Quote:

---

From glancing at the Act, it appears to me that it isn't intended to prohibit me from asking my bank where my check was deposited.

---

True. The act is intended to prohibit the use of deceptive means to obtain a bank customer's financial information.

§ 6821. Privacy protection for customer information of financial institutions
(a) Prohibition on obtaining customer information by false pretenses
It shall be a violation of this subchapter for any person to obtain or attempt to obtain, or cause to be disclosed or attempt to cause to be disclosed to any person, customer information of a financial institution relating to another person—
(1) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution;
(2) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to a customer of a financial institution; or
(3) by providing any document to an officer, employee, or agent of a financial institution, knowing that the document is forged, counterfeit, lost, or stolen, was fraudulently obtained, or contains a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation.

This ,of course, would not preclude a valid purchase by check.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N4SIR

... to obtain ... customer information of a financial institution ...
...
(2) by making a ...fraudulent ... representation to a customer of a financial institution; or
(3) by providing any document to ... a financial institution, ...[/I]

This ,of course, would not preclude a valid purchase by check.

---

Nor would it preclude sending a valid check to a customer of a bank unless it were accompanied by some sort of false representation like "here is payment for the money I owe you." And of course subsection (3) wouldn't apply because the drawer of the check would not be directly providing that document to the bank.

Quote:

---

Nor would it preclude sending a valid check to a customer of a bank unless it were accompanied by some sort of false representation like "here is payment for the money I owe you."

---

(2) by making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation to a customer of a financial institution

I believe a judge would rule that your check, without a valid purpose, is a false representation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by N4SIR

... I believe a judge would rule that your check, without a valid purpose, is a false representation.

---

The only thing represented on a check is that there is a given amount of money in the account.

Furthermore, the hypothetical judge would consider the purpose of the legislation, which has nothing to do with this "Trojan check" tactic.