March 2000

Check Kiting: Detecting & Minimizing Exposure

Check kiting is similar to a hidden picture puzzle in which one must find a picture or image within a picture. Picture puzzles are amusing games -- check kiting is not. If one cannot find the image in the picture puzzle, it can simply be put away and looked at later. The same does not hold true for check kiting. If a kite is not detected quickly and steps taken to cut it off, losses to financial institutions can be monumental.

According to the American Bankers Association 1998 Check Fraud Survey Report, Third Edition:

  • Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) filed by banks participating in the survey indicated losses ranging from $10,000 to 1.2 million dollars per bank for check kiting in 1997.

  • With respect to expected fraud loss exposure in the next 12 months, community banks rated check kiting as a level 3 exposure on a scale of 1 to 8 (1 equaling the highest exposure).

A Suspect Kite Report is used by most financial institutions to detect kiting and is, in essence, the picture puzzle. The report will typically generate a lengthy list of accounts based on activity parameters indicating that a kite may be taking place. Because the reports can be quite lengthy and often give many false readings, it is not uncommon for staff to ignore the Suspect Kite Report or not give it the attention that it deserves.

Unfortunately, unlike the hidden picture puzzle, the kite puzzle cannot simply be put aside if solving its mysteries becomes too difficult.

The following is a suggested 3-step process for solving the kiting picture puzzle.

Step 1: The Suspect Kite Report

  • Create a centralized kite detection team. Although the Suspect Kite Report should be disseminated to senior management and all account officers, there should be one or two people with sole responsibility for reviewing the report on a daily basis and making the decision to close an account. If one person is given this responsibility, it should not be an account officer. Account officers obviously have a vested interest in maintaining their customer base. They would be more hesitant to objectively view a suspected kite on one of their accounts and take immediate action than would an independent objective party.

  • The Suspect Kite Report must be scrutinized carefully. It is not enough to casually review the accounts listed. Each account should be reviewed specifically for:

  1. Deposit date spread: Are significant deposits being made every one to three days?

  2. Amount of the deposits: Are they large similar dollar amounts?

  3. Overdrafts: Have there been frequent overdrafts on the account?

  4. High risk accounts: Is the account in question a high risk account for kiting such as a commercial account belonging to an auto, boat, recreation vehicle or mobile home dealer? The market for these businesses is very seasonal and they traditionally have cash flow problems. Accordingly, they also pose a greater risk of kiting when compared to other businesses.

Step 2: Account History

If a review of the Suspect Kite Report has created suspicions, further research is necessary.

  • Review the history of the account in question. Has there been a change in the debit/credit pattern for the account? Has the volume of the debits and credits increased dramatically when compared to prior account history?

  • Determine the source of the deposit. If deposits are drawn on multiple financial institutions, there is less likelihood of kiting going on. On the other hand, if the deposits are usually from one or two other financial institutions, the likelihood of an ongoing kite increases substantially. Likewise, it should be determined if the accounts in question are controlled by the same individual(s).

  • Talk to other operations employees and the account officer. Does the customer frequently call for information on account balances or to determine whether a deposit must be made to cover collected or paid items?

  • Review the account balance history. Have there been extreme fluctuations up and down?

  • Review the collected funds balance. Is it low in relation to the book balance for the account?

  • If suspicious, order copies of the actual items deposited into the account in question, as well as checks drawn on that account for review. Are the funds simply going back to where they originated?

  • Complete the above research quickly. Again, time is of the essence when it comes to a kiting scheme.

Step 3: Taking Action

Based on the above review, suspicions of a kite may no longer exist. The account, however, should be flagged for continued review. If, however, there still are suspicions, the following actions should be taken:

  • Review the running balance for the account and determine the amount of potential exposure.

  • Advise the account officer and senior management of the potential kite.

  • Implement exception holds on new items deposited into the account in question. While Regulation CC helps facilitate check kiting schemes by often requiring that funds be made available to depositors before the check has been paid by the drawee institution, it also permits exception holds when banks suspect problems with deposited items. Make sure that the requirements of Regulation CC are followed, such as providing written notification of a hold to the account holder. The customer does not need to be told a kite is suspected. Rather, the bank can simply use the "reasonable cause" hold exception.

  • If the suspicions of kiting are not proven, release the holds. More importantly, if it is determined that a kite is in operation, shut down the account immediately.

  • Immediately return all items received for payment which were drawn on uncollected funds. Do not permit any further deposits into the account other than cash or certified checks.

  • Contact the customer to discuss the bank's findings and determine what the customer will do to cover any overdrafts that may still be on the books.

  • Finally, file a suspicious activity report with FinCEN.

Minimizing Exposure

Early detection is the key to minimizing exposure. Internal controls to this end include:

  • Requiring officer approval on all overdrafts or payments made against uncollected funds. Such approval should never exceed the officer's lending authority.

  • Generating and assigning an individual to review uncollected funds reports, overdraft reports, large item reports and significant balance change reports.

  • Submitting an overdraft report to the board of directors on a monthly basis.

  • Requiring the internal audit function to examine the report generation and review process. Any findings inconsistent with bank policy should be reported to the audit committee and a written response required from the operations area in question.

Conclusion

Check kiting losses can be monumental, costing banks hundreds of thousands of dollars. Have internal controls in place that are consistently followed. Scrutinize the Suspect Kite Report to determine whether there is a hidden picture. If one appears, take immediate steps to close the account and minimize loss.

Solving the kiting puzzle can be a tedious task. Failure to do so, however, can be catastrophic for the bank.

For more detail on coverages, contact your underwriter and ask about our new Check Kiting Rider for the Bond Policy.

 

Employees Can Be Your Best Line Of Defense

When it comes to preventing check fraud, all the training in the world will not help, unless your employees are paying attention to every detail. One method to ensure employee attention is to develop and implement an employee reward program for detecting check fraud. The program should be designed to reward those who follow policies and procedures, use their training to question the suspicious, and thus uncover and prevent fraudulent transactions. A reward program does not have to be elaborate or expensive to be highly effective. Some possibilities are:

  • Recognition for employees who uncover fraud. Everyone likes to be recognized for their efforts. Such recognition can be through an employee newsletter or by posting something on the employee bulletin board.

  • Recognize an employee as the "fraud buster" of the month or year.

  • Provide a parking spot for the "fraud buster" of the month.

  • Award movie tickets, small denomination gift certificates or simply $25 in cash.

Banks that have implemented such programs have all found them to be highly successful. Additionally, the benefits of those programs far outweigh the minor costs associated with the program. The reason for the success is probably very simple. That is, people like to be recognized for doing a good job. Humans also react more favorably to positive stimuli than negative. Positive stimuli will increase morale whereas negative stimuli will have the opposite effect. Additionally, such programs tend to have a contagious effect. When employees see their peers being rewarded, they also want to join in on that recognition and will try much harder to do so.

Employees should also be encouraged to share information. Senior management and the board of directors must be kept informed. Moreover, information must continue to be disseminated throughout the bank. If a scheme was detected at one branch, all branches must be notified immediately of the incident. Likewise, failures should not be covered up but disclosed to all so that other individuals or branches do not make the same mistakes.

Once a bank begins to see results, it should not be lulled into a false sense of security. Check fraud is not a problem that will go away any time soon. How do you keep the criminal and check fraud out of your bank? The same way you get to Carnegie Hall - practice, practice, practice.

 

ClaimsBeat

 

Recent claims...Could this happen to you?

A class action lawsuit was filed against a $160 million bank in the south regarding the credit life insurance that the bank sold. Plaintiffs allege that the bank deceived them by not informing them that the bank was retaining a commission from the amounts the plaintiffs paid for the insurance. While the amount each plaintiff lost was nominal, plaintiffs are seeking punitive damages for fraud.


A disgruntled teller recently filed a charge with the EEOC against a $1.3 billion bank. The employee, a male, claims sex discrimination against the Bank. He claims that he was the only male in the branch and was subjected to much harsher discipline than his female counterparts.

A $550 million bank was sued for, among other things, fraud and extortion by the father of a suspected check kiter. The bank had suffered a multimillion dollar loss as a result of the kite. The bank president allegedly called in the father of the alleged kiter and offered to help his son avoid criminal liability if the father signed over his business to the bank. The complaint seeks 1.7 million dollars in compensatory as well as punitive damages.

A habitually tardy and absent employee recently filed a charge with the EEOC against a $6.5 billion bank. He claims that he was fired in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. He claims he was not terminated because he was habitually tardy and absent but rather because he let management know he was HIV positive.

A $220 million bank was recently sued by an angry customer over a $250 check. The customer claims the bank wrongfully returned NSF a check for $250 and, as a result, the customer was arrested and subjected to criminal prosecution. He claims loss of reputation and severe emotional distress and is seeking punitive damages.

A lawsuit was filed to stop the prospective merger of a $468 million bank into a larger bank. The complaint alleges that insiders negotiated for themselves lucrative employment contracts with the new entity in exchange for recommending that the bank's shareholders ratify the agreement. In addition to injunctive relief, the plaintiffs are seeking over $7 million in damages.