which bank cheques are crossed cheques ?

Most Canadian banks order cheques through Davis+Henderson: http://www.dhbrochure.com/personal/en/home.asp

I don't see any option for crossed cheques from them.

I also do not see an option for crossed cheques from www.asap-cheques.com

If you googled for "crossed cheques" all references on "preprinted cheques" and "a/c payee" are really for UK.

Looks like this is the latest article regarding this topic http://www.6717000.com/newsArticle-4736.html (same guy who started this topic in Vancouver Sun in March 2008) and he recommends writing "for deposit to the account of the named Payee only" on the front of the cheque to avoid issues with non-acceptance. Hopefully places like Money Mart won't try to get around of it by creating single use "accounts" for they clients. For my taste something like "non transferable, not negotiable, for deposit to the account of the named Payee only" should be much more bullet proof but may not fit the cheque

From what I have read Crossed cheques are against the CPA's new standards and so are not accepted by most places.

Also many people/tellers do not know what crossed cheques are and think they have been voided out.

I e-mailed TD about if they accepted crossed cheques or if I can cross my TD cheques when signing them and they gave me some generic response that I should talk to a branch manager about a specific cheque because it is up to them to determine if they would accept third party endorsed cheques.

In my country you can crossed cheques yourself my writing two diagonal line on the top left corner.

budfrogs wrote: ↑From what I have read Crossed cheques are against the CPA's new standards and so are not accepted by most places.

Also many people/tellers do not know what crossed cheques are and think they have been voided out.

I e-mailed TD about if they accepted crossed cheques or if I can cross my TD cheques when signing them and they gave me some generic response that I should talk to a branch manager about a specific cheque because it is up to them to determine if they would accept third party endorsed cheques.

Arggg ! pulls hair ! very frustrating, I called PCF and they have no idea what a crossed cheque is. When I said If I can draw two parallel line in the middle of the cheque and write "not negotiable" the CSR said that might void the cheque.

cgtlky wrote: ↑In my country you can crossed cheques yourself my writing two diagonal line on the top left corner.

Banking system is very country specific so unless your country is Canada this is quite irrelevant

Problem is if you use cross a cheque and then still have issue with places like Money Mart you may still have to defend your position in court but this is exactly what majority of people are trying to avoid (I do not say you will loose actually law is on your side but dealing with court... ).

In this article from last year, a Vancouver Sun columnist tried to get information from the banks about crossing cheques, but couldn't get much of a straight answer: http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/col ... e234ade2b4


And I found a power point presentation from the Treasury Management Association of Canada (whoever they are) which claims:

[QUOTE]Crossing not used in Canada and would probably cause confusion
...
CPA and FIs have suggested that should issuance of cheque be of concern that restrictive language be included on the cheque
E.G.

asdfvcx wrote: ↑ So, it looks like using the memo field instead of crossing the cheque may be the way to go.

writing "for deposit to the account of the named Payee only" might not be enough. Money mart can create an account for the payee which will satisfy the note.
maybe "for deposit to the account of the named Payee only at a bank or credit union only"

its starting to get ridiculously long

I read every link in this post and I still don't know what a crossed cheque is, or why I should care.

If I write a cheque to someone, I consider that as cash gone from my hands. I could care less what the person receiving it does with it.

brunes wrote: ↑ I read every link in this post and I still don't know what a crossed cheque is, or why I should care.

If I write a cheque to someone, I consider that as cash gone from my hands. I could care less what the person receiving it does with it.

Well, if you want to mail a cheque and don't want it to get stolen and deposited by 3rd party for cash, that's one.
Who uses cheques? A lot of businesses, and they mail them.
Another is, when you mail a cheque and the recipient claims he never got it, but cashed it to gave it to someone else, now you can't prove he got it.
There are many situations for crossing a cheque, honestly I think all cheques should be considered crossed unless clearly stated otherwise... not sure why this is not the case.

Also regarding your second post, sometimes you can give post dated cheques to a contractor that should get the last payment no earlier than October, when the job should be completed. In September the contractor disappear so you would want to cancel the cheque even if it was not lost.

brunes wrote: ↑I read every link in this post and I still don't know what a crossed cheque is, or why I should care.

If I write a cheque to someone, I consider that as cash gone from my hands. I could care less what the person receiving it does with it.

If you use cheque as a substitution for a cash you are right. The issue is cheque is more then that and if used wisely can provide extra security compared to cash. Check all links in in Money Mart post and you will find examples of where ability to stop cheque with guarantee really important.

pshch wrote: ↑If you use cheque as a substitution for a cash you are right. The issue is cheque is more then that and if used wisely can provide extra security compared to cash. Check all links in in Money Mart post and you will find examples of where ability to stop cheque with guarantee really important.

I did, and IMO the third post sums up the situation:

Congrats you committed fraud using our banking system as an accomplice. I only say this because stopping a cheque is not a legal way to settle a dispute with a contractor

The only valid reason to stop payment on a cheque is because it was lost - period. You can't write someone a cheque and then stop payment on it just "for protection". Once the cheque is in the recipient's hands, legally, it is as good as gone.

Therefore, I see no use for this "cheque crossing" whatever it is - it seems like it is some attempt to artificiality restrict what someone does with the cheque you wrote them.

EDIT: Who the F write cheques anyway??? Are we living in the US now?

brunes wrote: ↑
The only valid reason to stop payment on a cheque is because it was lost - period.

But thats a problem one of the articles talks about!!

Theres an article where a temp employee says they lost the cheque, the owner put a stop payment on the first cheque and issues a replacement. The employee was still able to cash BOTH CHEQUES at Moneymart! And Moneymart sued and won payment for the amount of the first stopped cheque.

brunes wrote: ↑I did, and IMO the third post sums up the situation:

Congrats you committed fraud using our banking system as an accomplice. I only say this because stopping a cheque is not a legal way to settle a dispute with a contractor

The only valid reason to stop payment on a cheque is because it was lost - period. You can't write someone a cheque and then stop payment on it just "for protection". Once the cheque is in the recipient's hands, legally, it is as good as gone.

Therefore, I see no use for this "cheque crossing" whatever it is - it seems like it is some attempt to artificiality restrict what someone does with the cheque you wrote them.

EDIT: Who the F write cheques anyway??? Are we living in the US now?

People like me who have kids in daycare, which in turn only accept cash or cheques, and no, I don't live in the US.

ben123 wrote: ↑But thats a problem one of the articles talks about!!

Theres an article where a temp employee says they lost the cheque, the owner put a stop payment on the first cheque and issues a replacement. The employee was still able to cash BOTH CHEQUES at Moneymart! And Moneymart sued and won payment for the amount of the first stopped cheque.

Yeah based on the current legal status even though a stop was placed and Money Mart technically shouldn't have cashed the stopped chq, legally the original person is still on the hook for the chq. It sucks, if the person tried it at a normal bank they would be rejected but cause they did it at Money Mart now you're on the hook for both.

Where I'm from (Hong Kong), it's common practice to cross cheques and write "Account Payee Only" on the front of the cheque, as well as strike out the "Or Bearer" phrase on the front of the cheque. This would mean the cheque can only be deposited into a bank account by the individual it was issued to. Otherwise, any person who picks it up could go to the bank and cash the cheque.

The only time I really use cheques it to transfer money between my accounts, otherwise I really only use 10 or so a year.

brunes wrote: ↑
Therefore, I see no use for this "cheque crossing" whatever it is - it seems like it is some attempt to artificiality restrict what someone does with the cheque you wrote them.

Are you for real? Obviously Britain, Australia and other countries have a use for crossed cheques.

I do most of my transfers online but I still use cheques too.

moneytech wrote: ↑Arggg ! pulls hair ! very frustrating, I called PCF and they have no idea what a crossed cheque is. When I said If I can draw two parallel line in the middle of the cheque and write "not negotiable" the CSR said that might void the cheque.

Such concept does not exist here.

brunes wrote: ↑ EDIT: Who the F write cheques anyway??? Are we living in the US now?

As I answer the same question you asked in another thread, at least, schools and lawyers want cheque.