Lost Checks - No Payee - Best Practice

[Buddha Buck]

What is your current procedure to prevent or detect fraudulent checks
written to that account?

A fraudulent check is going to show up as a discrepancy between
transactions you have recorded in your books and transactions recorded by
the bank, and will be caught when those records are compared (either to
check for cleared transactions, or for periodic account reconciliation).

If the bank is reporting that it cashed checks numbered 8054, 8062,
8055,8060, and 8051, but you only have ledger entries for checks up to
8061, you are going to look into the 8062 check and find out why it isn't
in your records. It may be fraudulent, it may be valid, but not properly
recorded, etc.

If the discrepancy was with a check far from the current number series
(like from the box is wayward checks, or completely random) it would still
show up as a discrepancy to the tracked down.

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:11 PM Milton Stern <drmoshe5 at gmail.com> wrote:

> As you suggested, I was considering not recording the checks at all.
> But, I thought that the registers would be an good way of tracking if the
> missing checks are ever used fraudulently?
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 8:11 PM, Buddha Buck <blaisepascal at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> In that case, I would not record them in GnuCash at all. There are no
>> transactions involving them.
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:48 PM Milton Stern <drmoshe5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My apologies for not being clear.
>>>
>>> A box of blank checks were ordered from a bank.
>>>
>>> Box of check was never received.
>>>
>>> Checks have no payee and no amount.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 7:18 PM, Michael Hendry <hendry.michael at gmail.com
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > > On 1 Jun 2015, at 23:50, Milton Stern <drmoshe5 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Ordered Checks lost in transit from Bank to Bank Account Holder.
>>> > >
>>> > > Anyone have a good methodologies for documenting these checks (ie
>>> > > "Transfer" field, documentation of lost checks)
>>> >
>>> > I’m not sure what you mean by “Ordered Checks”, but will assume that
>>> you
>>> > didn’t issue them yourself, but asked the bank to print them for you,
>>> and
>>> > to send them to the respective payees (or their banks).
>>> >
>>> > The usual rule for a check which you’ve issued but which has never been
>>> > cashed is to record the issue of the check in the normal way, and then
>>> to
>>> > record a reversing transaction for the date on which you decide that
>>> the
>>> > check has been lost or destroyed.
>>> >
>>> > This way, it’s quite clear what has happened. (Presumably the bank will
>>> > have recorded corresponding transactions?).
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Transfer field will not accept blank entry. Transfer to same account
>>> > > produces 2 entries -> messy.
>>> >
>>> > But essential to keep a clear record, in my view.
>>> >
>>> > > Should the "Orphan" Account be used?
>>> >
>>> > No.
>>> >
>>> > > Should it be set to "Void" after completion?
>>> >
>>> > I’d be inclined to leave both transactions in place.
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Is there a way to enter a range of check numbers all at once?
>>> >
>>> > No, but once you’ve entered the first check’s details, you can use the
>>> +
>>> > key to increment the check numbers as you work your way through the
>>> list of
>>> > checks.
>>> >
>>> > Hope this helps.
>>> >
>>> > Michael
>>> > (NOT AN ACCOUNTANT)
>>> >
>>> > >
>>> > > Suggestions appreciated.
>>> > >
>>> > > Moshe
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > gnucash-user mailing list
>>> > > gnucash-user at gnucash.org
>>> > > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
>>> > > -----
>>> > > Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
>>> > > You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> gnucash-user mailing list
>>> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
>>> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
>>> -----
>>> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
>>> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>>
>>
>