morrow's $7,150.00 claim on check 1442: "The item presented appears to be a counterfeit, not an altered check." The agents read the reply, note that the check is on her own stock and signed by her, and draft the rebuttal citing 12 CFR 229.38(i) and UCC § 4-208(a), asking for $7,150.00 by November 6, 2026. A maker and a checker approve it before it goes.
The same claims, seen by the people who decide, approve, defend, book and audit them: what their day looked like, and what it looks like now.
Eight agents read the check against what was written, decide who bears the loss and assemble the packet; a specialist approves it and a manager gives the second approval.
Reads the claim from the contact center, online banking or a branch, finds the paid item in the core banking system, opens the claim and starts its clocks.
Compares the paid image with what was issued: the positive pay file, the duplicate copy, the bill-pay record and earlier paid checks. Decides the claim type, scores the rejected types and pins each finding to the image.
Applies UCC §§ 3-417, 4-207, 4-208, 4-401 and 4-406, Regulation CC §§ 229.34 and 229.38(i) and the deposit agreement: who bears the loss, how much, and by when.
Fills the affidavit, the warranty claim with its enclosures, the customer letter and every rebuttal and demand, with each field tied to its source.
Finds the depositary bank's claims contact, sends approved claims through the interbank claims exchange, chases before the reply is due and reads every reply.
For claims other banks send against Corvane, checks the deposit, the image, the depositor and the balance, and proposes a hold, a payment or a denial.
Posts approved recredits from claims suspense, matches incoming recoveries to their claims and proposes write-offs with their general ledger entries.
Links claims that share a depositor, a depositary bank, a mailing area or an alteration style, and drafts the referral to BSA investigations with the FinCEN key term.
Maker and checker on every recredit, claim and write-off; over $25,000 the head of claims. The agents propose; a named person decides.
Ask in plain words, or say what to do. Every answer cites the image, the record or the rule, then opens the screen it is about.
Why is Ruth Calloway's check an altered item and not a counterfeit?
Because the check is hers and so is the signature; only the payee and amount changed. Check 2318 is on Corvane's consumer stock from her March 2026 order, in sequence, and the signature matches six earlier checks at 0.94. Her duplicate copy shows $1,285.00 to Lakeshore Water Utility. An altered item moves the loss to Fennick Valley Bank under the presentment warranty, UCC 4-208(a)(2).
Which of my claims are due today or tomorrow?
Six clocks run out by Friday. Today: Ruth Calloway's recredit, $9,285.00. Tomorrow: recredits for Harold Benning ($4,870.00), Evelyn Tran ($612.40) and Benjamin Ostrowski ($5,120.00), your decision on Joyce Whitcomb's late report, and Marcus Delaney's escalation on Cordell Mechanical.
Draft the rebuttal to Brenner Plains Bank's counterfeit denial
Drafted, for your approval and Marcus Delaney's. Check 1442 is on Gail Morrow's own stock and signed by her; only the payee was rewritten. Presented as an image, it is presumed altered under 12 CFR 229.38(i). The rebuttal asks for $7,150.00 by November 6.
Show the mail-theft pattern around ZIP 49441
Seven claims in ten days, $31,644.00, deposited at three banks. All seven checks were mailed from ZIP 49441 between September 29 and October 3 and washed the same way; three went to one depositor at Fennick Valley Bank. The referral to BSA investigations is drafted with the key term FIN-2023-MAILTHEFT, and none of it appears on a customer's view.
13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.
Every clock, limit and floor is a setting with a version. The claims administrator proposes a change, and the Head of Fraud & Claims Operations approves it before it is in force.
| Setting | Default | Choose from |
|---|---|---|
| Affidavit due | 10 days | 1 to 30 business days after the customer reports |
| Recredit after a signed affidavit | 1 business day | 1 to 5 business days; altered items and forged indorsements up to $25,000, procedure CC-4.2 |
| Send the warranty notice by | 25 days | Up to 30, the limit in UCC 4-208(e); the target keeps a margin |
| Reply expected | 15 business days | 1 to 30 business days after sending, before escalation |
| First chase | Day 5 | Day 1 to 10; the second chase follows five business days later |
| Write-off that needs the head of claims | Over $25,000 | In steps of $5,000; below it, the Claims Operations Manager approves |
| Comparison agent confidence floor | 0.85 | 0.60 to 0.99; liability 0.90, recovery 0.85 and pattern 0.80 set the same way |
| Keep claim records | 5 years | After the claim closes, under the BSA five-year rule |
Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.
“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, to be measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (FinCEN SAR filing statistics on fincen.gov: nearly 682,000 check-fraud SARs in 2024; a community bank's comment of September 18, 2025 to the OCC, Federal Reserve and FDIC request for information on payments fraud, RIN 3064-ZA49, on fdic.gov: $64,651.53 charged off on two checks called "counterfeit, not altered"). Rules named: UCC §§ 3-417, 4-207, 4-208, 4-401 and 4-406; Regulation CC, 12 CFR 229.34 and 229.38(i); FinCEN Alert FIN-2023-Alert003; the BSA five-year recordkeeping rule, 31 CFR 1010.430. Corvane National Bank, Fennick Valley Bank, Brenner Plains Bank, Ashgrove Savings Bank and the people, checks, accounts and numbers named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.
Check Fraud Claims is software for bank claims teams that work check fraud claims: forged and altered checks, from the customer's report to the recovery. Eight agents decide the claim type from the paid image, work out who bears the loss under UCC Articles 3 and 4 and Regulation CC, and assemble the affidavit, the warranty claim and the recredit as one packet. A specialist approves it as the maker and a manager gives the second approval.
Usually not the paying bank. The bank that took the deposit warranted that the check was not altered, under UCC 4-208(a)(2) and 3-417 and, for electronic items, 12 CFR 229.34, so the paying bank can recover the amount it paid. A forged drawer's signature or a counterfeit usually stays with the paying bank. That is why the comparison agent scores the rejected types beside the one it chose.
There are several. Under UCC 4-208(e), the warranty claim must be sent within 30 days after the bank has reason to know of the breach, or the depositary bank is discharged to the extent the delay causes loss. The customer's own deadline comes from the deposit agreement and UCC 4-406; in the working solution, a report 80 days after the statement, against the 60 the agreement allows, is flagged, and the specialist asks the manager for a policy exception or denies it with a reason.
It is the paying bank's demand that the depositary bank repay an altered check, because that bank warranted the item was not altered. In the working solution, the drafting agent writes the notice with what changed, the rules cited, the demand and five enclosures, and the recovery agent sends it through the interbank claims exchange only after a maker and a checker approve.
The recovery agent reads every reply. For a counterfeit denial, the agents point to the evidence that the check is on the customer's own stock and signed by them, and cite the Regulation CC presumption of alteration for an electronic image, 12 CFR 229.38(i). The rebuttal is drafted when the reply arrives, and a part payment is never accepted as a settlement: the rest is demanded.
No. Referrals and mail-theft patterns are visible only to claims, BSA and audit roles, and a tipping-off check runs on every customer letter before it can be sent. The pattern agent drafts the referral to BSA investigations; it never files a SAR, and that decision stays with the BSA officer.
Yes. The agents never move money, post to the ledger, place a hold, send to another bank or file with a regulator. A specialist approves every packet as the maker and a different person gives the second approval; below an agent's confidence floor, the specialist decides the type with a reason code.
The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your claims procedure, deposit agreement, letter templates and a sample of past claims, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own claims first.
Every scam claim decided on time, the same way by every handler, with half recovered.
1-min demoWire & Instant Payment RecallEach request reaches the beneficiary bank in minutes, while there is money to freeze.
1-min demoFirst-Party Fraud DetectionFalse claims denied on the evidence, and no genuine victim denied.
1-min demoWe'll run Check Fraud Claims on a sample of your own past altered and forged check claims.