Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bank & Authentication Systems for the New Millennia !"" Brook#ille $d. Sil#er S%ring& M' () !)*!+!)
Without SWORD
8ota a6ount o0 ti6e to process one custo6er with on y one check% #$;#< 6inutes '2C= 8IM' check is cashed1
Further Sa!ings 3eAt Week Once account is esta+ ished the neAt check cashing routine is .'SS 8=23 # Minute&
What cou d SWORD sa!e you per year in a+or and 0raud costsB
Without this o!erhead stores cou d pass the sa!ings on to the custo6er1
Other 2dditiona Costs to Cashing Checks -*ride . #ignity /anking . Financial Ser&ices for 0ll1
0rmored car ser&ices and &ault cash costs +ffice staff labor to handle checks a second time and register checks 2onday morning for bank deposit 3ime and labor to dri&e checks to bank for processing /ank processing costs plus any additional charge back costs for 4SF checks Legal costs to pursue fraudulent checks Court time to pursue fraudulent check riter(s) Cost of insurance Cost of shrinkage and theft Cost of additional resources re paper ork5 consumables Lost re&enues due to offended customers 4+3 patroni6ing store because of long check cashing lines 7anitorial costs during check cashing operations due to increased loitering due to long ait times
!"# 2006 $upermarke% &oss 'reven%ion (epor%) !ood (e%ailers (educe Thef% *sing Technology, $urveillance, +duca%ion
2A*(I,3+),, D4 5 *epte%'er 2 , 2 6 5 Food retailers used technolog/, sur-eillance, hotlines and other %ethods to decrease losses fro% theft and other for%s of shrink to 1$6! percent of sales in 2 0, do"n fro% 2$ percent the pre-ious /ear, according to the Food Marketing Institute 7FMI8 *uper%arket 9Retailers "ho reduce shrink are the %ost -igilant and foster a culture of lo" tolerance,9 said FMI *enior :ice ;resident Michael *ansolo$ 9+he/ detect %ore theft, wor%hless checks, coun%erfei% money and fraud , /et the i%pact on their 'otto% line is lo"er 'ecause the/ reco-er %ore losses and pre-ent %ore cri%e$9 *hrink a%ong the top perfor%ers "as a %edian of $6. percent of sales in 2 0, co%pared "ith 1$6! percent for all stores, according to the report$ )ther top-line results of FMI<s loss pre-ention sur-e/= Ro''eries, ,ad -hecks and 3ift 4ard Fraud *i> in 1 co%panies reported at least one ro''er/, costing retailers an a-erage of ?@,04@ per incident$ (e%ailers accep%ed more %han half a million wor%hless checks, resul%ing in a median loss of $.7,.67 per company /s%ore0 in 200. +he e>plosi-e gro"th in gift cards has spa"ned a ne" for% of fraud$ +hese cri%inals, for e>a%ple, ta%per "ith 'ar codes to increase the -alue on stolen cards and 'u/ gift cards "ith "orthless checks or stolen credit cards, effecti-el/ laundering the%$ +"o-thirds of retailers selling gift cards e>perienced so%e for% of ta%pering, fraud or theft$
+he report "as 'ased on sur-e/s fro% 42 co%panies operating .,26 stores$
$hoplif%ing, -heck !raud and +mployee Thef% (emain (e%ailers1 Top -oncerns, 2ccording %o !"#1s 13%h 2nnual &oss 'reven%ion $urvey
2A*(I,3+),, D4 5 Aul/ 14, 2 @ 5 Food retailers and "holesalers report that shoplifting, check fraud and e%plo/ee theft remain %he grea%es% sources of annual losses, according to a ne" report released toda/ '/ the Food Marketing Institute 7FMI8, 2003 Security and Loss Prevention Issues Survey in the Supermarket Industry $
-heck !raud 4or%hless checks con%inue %o be a cos%ly problem for supermarke%s, resul%ing in a %o%al ne% loss of appro5ima%ely $316 million for responding companies They accep%ed an average of 1.3,226 bad checks for an average ne% loss in 2002 of more %han $7 1 million per company [40 chains responded] $47(8 -os% 9us%ifica%ion) $7 1million:$30,000 per $47(8 %erminal ; 236 ins%alled s%ores:chain 5 <. chains ; 10,.30 =rounded down> %o%al $47(8 T+("#?2&$ could be ins%alled wi%h $316 million in e5perienced fraud losses Retailers are incorporating %ore %ethods to pre-ent the acceptance of "orthless checks$ 4onsistent "ith pre-ious /ears, the %ost co%%on %ethod is an internal authoriBation s/ste% at the point of sale$ Aust o-er C2 percent of co%panies in the sur-e/ used an internal s/ste%$ )ther fraud-pre-ention %ethods include outside authoriBation s/ste%s 76.$4 percent8 and check guarantee ser-ices 72$2 percent8$ +(D DAIEF DDE&3D of returned checks that pours into his co%pan/1s headGuarters is descri'ed this "a/ '/ E$A$ Moret= 9It1s frightening$ It1s like a ,iagara Falls$9 Moret, corporate office %anager at 3iant Food, Inc$, a super%arket chain 'ased in Eando-er, Md$, sa/s that 9e-er/'od/ in our 'usiness has the sa%e pro'le%$9 +hat state%ent %ight 'e e>tended to e-er/'od/ in retailing$ Dach /ear %illions of checks are returned '/ 'anks$
The !ederal ,ureau of #nves%iga%ion says annual bad@check losses could be as high as $< billion
+he pro'le% is especiall/ serious in food retailing, since grocery s%ores handle a -olu%e of consu%er checks second onl/ to that handled '/ 'anks$ 24H of the &n'anked cash their checks at a grocer/ store according to 4F*I$ (otel)nline reports ()&*+),, ,o-$ 12,1!!. For grocer/ and con-enience stores, check fraud co%es pri%aril/ fro% check cashing$ 2l%hough check cashing accoun%s for only . %o 10 percen% of a grocerAs check ac%ivi%y, i% can represen% abou% half of a supermarke%As check loss &osses from check cashing have been on %he rise, in par% because of new %echnologies available %oday %ha% enable fraud ar%is%s %o more easily coun%erfei% payroll checks /even more %rue %oday0
83he 0ccount Set 9p *rocess occurs one ti6e on y during initial enrollment to establish the person in the S:+;# system" 3hereafter at random dates a search is performed for person(s) ho may ha&e been placed on a - atch list1 at a later date after enrolling in the S:+;# system" Forensic Filtering during the check acceptance process occurs e&ery time a check is presented as ne checks contain ne information on person(s) or company(s) that rote!made said check(s) and may be found on a - atch list1" -*ride . #ignity /anking . Financial Ser&ices for 0ll1