Check Fraud Prevention: A Complete Guide for Businesses and Banks

A recent survey by Association for Financial Professionals found that 65% of organizations experienced actual or attempted check fraud in 2023, making checks the most targeted payment method of the year. That figure holds despite a steady decline in overall check volume across the industry.

• Which check fraud types are most active right now, and which ones your current controls miss?
• Is positive pay alone enough to stop modern check washing and payee forgery schemes?
• At what point do manual verification processes stop working for a financial institution processing thousands of checks daily?

This guide covers the full picture of check fraud prevention, from physical security practices and bank controls to what to do after fraud occurs and where the best document fraud detection software changes the equation for financial institutions. 

Whether you manage check disbursements for a growing business or oversee fraud risk at a bank, the answers here are direct and specific.

Key Takeaways

• Gel ink penetrates paper fibers in a way that defeats chemical washing. Standard ballpoint ink does not. 
• Positive pay does not detect check washing or counterfeit stock. Those require image forensic analysis at presentment. 
• Segregating financial duties addresses both external and insider fraud. It is the only control that does both. 
• USPIS handles mail theft fraud investigations. A local police report alone does not trigger federal action. 
• Fraud detected before clearing costs nothing to recover. Losses discovered post-clearing are rarely refunded in full. 
• AI document forensics analyze dozens of check attributes simultaneously. Manual review checks for visible alterations only. 

What Are the Most Common Check Fraud Types?

The most common check fraud types are check washing, counterfeiting, payee alteration, signature forgery, and check kiting, each exploiting a different weakness in the check payment process. 

Knowing which types are currently active shapes which prevention controls to prioritize. All five can be addressed by the right combination of physical controls and automated detection.

The threat profile has shifted in recent years toward fraud types that target the physical check before it reaches the bank. The OCC’s banker education guide notes that altered checks, counterfeit checks, and identity assumption schemes are the most prevalent fraud categories affecting financial institutions. 

Each one succeeds when verification at presentment is incomplete or manual.

1. Check Washing

Check washing occurs when a criminal applies a chemical solvent to remove ink from a legitimate check, then rewrites the payee name and amount. The original check stock, MICR line, and bank account details remain intact, which allows the altered check to pass basic visual review. 

Gel ink pens are the primary physical defense, but they do not help once a check has already been mailed.

2. Counterfeit Check Fraud

Counterfeit checks are produced using the real account and routing numbers of a legitimate account holder, printed on paper designed to resemble genuine check stock. Modern desktop printing equipment makes this type of fraud accessible to low-sophistication actors. Detection depends on verifying security feature authenticity, font consistency, and element placement against the original document.

3. Payee Alteration and Signature Forgery

Payee alteration involves changing the name of the payee on an intercepted check, often using ink matched to the original. Signature forgery involves signing a stolen or counterfeit check using a replicated or traced signature. 

Both types are linked to mail theft and are detected by payee positive pay and signature verification systems respectively.

4. Check Kiting

Check kiting exploits the clearing float between financial institutions, where a kiter writes a check from Account A to Account B and withdraws against the float before funds in Account A are verified. 

This scheme requires active account behavior monitoring and cross-institution data sharing to detect reliably. It is less common than the other types but produces larger per-incident losses.

Banks that implement document fraud detection AI address all five fraud types in a single automated verification pass. The next section covers the physical controls that form the first line of defense before a check reaches the bank.

Check Fraud Prevention: Physical Security Practices That Work

Physical security addresses fraud that targets checks before they reach the bank. These practices form the first layer of a check fraud prevention program and apply equally to individual account holders and businesses. Skipping them creates exposure that no bank control can fully compensate for.

The physical prevention steps recommended by the OCC, Federal Reserve, and banking institutions consistently are:

Step 1: Use permanent black gel ink when writing checks. Gel ink pens penetrate paper fibers more deeply than standard ballpoint ink, making chemical removal far harder. 

The uni-ball 207 is the most cited example because it resists the solvents used in check washing. This single change addresses one of the fastest-growing fraud types at essentially zero cost.

Step 2: Never leave outgoing mail in an unsecured mailbox. Mail theft is the entry point for the majority of check washing and payee alteration cases in the US. 

Drop outgoing checks directly into a USPS blue collection box or inside a post office before the final pickup. Business mail rooms should implement controlled outgoing mail procedures with logged handoffs.

Step 3: Store blank check stock in a locked, secure location. Blank checks are a direct tool for counterfeiting and account takeover fraud. Access should be limited to authorized personnel and tracked by serial number. Any missing check sequence should be reported to the bank immediately.

Step 4: Eliminate blank spaces on every check you write. Blank spaces in the payee name line, the numeric amount field, and the written amount line give fraudsters room to add or alter values without obvious evidence of tampering. 

Draw a line to the edge of each field after writing and spell out the full payee name with no abbreviations.

Step 5: Segregate financial duties across your organization. No single person should write checks, approve payments, and reconcile accounts. 

Separation of duties limits both external check fraud and insider fraud simultaneously. It is the one physical control that addresses internal risk rather than external.

Financial institutions can extend physical controls with bank check extraction using OCR at the deposit level, adding automated field extraction that operates regardless of whether the presenter followed secure writing practices. 

The bank controls in the next section add the institutional verification layer that physical practices alone cannot provide.

How Businesses Can Prevent Check Fraud With Bank Controls

Bank controls work at the transaction level, verifying presented checks before funds are released. These tools exist at most financial institutions, but the coverage varies significantly depending on which controls a business has enrolled in. The common challenges businesses face when building a bank-level check fraud prevention program are:

Challenge 1: Knowing which transactions to flag without manually reviewing every check. Positive pay solves this by allowing businesses to submit a file of issued checks each day, including the payee name, check number, and amount. 

The bank matches each presented check against that file before clearing it. According to Association for Financial Professionals, 94% of organizations using positive pay found it effective or very effective at reducing check fraud.

Challenge 2: Catching payee name fraud that basic positive pay misses. Standard positive pay matches on amount and check number, but not always on payee name. 

Payee positive pay extends that matching to include the payee field, catching cases where the amount was left unchanged but the name was altered. This is the specific control type that mail theft-linked payee alteration schemes are designed to defeat without it.

Challenge 3: Monitoring for unusual account activity in real time. Daily account reconciliation catches fraudulent transactions faster than weekly or monthly reviews. Banks provide online access to transaction data and check images specifically for this purpose. 

Setting transaction alerts for amounts above a defined threshold adds another detection layer without requiring manual review of every item.

Challenge 4: Limiting exposure when one account is compromised. Businesses operating multiple accounts should separate them by function: payroll, vendor payments, and operating funds in distinct accounts. 

This limits the damage from any single compromised account and simplifies the process of identifying transactions that do not belong. It also makes it easier to set tighter controls on higher-risk disbursement accounts.

These bank controls together address the most common check fraud scenarios. What they leave uncovered is the volume problem that financial institutions face when check processing moves beyond manual capacity, which is where document forensics AI takes over.

Your accounts payable team should not have to choose between reviewing every check and missing altered ones. See what KlearStack catches automatically.

What to Do Immediately After Check Fraud Is Discovered

When check fraud is discovered, the first action is to call your bank immediately and request a stop payment on the affected check, or close the compromised account if the fraud is confirmed. 

Speed matters most in the first 24 hours. Most banks maintain a dedicated fraud reporting line specifically for these situations.

Beyond the bank, three additional steps apply in order:

1. Problem: The check may have entered the system through mail theft. 

Solution: File a report with the US Postal Inspection Service at postalinspectors.uspis.gov. 

Mail theft-related check fraud is a federal offense and USPIS actively investigates these cases. This step is separate from and in addition to any local police report.

2. Problem: You need a legal record of the fraud for your bank and insurer. 

Solution: File a local police report documenting the fraudulent check, the amount, and the discovery date. Keep a copy. Banks and insurance carriers frequently require this as part of their fraud investigation process.

3. Problem: The fraudster may have used your account information for further identity-based schemes. 

Solution: Pull your credit report at annualcreditreport.com and check for accounts you did not open. 

Place a fraud alert with the major credit bureaus. Notify your bank of any other accounts linked to the compromised one.

Recovery of funds is not guaranteed, and knowing how to identify document fraud before an incident speeds up confirmation and helps escalate the right reports faster. 

Getting the first three steps done within 24 hours of discovery improves the likelihood of a usable outcome.

Why Manual Check Fraud Prevention Falls Short for Financial Institutions

Seventy-five percent of organizations still write checks. Fraudsters, apparently, have not missed this detail.

Individual check fraud prevention tips work well for consumers and small businesses writing a manageable number of checks each week. 

Financial institutions processing hundreds or thousands of items daily face a different problem: manual review at that scale introduces both processing delays and inconsistency in what gets flagged.

Association for Financial Professionals found that 63% of financial professionals experienced check fraud in 2024, according to the 2025 AFP Payments Fraud and Control Survey. Three out of four organizations still rely on manual processes for some portion of their check review. That gap between fraud exposure and detection capacity is where losses accumulate at institutional scale.

The difference between manual review and automated check fraud prevention becomes clearest at volume. These are the dimensions that matter most to a financial institution operating at scale:  

Dimension	Manual Check Review	AI-Powered Check Fraud Prevention
Processing speed	Minutes per check, depending on volume	Real-time, at point of presentment
Fraud types detected	Visible alterations only	Washing, forgery, counterfeit, payee mismatch, CAR/LAR, duplicates
Consistency	Varies by reviewer and workload	Uniform across all channels
Channel coverage	Typically single channel	Mobile, ATM, teller, remote deposit
Scalability	Declines under volume pressure	Constant at any transaction volume
Positive pay integration	Separate manual step	Part of the same processing pass

Document verification using AI moves check fraud prevention from a human-review process into continuous, automated detection that operates across every deposit channel simultaneously. 

Banks adopting this approach reserve human review for items that genuinely require judgment, while the AI handles high-volume verification work.

If your fraud team reviews check exceptions manually while processing volume grows, see how KlearStack handles that load.

Why Should You Choose KlearStack

Check fraud at institutional scale outpaces what positive pay and manual review can cover. KlearStack’s document forensics module fills that detection gap automatically.

Key capabilities for check fraud prevention:

• Detects check washing, forgery, payee alteration, and CAR/LAR mismatch in one processing pass
• Covers mobile, ATM, teller, and remote deposit channels
• Routes only flagged items to human review

KlearStack integrates with existing BFSI document processing workflows without disrupting bank operations.

• Up to 99% extraction accuracy
• 85% cost savings
• 500% operational efficiency improvement
• 10,000+ documents processed daily

Fraud stopped before clearing costs nothing to recover. Book a Free Demo Call!

Conclusion

Check fraud prevention works best when physical security, bank controls, and automated document detection operate as a layered system. Physical controls address fraud before the check reaches the bank; bank controls verify at presentment; AI detection covers the volume and fraud types that manual review cannot handle consistently.

For financial institutions, the business case is straightforward: fraud caught before clearing costs nothing to recover. Fraud caught after clearing requires staff time, legal involvement, and often results in partial or no fund recovery. Institutions that close the gap between check volume and detection capacity stop paying that cost.

FAQs