When we identify a duplicate event on a large scale, we use the Fed's duplicate check notification service to notify the affected FIs.  What are the best practices for notification of small duplicate events and to FIs that don't subscribe to FedMail?  It is very time consuming to send letters to the affected FIs or to attempt a phone notification, especially when it is one of the big banks.

We've been discussing on the linkedin RDC Network page the issue of fraud.  One of the suggestions was to have the customer endorse the check with "For Mobile Deposit with [FI] on [date]".  As John Leekley correctly pointed out he worte a piece on that in 2011, but having the customer write the Financial Institutes name, possibly account number in the endorsement section of the check would help combat duplicates.  I don't think that there will ever be a way to stop Bad Individuals from trying to defraud FIs, but we can deter them from making poor choices and make it harder for them to complete the fraud.

If they don't endorse the check correctly then there needs to be a 'penalty' say, an 11 day hold.  I know that sounds excessive, but if 11 days is too long for the FI, then a 5 day hold, or what the FI feels is appropriate. 

Repeated incorrect endorsements and the customer risks losing the privilege of using mRDC.

While there is no "Silver Bullet", one step which has not been discussed is to create a "Duplicate Block" at the core DDA level. Both BOFDs and Paying Banks could code their systems to ID check (and ACH) payments and automatically reject / send to return items any "Duplicates". Why wouldn't this work? What are the tradeoffs? 

Restrictive endorsements are great in theory, but since the customer can use any image as the back of the check with mobile capture there is no way to ensure the physical item is endorsed. 

chrisk wrote: Restrictive endorsements are great in theory, but since the customer can use any image as the back of the check with mobile capture there is no way to ensure the physical item is endorsed. 

I agree. 

We do not offer MRDC at this time, but are dealing with a growing number of duplicate items mostly in the way of paychecks written by our depositors that are being negotiated twice.  The latest incident involved 2 items that were deposited via MRDC at one of the "big banks" and then 2 months later, the same items were negotiated in a branch of that same "big bank" after the individual crossed out the restrictive endorsement -(and initialed it, so I guess that makes it ok? So much for that solution).  I don't know what story was given to the teller, why the items weren't flagged as duplicates, or why, if they were flagged as duplicates, they were allowed to pass to FRB for payment.

The biggest challenge, as in all technology, is apparently still the Human factor.

As I type this, I wonder why FRB doesn't offer a duplicate detection solution?  They have access to a large majority of all of the items that are presented for payment on a daily basis . . .

Indeed, there is no single solution to RDC Risk Management, nor to dealing with or preventing duplicates. However, if anything can be done that has even a chance of preventing duplicates, why wouldn't you do that? Approach # 1 that works 60% of the time combined with approach #2 that works 20% of the time, combined with approach #3 that works 40% of the time, etc. etc. etc. will all help increase the chances of preventing duplicates and / or losses. I do not think there is a realistic 100% solution, but if each incremental step gets us closer to that 100% goal, why not take it?

As collection manager for large check cashing operation past 8 years, I encounter about one return check/month marked 'duplicate' entry. Its time consuming collecting from BOFD. Forget collecting from payee. They are usually fully aware of the fraud. Sometimes our bank collects for us from the BOFD who in turn will collect from payor bank. If that fails I assert 'holder in due course' status in court against drawer. They are an innocent party, as we are> They are usually pretty upset. I explain to them there is a mechanism by which they can recoup any double payment. Anyway, once the Judge affirms our 'holder in due course' status and the drawer pays the judgment, the drawer can collect from their bank who then recoups from BOFD. They recoup from the customers bank under warranty provisions against duplicate presentment who hopefully recoups from their customer who presented the check twice or more. Very messy and time consuming.