Many Americans still write checks for at least some transactions—a preference that leaves consumers and financial institutions exposed to mail theft and check washing.
Today’s mix of paper checks and digital payments requires fraud defenses across banking touchpoints. And while “low tech” check writing persists, a near ubiquity of smartphones (and other connected devices) and constant online engagement gives bad actors more ways to exploit unguarded data and mine social media and other accounts to facilitate check fraud.
For instance, fraudsters might intercept details found through social media “oversharing” or when unwary consumers transact on commercial sites without precautions, especially via pop-ups.
Some fraudsters prey on human psychology with friendly or romantic manipulation that may begin as casual messaging. Some snare victims with illegitimate offers. “Financial criminals have been using social engineering in various ways for many years whether it’s personally identifiable information (PII) or flat-out seeking bank account information,” said Staci Shatsoff, assistant vice president of payments improvement at Federal Reserve Financial Services. “And social media is a great outlet for this access.”
The fraudster then leverages that intelligence to rewrite stolen checks, and more sophisticated abusers use advanced chemicals and ink that often evade suspicion. More ambitious criminals may collect enough PII to slide into a legitimate checking account as an imposter, often fooling financial institutions.
Social media-fueled check vulnerabilities featured when ProSight convened a panel of fraud experts, including the Federal Reserve’s Shatsoff, at its Annual Risk, Compliance, and Fraud Virtual Conference.
At the outset, the panel emphasized the lingering popularity of check use. The number of checks may be down from past decades, but this payment option remains a go-to for older demographics, celebratory events, and for many small businesses. And when checks are written, they are often for higher-value transactions. Banking customers have largely remained convinced that checks are harder to forge than digital payments are to hack, although a survey conducted in summer 2025 from the Atlanta branch of the Federal Reserve showed the opinion on check security is shifting.
The reality is banks and credit unions, and their customers and members, must shore up their soft spots. Checks are certainly no exception. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) began tracking suspicious activity reports (SARs) from U.S. financial institutions in 2014 as part of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). Over the past few years, the number of filed check-fraud SARs has surged largely due to mail theft rings. In 2024, there were 682,276 reported check-fraud SARs, up from 350,000 as recently as 2021. Crunch the change and it’s roughly 1,900 reports a day.
Conference panelist John Fick, director, head of fraud at Northwest Bank, knows that fraudsters see opportunity in the combination of traditional check-writing and a social media information multiplier. That includes gimmicks like fake sweepstakes.
“A social media user may get an alluring pop-up promoting a contest and pushing ‘put your bank account information here so that when you win, you’ll receive the money right away’ and the victim is excited,” Fick said.
He explained that more complex scams that engage social media accounts may invoke promised prize money and a sweetener to pay the winner’s tax bill. Again, with the pressure of expiring time, and a vow to handle the IRS’s portion, the target is hooked. A request for a legitimate check form is made. Once sent, account and routing numbers are now in the hands of what’s likely a crime ring that can be hard to track down expeditiously or at all. And because legitimate check information was exchanged, the customer technically knowingly participated.
“For the banking industry, and when it comes to educating our customers, this makes it a bit more challenging,” Fick said. “It’s going to be a straight loss for the customer; it’s a document that’s not forged, it’s not altered. It may be too late to retrieve that item and negotiate.”
While customers are generally liable for the loss, if they are feeling victimized and refuse to pay, the bank will have no choice but to keep the loss on its books. The burden almost always lies with the institution to engage with law enforcement and attempt to recover the funds, Fick added.
The panel said mainstream social media can also serve as a gateway—alongside the dark web—to sell “starter kits” and mentor would-be fraudsters on how to steal PII, create synthetic identities, and launch check-theft ring recruitment campaigns. And they stressed that check fraud often converges with other mass scam types, such as credit card number lifting operations, which can make check-targeting schemes harder to detect early or prevent.
What Actions Can Banks and Their Customers Take?
Education, transparency, and communication are starting points. Efforts can include training staff on sensitivity and empowerment. Customers and members may feel embarrassed or hesitant in a “victim” role, the panelists said. And remember, many aren’t yet convinced that checks are so vulnerable. The Federal Reserve’s Check Fraud Mitigation Toolkit for the is a resource designed specifically customer segment needing more education.
Find strength in numbers. There’s a growing consensus that it will take the muscle of a united industry to match the speed, adaptability, and anonymity of fraudsters. Panel members said criminals are all too familiar with communication gaps about fraud incidents left unshared across financial institutions. Instead, consortia data linkages could expose patterns and trends that lead to new protective procedures. And closer to real time, shared red flags could increasingly help institutions raise their guard, including via crime bulletins, according to groups such as the ProSight Fraud Alert Network.
Take a proactive approach. An industry trend favors three related customer approval steps, panel members said. Payee Positive Pay compares the payee name on the presented check to the payee name on the issuance file. Check Positive Pay verifies each presented check against a list of checks previously authorized and issued—typically including the check number, account number, dollar amount, and payee name. Reverse Positive Pay, often used by small businesses that might not have automated systems, provides a report of checks that have already cleared the account so that a customer can validate the check number, dollar amount, and payee.
Explore technology that keeps pace with fraud advances. Upgrades might include artificial intelligence (AI)-powered optical character recognition (OCR) technology, which reduces reliance on manual check verification and integrates multiple layers of intelligent analysis when scanning the document, the panel said.
At least one participant suggested that institutions lean on AI to handle some of the fraud-mitigation workload, although without a complete revamp of higher-touch experiences customers have relied on. That means it’s important to balance AI and the human factor. Context-aware rules should inform AI and other behavioral learning, thought leaders stressed, such as occasionally making a judgment call on a $50 personal check deposited by a long-term customer versus a $5,000 cashier’s check, but from a brand-new customer or member.
Closing Thoughts
Banking teams know that when anti-fraud measures help maintain stronger customer relationships, personnel feel more secure in their roles, which helps generate new revenue opportunities. And when customers transact with trust, they’re more likely to find restored confidence in check-writing, digital banking, and safer social media and online engagement overall.
Plus, they’re more likely to remember the bank that delivers that reassurance.
By Rachel Koning Beals
