Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

Recommended Posts

Can I just do a Devil's Advocate-type comment on your statement: "I like to use the fact that the money order was never cashed because it is such a simple things to see and understand." If we accept that 1) a cancel stamp was required, and 2) there is no such stamp on this money order, a more objective-less advocative reading of the evidence would not call it a "fact," and would state only that it does not appear to have been processed as a cashed money order would be processed.

Anybody can take any fact and find words to explain it away.

I invite you, as a devil's advocate, to provide a plausible explanation for the lack of stamps on the back of the money order. I'll be happy to consider and respond to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

The entire starting point for your argument that occupies the title of this thread -- "Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!" is flawed, based on what I said yesterday at 1:39 PM EST in Post 11. And even Jon G. Tidd agrees with me, as he said in Post 17. And Jon is apparently a lawyer. (Is that right, Jon? Are you?)

Sandy said:



"Here's the proof:

From the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 762.29 © ....

Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders drawn in favor of financial organizations. All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn in favor of financial organizations, for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made, shall be endorsed in the name of the financial organization as payee in the usual manner."

[End Quote.]

But the Hidell money order was not "drawn in favor" of any financial organization. It was drawn in favor of Klein's Sporting Goods. It was then endorsed by Klein's over to First National, yes. But I don't think that constitutes being "drawn in favor of". And, as I said, Jon Tidd agrees.

Try again.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addendum....

Another thought after reading this paragraph yet again:

"All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn in favor of financial organizations, for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made, shall be endorsed in the name of the financial organization as payee in the usual manner."

Even if I am 100% wrong and completely off my rocker about what I said in Posts 11 and 47 in this thread, I still don't think Sandy Larsen has a leg to stand on.

Why?

Because even if the postal regulation cited above is referring only to markings that would appear on the back side of a U.S. Postal Money Order (versus showing up after the "PAY TO" line on the front of the M.O.)....so what?

Under those circumstances, that regulation cited by Sandy would be referring to an endorsement that we all KNOW is already present on the Hidell money order, which is the Klein's stamp on the back endorsing the M.O. over to First National Bank "for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made" [citing the 762.29 postal regulation] -- with First National then becoming the second "payee".

So there's nothing new or groundbreaking there at all, regardless of how that word "drawn" is interpreted.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just do a Devil's Advocate-type comment on your statement: "I like to use the fact that the money order was never cashed because it is such a simple things to see and understand." If we accept that 1) a cancel stamp was required, and 2) there is no such stamp on this money order, a more objective-less advocative reading of the evidence would not call it a "fact," and would state only that it does not appear to have been processed as a cashed money order would be processed.

Anybody can take any fact and find words to explain it away.

I invite you, as a devil's advocate, to provide a plausible explanation for the lack of stamps on the back of the money order. I'll be happy to consider and respond to that.

You're certain that there's no other possible interpretation: "fact...never cashed"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

All of that legalistic language can be quite confusing as to exact meaning. But I'm not sure that the information in "Paragraph C" of those money order regulations really means what you think it means.

I am certain of what paragraph © means. And I'm pretty sure I understand paragraph (B) as well. See below.

The word "drawn" has me confused. The Hidell money order was "drawn" in favor of Klein's Sporting Goods, was it not? It wasn't "drawn" "in favor of [a] financial organization".

And Paragraph C says that, in effect, the financial organization is the "payee". Wouldn't that mean the name of the financial institution would also be on the "PAY TO" line on the front of the money order too?

Here's what an endorsement does. If somebody gives you a check for some amount, and you endorse it with just your signature, anybody who get's their hands on the check will, by law, be entitled to the proceeds. So signing with just a signature is a bad idea if you're not at a bank counter. You should always place a condition on the endorsement. For example, "for deposit only." With that condition the check can only be deposited into your account. Also with that endorsement you have given the bank the right to collect the proceeds and deposit it into your account. Another endorsement condition is "Pay to the order of," a method you can use to give the check to someone else.

The language has me scratching my head as to WHO IS WHO there.

~shrug~

But upon reading the page you linked to a little further, Paragraph B is quite interesting. That section seems to imply that NO endorsement IS an acceptable way to handle a U.S. Postal Money Order (emphasis is mine)....

Lack of an endorsement may be acceptable, depending upon the policies of the bank you're depositing it into, and the policies of the issuing bank (the Postal Service in our case). Paragraph (B) is relevant to that (see below). However, checks collected by a Federal Reserve Bank are always required, by law (paragraph c), to have the endorsement of the bank that hands them a check.

--- QUOTE: ---

762.29b --- Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders by a financial organization under the payee's authorization....

When a Disbursement Postal Money Order is credited by a financial organization to the payee's account under his authorization, the financial organization may use an endorsement substantially as follows:

Credit to the account of the within-named payee in accordance with payee's or payees' instructions. Absence of endorsement guaranteed.

A financial organization using this form of endorsement shall be deemed to guarantee to all subsequent endorsers and to the Postal Service that it is acting as an attorney in fact for the payee or payees, under his or their authorization.

--- END QUOTE ---

Now, does the above merely mean that even if Klein's had not put their "Pay to the order of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the M.O., that First National would still have credited it to Klein's account?

By jove, you've got it! Bob's your uncle, David! The bank likely would have accepted it, based on my experience.

Or does "Absence of endorsement guaranteed" mean something else? ~shrug~

However, the words "to all subsequent endorsers" would seem to imply that it's likely that a money order WILL later be endorsed by other institutions.

But I'm still confused a bit by the language.

EDIT/ADDENDUM ---

And I also just now noticed that the heading for everything that follows in Section 762.29 of those postal regulations cited by Sandy Larsen is this heading:

"Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders by payees."

The key words there are "BY PAYEES".

Well, in the case of the subject Hidell postal money order, the BANKS certainly aren't the PAYEES. The "payee" is Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, Illinois. It was Klein's getting PAID the $21.45, not First National Bank or the Federal Reserve Bank.

Klein's was the first payee. Then First National Bank became the payee -- acting on behalf of Klein's -- when the money order was stamped with the bank's name.

So I think that heading of that regulation--alone--makes Sandy's assumption that the BANKS were required to endorse U.S. Postal Money Orders to be an unproven assumption based on Postal Regulation 762.29.

Sorry David, I'm right this time. (Regarding paragraph c.) I'd bet the farm on it.

https://books.google.com/books?id=sfQIBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=CFR+Title+39+762.29&source=bl&ots=0yisztpk2H&sig=vHRvehU3ARSDQwLZU6hT6bfC1UQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBmoVChMIoY6KuvmKyQIVC-RjCh3s8QEt#v=onepage&q=CFR%20Title%2039%20762.29&f=false

As a side note, let me state that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and effort and Google searching that Sandy Larsen has done in the last few days to try and nail down details relating to this controversial "Money Order" topic. Excellent work, Sandy.

David said:

As a side note, let me state that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and effort and Google searching that Sandy Larsen has done in the last few days to try and nail down details relating to this controversial "Money Order" topic. Excellent work, Sandy.

Thanks for the kind words, David. I'd be embarrassed to admit how many hours of searching I spent trying to find that passage. I almost fell off my chair when I first read it.

I don't know if Jon Tidd's reply satisfied your questions. I'm going to attempt to translate to layman's terms 39 CFR 762.29 paragraphs b and c so I can respond to your post. Here's the original legalese text:

(B) Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders by a financial organization under the payee's authorization. When a Disbursement Postal Money Order is credited by a financial organization to the payee's account under his authorization, the financial organization may use an endorsement substantially as follows:

Credit to the account of the within-named payee in accordance with payee's or payees' instructions. Absence of endorsement guaranteed.

A financial organization using this form of endorsement shall be deemed to guarantee to all subsequent endorsers and to the Postal Service that it is acting as an attorney in fact for the payee or payees, under his or their authorization.

c) Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders drawn in favor of financial organizations. All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn in favor of financial organizations, for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made, shall be endorsed in the name of the financial organization as payee in the usual manner.

Here's my Layman's translation:

(B) The endorsement of a postal money order by a bank, on behalf of the payee (i.e. account holder) [because the account holder apparently forgot to endorse it himself when he deposited it].

When proceeds of a Postal Money Order is credited by a bank to the payee's (i.e. account holder's) account, the financial organization may use the following endorsement if the account holder failed to endorse the money order himself:

Credit to the account of the named account holder, in accordance with account holder's instructions [located in the bank account agreement signed by the account holder]. Absence of [the account holder's] endorsement is guaranteed. [The Postal Service is thereby held harmless in the event payment ends up in the wrong hands.]

A bank using this form of endorsement is providing a guarantee to all subsequent endorsers (i.e. other banks the money order may go through) and to the Postal Service, that it is acting as an agent for the account holder, and has been given the "power of attorney" (by the account holder, as agreed to in the bank account agreement) to sign for him.

c) The endorsement of postal money orders which are to be paid to banks.

All Postal Money Order payments to banks, to be credited to the accounts of account holders, shall be endorsed in the name of the bank as payee, in the usual manner (i.e. as is done for checks, etc.).

(Paragraph (B) is pretty wordy, so I'm not sure others will understand it. But it is easier for me to understand than the original legalese. I think paragraph © is now easy to understand for all.)

If a person deposits a check or money order and forgets to endorse it, his bank may choose to accept it. But later it may be rejected by the issuing bank (the Postal Service in our case). To prevent this from happening, the person's bank can use the endorsement described in paragraph (B) to hold subsequent holders of the financial instrument harmless.

.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All Postal Money Order payments to banks, to be credited to the accounts of account holders, shall be endorsed in the name of the bank as payee, in the usual manner (i.e. as is done for checks, etc.).

And, as I said in my previous post, that is exactly what DID happen with the Hidell money order --- i.e., Klein's stamped it with its rubber stamp ("PAY TO THE ORDER OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK").

But you, Sandy, think that FIRST NATIONAL would need to do the same thing in order to send it from First National to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago....is that correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another "Money Order" Addendum:

Now we have an incredible find made by Tom Scully (which Scully posted at the aaj forum HERE on November 13, 2015). It's a PDF file of a congressional hearing regarding the post office and civil service that took place on March 30, 1960, three years before Oswald purchased his money order in Dallas.

Here's the relevant passage from that 1960 hearing (complete PDF file linked below):

"We use the machine method. The Federal Reserve bank punches the amount as it appears on them [money orders], and as it was cleared to them by the cashing bank. They punch that amount into the money order so if a figure is misread or if a figure has been raised it is punched for the erroneous amount by the Federal Reserve bank. When it comes out through our money order center, we process it through a tabulating machine which only reads the hole that is in there." -- J. Harold Marks; Finance Officer, Bureau of Finance, Post Office Department (March 30, 1960)

SOURCE:
https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-375/0000AA67.pdf

RELEVANT PAGE:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iJpYz9HKZXg/VkbVOuSUNYI/AAAAAAABIHc/GTOY48KIufg/s1600/1962andEarlierFRBpostalMO.jpg

--------------------

So, perhaps Brian Castle and Mike Giampaolo and Jean Davison weren't wrong after all. It looks like at least SOME of the punch holes in U.S. Postal Money Orders issued prior to 1963 WERE, indeed, placed there by the Federal Reserve Bank as part of the processing of those money orders. Whether or not this exact same system was in place when Oswald's money order was purchased in Dallas, Texas, in March 1963, I really do not know. But it's an interesting piece of information nonetheless.

Thank you, Tom Scully.

As a side note to all this --- A rather amazing coincidence exists concerning the above testimony of Mr. J. Harold Marks of the Post Office Department. It just so happens that Mr. Marks is the very same person who took physical possession of the Hidell postal money order in Virginia on November 23, 1963, shortly after JFK's assassination (as confirmed in Commission Document 87).

Small world, isn't it?

1962andEarlierFRBpostalMO.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And yet another addendum (~sigh~)....

John Mytton at Duncan MacRae's JFK Assassination Forum provided me with THIS DOCUMENT from the year 1951 (also pictured below) relating to the manner in which U.S. Postal Money Orders were handled at that time.

That 1951 information is probably not very useful or valid in most respects when compared to the procedures that were in place when Oswald bought his money order in 1963, but the '51 document does prove one thing (as does the information from 1960 provided earlier by Tom Scully) -- it proves that the Federal Reserve Bank definitely DID utilize a method of mechanically punching holes in postal money orders (at least as of 1951 and then, via Scully's info, 1960 as well).

But the precise method by which U.S. Postal Money Orders were handled, processed, and marked (or punched) by the Federal Reserve Bank, circa 1963, has not yet been established with any certainty.

My thanks to John Mytton for providing this 1951 postal document:

1951-Procedures-For-Processing-Postal-Mo


TIM NICKERSON SAID:

That's just more concise, easy to understand confirmation that the money order had to have been cashed. The legalese stuff that I've been reading lately just gives me a headache.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, I've got a headache from it too.

But the TWO most important things (IMO) that establish the 1963 Hidell money order as being a legitimate and valid document are: Oswald's writing on the money order (as determined by multiple handwriting analysts in 1964 and 1978 -- Cole, Cadigan, McNally, and Scott) and the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the money order.

So we KNOW from the above two things that Oswald handled and wrote on that money order and Klein's Sporting Goods handled and stamped the same document.

And the above two things are true, IMO, even without any other bank markings present on the document.

Many CTers, naturally, disagree. They think (evidently) that somebody faked perfect "Oswald" handwriting (good enough to fool those four handwriting examiners who looked at the ORIGINAL money order in 1964 and 1978) AND the skillful plotters were able to somehow steal a rubber "Pay To The Order" stamp owned by Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, Illinois. (Either that, or the conspirators were able to somehow convince a representative from Klein's to jump on board the plotters' crowded "Let's Frame Oswald" cruise ship.)

As we can see, the "conspiracy" options involved in making that CE788 money order a fake document are much harder to swallow than to just believe that it is a genuine document that wasn't stamped by anybody after Klein's stamped it (possibly because no such additional stamps or endorsements were required to be placed on it).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the saga continues......

TOM SCULLY SAID:

The purpose of Federal Reserve Bank clearing of postal money orders had been different for Dallas region Post Office issued money orders before January 5, 1963, than it was after.

The FRB was paid an annual fee by the Postal Money order service to key-punch the face amount of each money order, into the money order, AKA the blue tinted tabulator card. After this operation, the money order card with its freshly key punched holes was returned to the automated reading/sorting process and the result was that a paper tape of the day's FRB money order processing was sent along with the key-punched money order cards t the national money order audit center in Kansas City.

The paper tape contained machine readable data reconciling the amount owed to each bank in the federal reserve banking system for reimbursement by the Postmaster's money order account at the GAO. The pre-punched rectangular serial number machine code on each money order card determined the location of where money order had been issued and the FRB key-punched round holes determined the amount each issuing post office owed to the GAO account.

When the FRB sent the day's money order processing to Kansas City with the reconciliation data tape, the K.C. money order office batch processed the 12 regional packets of money orders the FRB processing had organized.

For Dallas-issued money orders sold beginning 5 Jan., 1963, a new process sequence began. These new yellow-tinted money orders came out of the new P.O. sales counter Friden M.O. machines with the face amount both printed and key punched into the money order AKA tabulator cards.

When they reached the FRB to be processed, they could be handled much more quickly and cheaply because no operator any longer had to set each money order in a viewer and key-punch machine code holes corresponding with the face amount.

The Postal money order service was able to cease paying the FRB in excess of $600,000 annually for the former key-punch service. The new style money orders were processed on new, faster machines and sorted and sent to a new postal audit/data center with the FRB reconciliation data recorded on magnetic tape.

Unlike a check, a postal money order is a non-negotiable instrument and is considered void if endorsed more than once.

[...]

The $21.45 postal money order allegedly sold in Dallas in March, 1963 was of a new type destined for a new processing method by the FRB on new processing machinery and then it was routed to a new postal audit center in Washington where the US goverment and US Post Office investigators claimed it was located and retrieved and David noticed the familiar name of the postal official who retrieved it, J. Harold Marks, the man in the 1960 congressional hearing describing the FRB key-punching of postal money order face amounts.

A check, unlike a postal money order, is a negotiable instrument of multiple endorsements, but....even a check, it turns out, is not required to receive an FRB processing endorsement --- CLICK HERE.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you, Tom.

The work you've put into researching this "Money Order" topic is staggering. Much appreciated.


JEAN DAVISON SAID:

Wow, Tom.

"The Federal Reserve Bank punches the amount as it appears on them....They punch this amount into the money order."

So is this, then, evidence of the long-missing "bank stamp" showing that the money order was cashed?

Should we all shout "Eureka"?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, not quite, Jean.

As Tom Scully explained, the Federal Reserve Bank stopped punching the round holes in the money orders as of January 5, 1963, two months before Lee Oswald purchased the famous "CE788" money order.

So the punch holes in OSWALD'S money order were likely placed there by the post office at the time Oswald bought the M.O. (see Tom's earlier link from the 1962 Palm Beach newspaper article, linked again here).

But this remark Tom made is quite interesting, isn't it?....

"Unlike a check, a postal money order is a non-negotiable instrument and is considered void if endorsed more than once." -- Tom Scully

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW / FYI....

Tim Nickerson at John McAdams' forum recently posted a link to this high-quality color version of Lee Harvey Oswald's money order that I had never seen before.*

Now, if Tom Scully is correct and if the Hidell/Oswald money order was part of the "new batch" of money orders that were punched at the post office instead of at the Federal Reserve Bank, then that money order linked above should be yellow-tinted. The old style money orders had a blue tint, says Tom.

But I can't really tell what (if any) "tint" that color version of the money order possesses. Is it yellowish? Could be. (I'm partially color blind, so I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to determining colors.)

~shrug~

* And I'm assuming that the above color picture of the Hidell money order is not merely a "colorized" version that was taken from a black-and-white photo of the document (which, I suppose, is a possibility).

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love you guys. Keep that mouth running long enough, you can convince yourselves of anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love you guys. Keep that mouth running long enough, you can convince yourselves of anything.

Why don't you try to rebut what he says, Ba Ba, instead of yucking it up and making snide remarks?

Or just be quiet there in the peanut gallery and actually learn something.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addendum #5 (or maybe it's #6; I'm losing track)....

JIM HARGROVE SAID:

Tom....

The subject of this thread [at the Deep Politics Forum] is "The deposit slip that was never stamped by the bank."

[...]

The discussion currently going on at three different forums concerns DVP's attempt to discredit John Armstrong's discovery a few years ago that the infamous "Hidell" money order was never processed, cashed, or cancelled by a bank or other financial institution. Von Pein and [Greg] Parker have tried to suggest that some of the holes punched into the card actually represented cancellation by other financial institutions. This is clearly not true. The holes indicate the serial number of the money order and the exact amount of the face value, and nothing else.

I showed other Oswald financial documents from c. 1963 to show how receiving (cashing) institutions stamped legitimate financial instruments. Your attempt to change the focus of the discussion to how the existing serial number fit into the probable date of issuance of the M.O. itself is irrelevant to the question of whether this document was cashed or deposited into a bank--any bank or any other financial institution. It wasn't.


TOM SCULLY SAID:

With all due respect, Jim, the more time and effort I put into doing my own research in reaction to your numerous presentations, the more I understand what you do not know and do not care to know.

I've become convinced you have no idea what the specific FRB processing/clearing was for the yellow-tinted, tabulation card, aka the money order in the amount of $21.45.

I have established the fact that the money order form sold at Dallas until close of business on 4 January, 1963, was processed by FRB and that processing included an FRB processing center operator manually reading the amount displayed on each blue-tinted money order and manually key punching holes into the money order card that denoted the amount the operator had manually read.

So that is actual documentation of the FRB marking the blue-tinted money order tabulator card during processing, but the money order in the amount of $21.45 was on a yellow-tinted tabulator card with holes corresponding to the face amount already key punched in as it was created by the new Friden money order machine.

No documentation as to how the accepting bank or the FRB processing actually did or did not mark the new yellow-tinted, post-January 4, 1963 money orders sold at the Dallas P.O. has actually been presented.

GIL JESUS SAID:

Not only did the FNB [First National Bank] of Chicago not stamp money orders, I guess they never stamped deposit slips as well.

The alleged Klein's deposit slip of 3/13/63 (Waldman 10) has a date of 2/15/63 and is not stamped by the First National Bank of Chicago, which it should have been had it been deposited.


JIM HARGROVE SAID:

Gil,

Mega thanks for pointing out that the First National Bank of Chicago deposit slip for the alleged Klein's money order wasn't stamped or processed either, just like the money order itself. I had noticed other problems with the so-called deposit slip, but not that. This whole thing is ludicrous.

The WC's Waldman Exhibit #10 shows that the alleged deposit slip for the alleged money order for the alleged Hidell purchase of the rifle was dated 2/15/63, A MONTH BEFORE THE MONEY ORDER WAS ALLEGEDLY ISSUED!! Deposited nearly a month before it was issued??


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I just realized today [November 14, 2015] that the incorrect date on the "Extra Copy" of the deposit ticket that Klein's filled out in March 1963 (pictured at the bottom of Waldman Exhibit No. 10) has only one inaccurate number printed on it, instead of two slipped digits.

I had previously remarked to someone at one of the JFK forums in the last few days that TWO digits were written incorrectly on that deposit slip (the "2" and the "15" in the date), but when we look at Warren Commission Document 75, which is an FBI FD-302 report filed in November 1963 by three Chicago FBI agents, we see that the deposit that Klein's made which included the Hidell postal money order was actually not deposited on March 13, 1963, which was the day Klein's received the order form and money order from Oswald/Hidell in the mail.

Per CD75, the deposit with the Hidell money order in it was sent by Klein's to First National Bank of Chicago on Friday, March 15, 1963, two days after Klein's received the Hidell order for the rifle. Here's what it says in CD75:

"A deposit made with the bank on March 15, 1963, by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., 4540 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois, in the amount of $13,827.98, included two items in the amount of $21.45, and was processed by the bank on March 16, 1963." -- CD75, Page 668, Paragraph 4

So that means that only the "2" in the date—which is written as "2/15/63" on the extra copy of the deposit ticket—is inaccurate. The rest of the numbers are correct (per the info found in CD75). The 2 (February) should, of course, really be a 3 (March). Someone at Klein's must have still thought it was February when they wrote out that deposit slip on March 15th.

But the key to knowing that the incorrect date on the deposit ticket was just a case of an innocent slipped digit is the fact that the total amount shown on the "2/15/63" deposit slip is identical to the penny when compared with the detailed summary sheet of Klein's 3/13/63 sales, which is also pictured in Waldman Exhibit 10. Both items show a total of $13,827.98.

And a probable reason for why that "extra copy" was not stamped or marked in any way by the bank is because that piece of paper was probably never sent to the bank by Klein's. It's an "extra copy" that might have been retained by Klein's for its records only, and might not have gone to the bank with the original copy of the deposit ticket.

But even if that extra copy did make it to the bank, it's also quite possible that only the FIRST (primary) copy of the deposit ticket gets stamped or marked by the bank. In the alternate scenario where ALL copies of the deposit record do get sent to First National by Klein's, the top copy is likely the only one that stays with the bank (and is marked or stamped), while any carbon copies get sent back to Klein's unmarked.

Another possibility is: the extra copy of the deposit ticket was stamped by the bank—but on the BACK side of the deposit slip, instead of on the front of it.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×