What is a Copy?

According to Regulation CC a copy of an original check means any paper reproduction of an original check, including a paper printout of an electronic image of the original check, a photocopy of the original check or a substitute check (See Regulation CC, Section 229.2(bbb)).

What is a Sufficient Copy?

According to Regulation CC, a sufficient copy is a copy of an original check that accurately represents all of the information on the front and back of the original check as of the time the original check was truncated or is otherwise sufficient to determine whether or not a claim is valid (See Regulation CC, Section 229.2(bbb)).

When are the terms Copy and Sufficient Copy used?

These terms are only used in the context of Check 21 within Regulation CC for Expedited Recredit claim process. (See Regulation CC, Sections 229.54 and 229.55).

When would a Sufficient Copy be used?

A Sufficient Copy may be useful to a bank in responding to or validating an Expedited Recredit claim. If the copy is not accurate in the area needed to satisfy the claim, it would not be a Sufficient Copy. A copy of an original check does not have to accurately represent all the information on the original check to be a Sufficient Copy. If a claim is made disputing the dollar amount of the check, but the dollar amount on the copy is legible enough to identify the correct amount even if the front of the check on the copy was blurry, the copy would be a Sufficient Copy since it would resolve the claim. (See Commentary to Regulation CC Section 229.2(bbb)).

The first depository institution to take an item for collection other than the Paying Bank (See Section I(S)) and Section 229.1(o) of Regulation CC). It is also known as Bank of First Deposit or BOFD.

Depositary Bank has a legal definition (see question 1), while return location is identified in the ANSI X9.100-187 standard as the location to which returns shall be sent. Regulation CC allows a Depositary Bank to arrange with another bank to apply that other bank’s indorsement for purposes of return processing. (See Section 229.35(d) of Regulation CC).

ECCHO has implemented an ECCHO Rules Dispute Resolution Escalation Policies and Procedures. These procedures identify and provide an avenue for Members to escalate issues before using the Dispute Resolution Procedures as defined in the Rules or initiating litigation for alleged violation of the Rules. These procedures can be found here. The Rules have Dispute Resolution Procedures in Section XIV; if the requirements of that section are met an ECCHO Member may file a dispute. If an ECCHO Member is not following the Rules, and the ECCHO Member has not responded to requests from your bank to address compliance, a bank can discontinue exchanging with that member (See Section II(C)).

Sponsored Members should, if appropriate, generally work through their Sponsoring Organizations. A complaint may be filed with ECCHO who will then escalate the dispute depending on the type of member in accordance with the procedures (See ECCHO Rules Dispute Resolution Policies and Procedures).

No.

Duplicates continue to be a challenge for the banking industry. For information about certain issues associated with duplicate presentment of check images as well as posing FAQs regarding duplicates click here.

Scenario: Payee Customer of BOFD Bank A uses remote deposit capture to deposit a check image of a paper check with BOFD Bank A. The check is drawn on Paying Bank C, and is cleared through a check image exchange network to Paying Bank C which pays the item and posts the item to the Drawer Customer’s account. The Payee Customer then takes the paper check to BOFD Bank B and deposits the paper check with BOFD Bank B either in paper form or in check image form by means of remote deposit capture. The check image is presented for payment to Paying Bank C. Paying Bank C either returns the item to BOFD Bank B within the midnight deadline or Paying Bank C pays the item, potentially posts the item to the Drawer Customer’s account, and subsequently makes a warranty claim to BOFD Bank B or BOFD Bank A for the duplicate payment of check images arising from the same item. It is assumed that BOFD A, BOFD B and Paying Bank C are ECCHO members or otherwise subject to the ECCHO Rules, and that the ECCHO Rules govern the check image exchange in question.

Assuming there is a duplicate payment relating to check images from the same paper check, can Paying Bank C make a warranty claim under ECCHO check image rules against either BOFD Bank A or BOFD Bank B for the duplicate payment?

In the above scenario, is there a basis for a claim for loss sharing under the ECCHO Rules between BOFD Bank A and BOFD Bank B, in the event one of the two BOFDs incurs liability as a result of a duplicative payment warranty claim from Paying Bank C?

Do different indorsements associated with two check images indicate that the check images must have arisen from different paper checks even if the front of the check image appears to be identical?

There is currently no law that specifically governs image exchange. The UCC and Regulation CC govern paper checks. Check 21 only authorized the Substitute Check. OC3 and Regulation J govern exchanges through the Federal Reserve. The UCC allows truncation by agreement; the ECCHO Rules, as clearing house Rules, are that agreement. Many private sector image exchanges utilize the ECCHO Rules. (See this white paper for more information about need for rules.)

The ECCHO Rules incorporate UCC 3 and 4 and Regulation CC. The Rules deem an Electronic Image and Electronic/Image Return as an “item” for purposes of the UCC and a “check” for purposes of Regulation CC. This establishes that the Electronic Image and Electronic/Image Return is subject to and governed by the UCC and Regulation CC (See Sections XIX(F) and XX(E)).

There are a number of operational types of differences due to the difference in media. For example, under the UCC a Sending Bank is responsible to deliver the paper checks to a Receiving Bank. Under the ECCHO Rules the Sending Bank is also responsible for the delivery of the images, but there is a requirement for the Receiving Bank to manage its electronic connection (See Sections XIX(G)(1) and XX(F)(3)). Since the media of exchange is different, certain warranties regarding images have been added to the ECCHO Rules, for example a warranty that the image is an acceptable copy of the original item. (See Section XIX(L) for complete list of warranties.)

One of the most significant differences is the incorporation of Rule 9 into the ECCHO Rules. (See FAQs on Rule 9 for more information on Rule 9). Under the UCC, the Paying Bank is responsible for validating the signature of the drawer on the check. If that check is forged or counterfeit, the Paying Bank must make this determination within the midnight deadline and return it. Rule 9, under certain circumstances, moves this liability to the Depositary Bank.

4

Yes. Under the ECCHO Rules the Depositary Bank warrants that the signature on the check is not forged or unauthorized and the check is not counterfeit (Section XIX(O)(2)). Under the UCC there is no liability on the part of the Depositary Bank for the drawer signature.

Items eligible for exchange under the ECCHO Rules must be defined as a “check” under Section 229.2(k) of Regulation CC and must be Fully Qualified (unless agreed otherwise). The Members also must have entered into an agreement and the item is eligible for imaging under that agreement (See Sections XIX(C)(1) and XX(C)(1)).

Yes. Even though U.S. Savings Bonds are not checks as defined under Regulation CC, certain Bonds can be imaged and transmitted under the ECCHO Rules (See Section XVII). To determine which U.S. Savings Bonds are eligible, click here.

No. Under Reg CC an item payable in a medium other than United States money is not a check (See Regulation CC Section 229.2(k)) A check must be drawn off a U.S. bank and contain a U.S. routing number.

Yes. There is no distinction in Regulation CC and therefore under the ECCHO Rules of business versus consumer checks (See Regulation CC Section 229.2(k))

Yes. In most cases state warrants are demand instruments and can be exchanged (See Regulation CC Section 229.2(k)).

No. Registered warrants are typically debt instruments (IOUs) and are not a check eligible for exchange (See Regulation CC 229.2(k)).

No. For an item to be eligible under the ECCHO Rules it must be a “check” as defined in Regulation CC (See Section 229.2(k)). A check is defined in Regulation CC as “negotiable demand draft”. Under UCC (3-104) a “negotiable instrument” means an “unconditional promise or order”. An “order” under UCC means a written instruction to pay and a “writing” includes printing, typewriting or any other intentional reduction to tangible form (See UCC Sections 3-103 and 1-201).

Yes. Under Regulation CC a noncash item includes an item that has not been pre-printed or post-encoded in magnetic ink with the routing number of the Paying Bank. For an item to be eligible for image exchange under the ECCHO Rules it must have magnetic ink in the Paying Bank routing number field. A bank sending an item without magnetic ink in the paying bank routing number field may be liable under the warranty to comply with the requirements of the ECCHO Rules. The Sending Bank would only be liable to the extent that the loss at the Receiving Bank was suffered as a result of the breach of warranty. The Receiving Bank would have to establish that the lack of magnetic ink on the paper item was the cause of the loss at the Receiving Bank (See Section XIX(C) Commentary).

Yes. According to the ECCHO Rules an item must be a “Fully Qualified Item” in order to be eligible for image exchange (See Section XIX(C)(1)(b.i)). This means it must have full field MICR encoding in routing transit number, and when encoded amount field, on-us field, auxiliary on-us field and EPC field (See Section I(Z)). Fully qualified items do not have missing information or asterisks. If anywhere in the MICR line is unreadable then the item is not Fully Qualified. Normally the original check is encoded with the routing transit number, on-us field consisting of the account number and check number and on business size checks the auxiliary on-us field. If the original check does not contain all these fields the item may still be considered Fully Qualified; a Fully Qualified item includes all characters that are encoded on the original check.

The ECCHO Rules require all MICR line information from the Fully Qualified Item. Banks must use acceptable industry practices to interrogate all fields of the check or image. The Sending Bank cannot include any character not contained in the MICR line (See Section XIX(C)(1)(a.ii)-(c.ii)).

Yes. By separate agreement (outside of the ECCHO Rules) there are two provisions for non-fully qualified item exchanges under the ECCHO Rules, Section XIX(C)(3) and (4):

As-Read MICR – items containing asterisks in place of unreadable characters for any locations in the MICR line other than the Routing Transit and Amount fields.

RNA Partial MICR – only information populated in the Routing Number and Amount fields.

Full field encoding and Fully Qualified Items are synonymous under the Rules. The term “full field MICR encoding” is used to define a Fully Qualified Item (See Section I(Z)).

Yes. Under Regulation CC a noncash item includes an item that has not been pre-printed or post-encoded in magnetic ink with the routing number of the Paying Bank. For an item to be eligible for image exchange under the ECCHO Rules it must have magnetic ink in the Paying Bank routing number field. A bank sending an item without magnetic ink in the paying bank routing number field may be liable under the warranty to comply with the requirements of the ECCHO Rules. The Sending Bank would only be liable to the extent that the loss at the Receiving Bank was suffered as a result of the breach of warranty. The Receiving Bank would have to establish that the lack of magnetic ink on the paper item was the cause of the loss at the Receiving Bank (See Section XIX(C) Commentary).

The requirements for the MICR line on an IRD are not covered by the ECCHO Rules, but by Regulation CC and the ANSI X9.100-140 standard. Regulation CC says that a Substitute check must bear the MICR line that, except as provided under ANSI X9.100-140, contains all the information appearing on the MICR line of the original check at the time that the original check was issued and any additional information that was encoded on the original check’s MICR line before an image of the original check was captured (See Reg CC 229.2(aaa)). ANSI X9.100-140 allows the creator of an IRD to correct the fields that have MICR data in error either from a correction strip or on the original item. If the amount field was not present on the original check, the IRD creator shall include the amount field on the IRD unless other agreements allow omission of the amount. The standard also says blank spaces on the original code line within a MICR field do not have to be reproduced but other symbols including the dash or On-Us symbols needs to be reproduced on the IRD MICR line (See ANSI X9.100-140 clause 6.1.5.2).

For more information about the technical usage of indorsements click here.

No. For purposes of the ECCHO Rules there is no difference. In UCC and Regulation CC indorsement is spelled with an “I”; ECCHO incorporates UCC and Reg CC within the ECCHO Rules (See Sections XIX(F) and XX(E)) and therefore maintains that spelling. Endorsement with an “E” is the generally used term outside of banking laws and regulations.

An electronic indorsement is an addendum record. The ECCHO Rules define an Electronic Indorsement (See Section I(V)) as an electronic record associated with the Electronic Image or Electronic Image/Return that identifies the routing number of the bank that handled the Electronic Image or Electronic Image/Return and conforms to applicable industry standards (See ANSI X9.100-187) for the use of electronic indorsements in check image collection. In the ANSI X9.100-187 file, the Check Detail Addendum A Record (Type 26), Return Addendum A Record (Type 32), Check Detail Addendum C Record (Type 28) and Return Addendum D Record (Type 35) carry the electronic indorsements. Electronic indorsements should not be confused with physical indorsements which are printed, stamped or written on the back of a check or overlay indorsements which are electronically placed on the image. Electronic indorsement records are not part of the physical check, do not appear on the image of the check and are not visual in the image of the check.

Yes, there are technical limitations on the number of addendum (indorsement) records per transaction that can be used in image exchange and on an IRD. See ANSI X9.100-187 standard for image exchange (See clauses 10.13, 11.2, 13.2, 14.7, 15.2 and 18.2) and ANSI X9.100-140 standard for creation of IRDs (See clauses 6.2.1.3.2 and 6.2.1.3.4) for a full explanation of the addendum records and the technical limitations on the number of addendum records.

Yes. The Rules require the Sending Bank to provide an Electronic Indorsement that indicates whether it is the Depositary Bank or a Collecting Bank. Each Sending Bank must provide an Electronic indorsement (See Section XIX(E)(2)). A Sending Bank that is the Depositary Bank is required to include in its Electronic Indorsement the routing number for the return of the Electronic Image (See Section XIX(E)(3)).

The Sending Bank may identify a different bank as the Depositary Bank, provided that the bank identified is the bank to which the returned item is to be routed. If the Sending Bank identifies a different bank as the Depositary Bank, the Sending Bank shall also include its own Electronic Indorsement indicating it is a Collecting Bank (See Section XIX(E)(3)).

The ECCHO Rules are silent on Payee Indorsements. Click here for a white paper on the need and/or requirements for a payee indorsement.

Physical bank indorsements are not required on the image exchanged under ECCHO Rules. Electronic Indorsements are defined in the Rules (Section I(V)) which is an electronic record associated with the Electronic Image that identifies the routing number of the bank that handled the Image. Section XIX(E)(1) makes an electronic indorsement the legal equivalent of a written indorsement on a physical check for exchanges under the ECCHO rules. This Section also states that the electronic indorsement is an “indorsement” for all purposes including purposes of the Code and Reg CC. Finally, Regulation CC in Section 229.35 recognizes that banks use electronic indorsements by stating that a reconverting bank may create a substitute check (the legal equivalent of the original check) using indorsements that were applied electronically.

The Electronic Image does not match the MICR information in the related presentment notice (See Section I(D)(5)).

The mis-matched MICR item can be adjusted back to the bank that sent you the item. (See Exhibit II 2 and 2a). Under some exchange models an administrative reason return can be used (See Section I(D)).

Presentment could still occur on the Electronic Image even if the Presentment Notice (MICR data) does not contain all or any of the MICR line information from the Electronic Image. For example during the creation of the Presentment Notice, the MICR line information was placed within the Presentment Notice that does not match the MICR line information reflected in the Electronic Image. This Presentment Notice may refer to a different Electronic Image. Although presentment may have occurred, the Sending Bank would have breached warranties under the Rules or applicable law (See Section XIX(H) Commentary). For example there may be an encoding error with the mis-matched MICR item or a breach of the warranty that says the Electronic Image accurately corresponds to an item described in a Presentment Notice (See Section XIX(L)(5)).

For forward presentment of an Electronic Image, that Electronic Image contains a routing transit number that does not belong to the Receiving Bank or an institution authorized to process the item for the Receiving Bank (See Section I(JJ)).

Yes. For an Electronic Image/Return, the Electronic Image/Return was returned and charged to an entity other than the Depositary Bank, the Depositary Bank’s agent or any subsequent Collecting Bank (See Section I(JJ)).

The ECCHO Rules do not impose any unique obligations on Banks handling of a NOI in a check image exchange (See Section I(JJ) Commentary). Banks are however required to act reasonable when they receive an item.

If a Member receives an Electronic/Image Return for which it is not the Depositary Bank or has not agreed to act as returning bank, the Member shall return the Electronic/Image Return to the Depositary Bank (or a bank agreeing to act as a returning bank) according to the return routing hierarchy as established under the Rules. However if there is insufficient information to correctly route the return, the Electronic/Image Return should be sent to the Returning Member via an adjustment process indicating the return was mis-routed (See Section XX(D)(9)).

As long as the bank acts in accordance with the responsibilities of a collecting bank under the UCC, it is not liable for any loss incurred due to the handling of the misdirected item (See Section XX(D)(9)).

An Electronic Image is presented to the Paying Bank when both the Presentment Notice (MICR data) and Electronic Image are received or made available to the Paying Bank at its designated locations (See Section XIX(H)(1)).

A Presentment Notice is associated with a particular Electronic Image if the Presentment Notice contains a record number or control number that cross references the notice to a particular Electronic Image. A Presentment Notice is also associated with a particular Electronic Image if the image exchange system or computer recordkeeping system that stores or transmits the Electronic Image and the Presentment Notice logically correlates the Presentment Notice with the Electronic Image (See Section XIX(H) Commentary).

Under the UCC (Section 4-401) a bank can post a check to its customer’s account once presentment occurs. For returns both the UCC return midnight deadline (Section 4-301) and the Regulation CC (Section 229.30(9)) expeditious return times are based on when presentment occurred.

Presentment could still occur on the Electronic Image even if the Presentment Notice (MICR data) does not contain all or any of the MICR line information from the Electronic Image. For example during the creation of the Presentment Notice, the MICR line information was placed within the Presentment Notice that does not match the MICR line information reflected in the Electronic Image. This Presentment Notice may refer to a different Electronic Image. Although presentment may have occurred, the Sending Bank would have breached warranties under the Rules or applicable law (See Section XIX(H) Commentary). For example there may be an encoding error with the mis-matched MICR item or a breach of the warranty that says the Electronic Image accurately corresponds to an item described in a Presentment Notice (See Section XIX(L)(5)).

In certain cases the Electronic Image will not be deemed presented because it did not meet the requirements for presentment. For example, the cash letter file does not contain an Electronic Image. In other cases, presentment will occur. For example a duplicate Electronic Image or an Electronic Image with mismatched MICR (drawn on the Paying Bank identified in the MICR line) (See Section I(D) Commentary). Presentment may also depend on the network and/or exchange used.

No. Developing and following an objective definition of image quality has proved elusive. In addition, the jargon to describe image quality has not been precise and is frequently not helpful. It has been determined that the ability to use the image, is more important than the appearance of the image. The FSTC study (FSTC’s final report Phase 2 “Image Quality and Usability Assurance”) did identify certain characteristics that may identify an unusable image and the measurements of the image could also serve to indicate the usability of the image. A discussion on Image Quality Standards and these measurements can be found in Exhibit VI.

Yes. A Sending Bank warrants that the Electronic Image is an Acceptable Copy of the Related Physical Check. This is the quality warranty. (See Section XIX(L)(4) and Section XX(J)(3)).

It is an accurate representation of the information contained on the front and back of the check that allows usability consistent with the usability of the check. Usability is the presence and legibility of the information in a digital representation of a check necessary to perform a specific function. An Acceptable Copy of Related Physical Check may be an image, photocopy, microfilm or other reproduction copy. (See Sections I(A) and I(LLL)).

Yes. If the Sending Bank can establish that the loss would have occurred had the original check been sent to the Receiving Bank, then the Sending Bank is not liable. See Commentary to Section XIX(L)(4).

The ECCHO Rules do not require a Sending Bank to repair an item (See Section III(C)). The Rules do require that in order for an item to be eligible for exchange it must be Fully Qualified (See Fully Qualified Items B1). An allowable repair under the Rules would be to repair a 4-4 routing number to a 9-digit routing number by eliminating the dash and calculating the check digit in accordance with industry standards (See Section XIX(C) Commentary).

This will depend on the type of repair preformed. A Sending Bank repairing the routing number and amount information warrants that the item is correctly repaired and damages for a breach of this warranty shall not exceed the consideration received by the Sending Bank for the repaired item (the amount of the item), plus interest compensation and expenses related to the item. A Sending Bank repairing other fields is indemnified by the Receiving Bank for any liability which arises from the repair, that exceeds the consideration (amount of the item) received by the Sending Bank for the repaired item (plus interest compensation and expenses) provided the Sending Bank exercises ordinary care when conducting the repair (See Sections III(C)(1) and (2)).

The Sending Bank shall determine a time period for the retention of the Related Physical Check after the Electronic Images are sent to the Receiving Bank. There is no obligation on the Sending Bank to retain the original paper check (Related Physical Check) for any period and the Sending Bank may, if it so chooses, destroy the check at the time of truncation. A Sending Bank may determine to retain the check for a period of time to determine if the Electronic Image is returned for any reason that may require access to the original check. For exchanges involving a Collecting Bank, the Sending Bank may want to consider the additional time for presentment and return in subsequent exchanges and establish a retention period sufficiently long to address these exchanges. A Sending Bank may also determine to retain certain classes (i.e. based on dollar amount or product type) of checks for different retention periods. However a Sending Bank may be legally obligated to retain a check, notwithstanding the requirements in the Rules (See Section XIX(K)(1) and its Commentary).

The Sending Bank should maintain the Image file or be able to recreate the Image file within four Business Days. Section XIX(G)(4)(a) allows the Receiving Bank four Business Days from the date of settlement to request from the Sending Bank a second (replacement) file.

The ECCHO Rules are silent to any requirement for the Sending Bank to retain a copy of the check or the Electronic Image of the check (See Section XIX(K)(5) and Commentary). There are other applicable laws that impose obligations for retention of items or copies of items on banks that include, but are not limited to: UCC, Bank Secrecy Act and state law (also see below Check Retention Matrix).

This chart compares the legal retention requirements of check transactions, based on various banking laws. Retention means the retention of the original check or a copy of the front and back of the original check in a manner such that it can be retrieved within a reasonable period of time. For more detailed information on this topic, please refer to the actual laws referenced. This chart is for informational purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice. Each bank should consult its own counsel to determine the check retention/retrieval laws applicable to it and its compliance with those laws.

The Paying Bank must maintain the Electronic Image, or a copy of the Electronic Image, for at least seven (7) years (or such longer period as required under applicable law) from the date on which the Electronic Image was presented to the Paying Bank. This 7 year period conforms to applicable recordkeeping requirements and current bank practices (See Section XIX(K)(5) and its Commentary).

There are no ECCHO Rules requiring the retention of the electronic indorsements or addendum records. However, ECCHO Commentary provides advice and recommendations on the retention of addendum records. Section XIX(E) requires the Sending Bank to send along to the Receiving Bank all Electronic Indorsement(s) that the Sending Bank receives from prior banks in order to assist members in the proper return routing of the item. However it does not establish retention requirements for the Sending Banks’ indorsement information. The Section XIX(K)(5) Commentary, advises that the Paying Bank should consider whether it should store and retrieve addendum records and other data associated with the image and whether that information would be useful to the Paying Bank for audit and other recordkeeping purposes. The Commentary to Section XX(D) says that in the event the Returning Member is returning an image that it received in a forward image exchange, it is recommended that the Returning Member use reasonable efforts to retain and include with the Electronic/Image Return all prior electronic indorsements that were included with the image in the forward exchange. This Commentary goes on to say that these indorsements will assist returning banks and the BOFD with the processing of the return and possible creation as a substitute check. This Commentary also says the Members should consider whether or not there are any requirements under applicable law or standards to retain these records for returns, claims, disputes or representments. The retention of the indorsement records containing the truncating institution or return location may aid in the creation of an ANSI X9.100-187 file. Finally in Commentary to Section XX(I) it is recommended that a represented item indicate any indorsements relating to prior presentments of exchange to assist the Paying Bank in tracking, research and claims resolution. The Returnee Member is also advised to consider whether there are any requirements under applicable laws to retain electronic indorsements or if it may need the information for claims or dispute resolution.

Regulation CC Section 229.51 requires a Substitute Check bear all indorsements applied by parties that previously handled the check in any form for forward collection or return. The ECCHO Rules Section XIX(Q) and Section XX(L) moves the liability incurred by a Reconverting Bank under Check 21 that converts an image into a substitute check back to the ECCHO Member that exchanged (transferred, sends, presents, returns etc.) the image to the Reconverting Bank. Commentary to Section XX(D) also identifies the potential legal risk to a Member that does not include the appropriate electronic indorsements, in the event another Member cannot create an effective substitute check per X9.100-140 in compliance with Check 21 Act.

The term “Customer Return” (also known as Monetary Return) is not referenced in the ECCHO Rules. In ANSI X9.100-187 it is defined as a dishonored item that is usually charged to a customer account. Examples are NSF, stop payment and closed account returns (See 3.14 in X9.100-187).

The ECCHO Rules do not define an “Administrative Return”. The ECCHO Rules define an “Administrative Reason” to mean certain reasons for the return or adjustment by a Paying Bank or Receiving Bank of an Electronic Image previously exchanged under the Rules. These reasons include: poor quality image, Not Our Item, ineligible item, blank or missing image, mismatched MICR and duplicate item (See Section I(D)). These returns are sometimes identified by the Paying Bank prior to posting.

All returns carry value. Settlement for items sent in accordance with the Electronic/Image Return section is made by appropriate crediting or debiting of certain accounts, or by Fed wire transfer (See Section VI).

In certain cases the Electronic Image will not be deemed presented because it did not meet the requirements for presentment. For example, the cash letter file does not contain an Electronic Image. In other cases, presentment will occur. For example a duplicate Electronic Image or an Electronic Image with mismatched MICR (drawn on the Paying Bank identified in the MICR line) (See Section I(D) Commentary). Presentment may also depend on the network and/or exchange used.

The facts and circumstances will determine the handling of the item. If the Electronic Image does not qualify for return under the UCC midnight deadline or Regulation CC timely return requirements, the Electronic Image should be handled as an adjustment (See Section I(D) Commentary).

This depends on the facts of the situation and the information provided with and on the Electronic Image. If the Depositary Bank (Return Location) is not identified in the Electronic Indorsement, the Returning Member shall return the item to the Depositary Bank identified in the Depositary Bank’s indorsement on the back of the Electronic Image. If the Depositary Bank’s indorsement is not on the back of the Electronic Image or that indorsement is illegible, then the Returning Member can return the item to the oldest Electronic Indorsement of a Collecting Bank identified in an Electronic Indorsement (See Section XX(D)(5)). See ECCHO’s Return Hierarchy here.

This Rule was originally developed in local clearing houses and at that time was numbered 8. Many in the industry still refer to it as Rule 8. Under the ECCHO Rules, Rule 8 is in Section XIX(N).

Section XIX(N) (Rule 8), is a process to make a claim for an unauthorized RCC through a return process. Rule 8 as originally written included a warranty from the Depositary Bank to the Paying Bank that a Remotely Created Check (RCC) was authorized along with a process to make a claim for an unauthorized RCC. This warranty and the definition of an RCC have since been incorporated into Regulation CC and Section XIX(N) no longer imposes a warranty obligation on the Depositary Bank.

Under the ECCHO Rules there are two ways for a paying bank to make a warranty claim for an unauthorized RCC. The first is known as a Rule 8 warranty claim made through a return process which is set forth in Section XIX(N) of the Rules. And the second is a warranty claim made through the ECCHO adjustment rules in Section XII and Exhibit II 12 and 12a.

Rule 8 mirrors a process that was developed in local paper clearing houses. Under Section XIX(N) (Rule 8) of the Rules, the Paying Bank has 90 calendar days after presentment of the electronic image to file a warranty claim with the Depositary Bank for an unauthorized RCC by means of a return of the RCC to the Depositary Bank. Section XIX(N) has other provisions regarding requests for the written statement from the customer. The Section requires the Rule 8 warranty claim to be delivered to any location of the Depositary Bank that receives return checks or images in the normal course of collection. These transactions are not eligible for return or processing through the Federal Reserve since the Fed does not recognize these Rule 8 warranty claims as valid items for processing through the return channel.

The second process to make a warranty claim for an unauthorized RCC is outlined in the ECCHO adjustment rules (See Section XII and Exhibit II 12 and 12a). By using this section of the Rules, the warranty claim can be made through the adjustment process. A bank has 90 calendar days after the day of presentment or receipt to make the warranty claim and a customer affidavit is required with the claim. This process is similar to the Federal Reserve’s timing and process for this type of adjustment. This adjustment claim can be made through any adjustment channel in which the two banks participate. The provisions and deadlines in Section XIX(N) do not apply to adjustment claims.

In the ANSI X9.100-187 standard, return reason code “3” is defined as Warranty Breach (includes Rule 8 & 9 claims) and “4” is defined RCC Warranty Breach (Rule 8).

No. Under both Section XIX(N) (Rule 8) or Section XII (Adjustment Claims) the Depositary Bank cannot disclaim the claim based on evidence that the payor customer authorized the RCC (See Section XII(E)(3) and XIX((N)(4)). The ECCHO Rules places the ultimate liability for a disputed unauthorized RCC on the Depositary Bank.

This Rule was originally developed in local clearing houses and at that time was numbered 9. Many in the industry still refer to it as Rule 9. Under the ECCHO Rules, Rule 9 is in Section XIX(O).

Under the ECCHO Rules, Section XIX(O) (also referred to as Rule 9), the Depositary Bank warrants to the Paying Bank that the signature of the drawer of the Related Physical Check is not forged or otherwise unauthorized and/or the Related Physical Check is not a counterfeit item. Typically, under check law the Paying Bank would be liable for a forged drawer’s signature or counterfeit item if not returned within the midnight deadline. Rule 9 allows a Paying Bank to make a claim to the Depositary Bank after a customer has made a claim that the item is forged or counterfeit.

Rule 8 only deals with Remotely Created Checks (RCC); checks that have not been signed by the drawer customer. The definition and warranty for Rule 8 are included in Regulation CC and therefore covered by Federal law. Rule 9 deals with checks other than RCCs. Rule 9 is included in the ECCHO Rules, and is not set forth in any Federal or State law. The process for claims and disclaims for Rule 8 and Rule 9 are similar under the ECCHO Rules.

The customer of the Paying Bank must file a “Written Statement Under Penalty of Perjury” (WSUPP) within 60 calendar days from when they received their statement that reflected the transaction. The Paying Bank then has 15 business days from receipt of the customer’s claim to make the claim to the Depositary Bank. At the Depositary Bank’s option, it can request a copy of the WSUPP within 15 business days and the Paying Bank must respond within 15 business days (See Sections XIX(O)(3) – (5)). The Rule requires the warranty claim to be delivered to any location of the Depositary Bank that receives return checks or images in the normal course of collection (See Section XIX(O)(8)), and the warranty claim is typically handled as a return. The Depositary Bank can disclaim the warranty claim for various reasons including but not limited to: timeliness of the claim, lack of funds in the depositing customer’s account, the Bank has an Opt-out of Rule 9 in place. If the warranty claim is disclaimed, the loss remains with the Paying Bank as it would have under other check law.

Under the Rule (See Section XIX(O)(3)(c)), if the Depositary Bank’s customer does not have the full amount of the claim in its available balance, the Depositary Bank can disclaim.

No. The Depositary Bank is only required to review the balance in its depositing customer’s account once during the 15 day claim period. The Depositary Bank is not required to review the balance each day and can make a single balance inquiry in the period. It is not required to determine if additional funds are subsequently deposited into the account (See Section XIX(O) Commentary). The Rules also require the disclaim to be made up to 15 Business Days following the receipt of the claim by the Depositary Bank and, if it was checking balances every day, it would not be able to make this deadline (See Section XIX(O)(3)(c)).

Yes. The Depositary Bank must pay the claim, if its customer has funds in the customer’s account to cover the claim. If the funds are available and the Depositary Bank chooses not to charge the customer or is unable to charge the customer for legal reasons, it cannot disclaim and remains liable for the amount of the claim (See Section XIX(O)(3)(c) and its Commentary).

No. Under the Rule the Sending Bank does not make the Rule 9 warranty on items that were first deposited into another financial institution. The warranty is only made by a Sending Bank that is also a Depositary Bank (See Section XIX(O)(2) and its Commentary).

No. Under the Rule, the Sending Bank does not make the Rule 9 warranty on U.S. dollar items that were first deposited into, or received by, a foreign office of a non-U.S. bank or foreign office of a U.S. bank. This excludes the warranty for items received at a foreign office of a bank and transferred to a correspondent Sending Bank in the U.S for collection (See Section XIX(O)(1)(c)).

No. The forward exchange through the Federal Reserve was governed by OC3 and Regulation J, which do not have Rule 9 provisions. The Depositary Bank only makes the Rule 9 warranties in an exchange under the ECCHO Rules and therefore you do not have a claim (See Section XIX(O)(2)).

No. A Rule 9 claim is typically made through a return process but the delivery of the claim is not a return for purposes of the ECCHO Rules or other applicable check law. Under the Federal Reserve’s Rules, this would be a late return since it was sent past the midnight deadline and did not meet the expeditious return requirement (See Section XIX(O)(2) Commentary).

Yes. A bank may attempt to make a Rule 9 claim by sending the warranty claim by letter to the return location of the Depositary Bank. The letter does not carry monetary value, so the banks have to determine how they will settle for the transaction. The ECCHO Rules do not preclude the use of a letter to deliver the warranty claim to a return location of the Depositary Bank. However, the Rules are clear about the process, which must be followed even with the use of a letter. Some important aspects of the process is the warranty had to have been made through an ECCHO exchange, timing of the claim and the claim must be made to any location the Depositary Bank receives return checks in the normal course of check collection (See Sections XIX(O)(2), (3) and (8)).

No. Under the ECCHO Rules the default is that all members are subject to Rule 9. Members can opt out of Section XIX(O)/Rule 9 coverage for their ECCHO image exchanges unless the member is subject to another agreement (i.e. another clearing house Rule) that makes the Rule mandatory for exchanges through that clearing house (See Section XIX(O)(1)(b)).

An ECCHO member that has opted out is not subject to Section XIX(O) of the Rules. The opt-out member does not make the warranties in Section XIX(O) and cannot make a Rule 9 claim to another member. Other members cannot make a Rule 9 claim to the opted-out member, and if a Rule 9 claim is made the member can disclaim it (See Section XIX(O)(1)(a) and its Commentary).

If an ECCHO member is seeking to opt-out, the election must be made by an Authorized Representative that is an officer of the Financial Institution. The Authorized Representative must notify ECCHO by email or in writing. For Sponsored Members that notification must be made by an Authorized Representative of the Sponsoring Organization. ECCHO will send a confirmation via email or in writing of receipt of the decision to opt out and the effective date of the opt-out (or cancel opt-out) along with any other essential information. If a member cancels the opt-out, it cannot elect to opt-out again for 6 months. The effective date of an opt-out decision submitted between the 21st of any given month and the 20th of the following month is effective the first day of the next following month. See opt-out listing and the Rule itself (See Section XIX(O)(1)(a)-(b)) for more information.

A Depositary Bank can disclaim Rule 9 for the following reasons: account closed, claim amount exceeds funds in account, claim was not made timely, Depositary Bank is not the first bank to which the check was transferred, Depositary Bank had in place an opt-out and other defenses as provide by applicable law (See Exhibit VIII – Disclaimer Form for Section XIX(O)).

In the ANSI X9.100-187 standard, return reason code “3” is defined as Warranty Breach (includes Rule 8 & 9 claims) and “5” is defined Forged and Counterfeit Warranty Breach (Rule 9).

No. The Rules require that the warranty claim be delivered to a location of the Depositary Bank that receives returns of checks or Electronic Images from the Paying Bank in the normal course of collection.

No. Under the ECCHO Rules the Rule 9 warranty claim must be delivered to a location of the Depositary Bank that receives returns of checks or Electronic Images from the Paying Bank in the normal course of collection (See Section XIX(O)(8)). Some adjustment providers may allow for Rule 9 claims to be made through their process, check with your adjustment provider.

No. The Rule 9 warranty is only made under the ECCHO Rules by a Sending Bank that is also the Depositary Bank (See Section XIX(O)(2)). An intermediary bank does not make the Rule 9 warranty. Since the Depositary Bank is not under the ECCHO Rules, no warranty was made and therefore there is no claim.

No. Since the ECCHO Depositary Bank did not exchange this item through the provider that does not allow an opt-out, that Member does not have to accept a Rule 9 claim. The Depositary Bank exchange was made outside of your provider and therefore the opt-out was allowed.

No. Exchanges through the Federal Reserve are governed by Subpart A of Regulation J and Operating Circular 3.

Each exchange can be governed by different Rule sets. The first exchange between two ECCHO members will be under the ECCHO Rules (See Sections XIX(C)(1) and XX(C)(1)). The exchange through the Federal Reserve will be governed by Regulation J and OC3 (See M1 under Rules Coverage). See below graphic.

No. There must be an agreement to subject the exchange to the ECCHO Rules. Members are encouraged to state in their agreement that the ECCHO Rules apply to their image exchanges, and to make it clear that the banks want the exchange governed under the ECCHO Rules (See Section XIX(C) Commentary). Members should review their exchange agreements to determine the application of the ECCHO Rules.

No. There is no specific statute of limitations in the ECCHO Rules. Commentary to Section II(B) states that a participating bank may bring an action under the rules as long as permitted by applicable law. The applicable law is typically state law.