SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ASSESSING THE RISK OF A FINANCIAL TRANSACTION USING AUTHENTICATING MARKS

• US 20080046368A1
• Filed: 10/26/2007
• Published: 02/21/2008
• Est. Priority Date: 12/09/2003
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: First Data Corporation (Fiserv Incorporated)
• Original Assignee: First Data Corporation (Fiserv Incorporated)
• Inventors: Pate, Lance, Wallin, Mark, Mollett, Cassandra, Swift, Amy, Tidwell, Lisa, Williams, Charles
• Granted Patent: US 7,905,396 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/44
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/042 characterized in that the payment protocol involves at least one cheque
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/108 Remote banking, e.g. home banking
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/40 Authorisation, e.g. identification of payer or payee, verification of customer or shop credentials; Review and approval of payers, e.g. check credit lines or negative lists
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 20/4016 involving fraud or risk level assessment in transaction processing
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 30/00 Commerce
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/03 Credit; Loans; Processing thereof

Abstract

Systems and methods are described for better assessing risk associated with cashing second-party checks and other negotiable instruments. The systems and methods make use of information about authenticating marks, such as watermarks, bar codes, insignia, background patterns, and the like, from a check in order to better assess the legitimacy and cashability of the check. In various embodiments, information about an authenticating mark may be compared to stored information about an expected configuration for the authenticating mark. In various embodiments, a gradated risk score may be generated based at least in part on the comparison. In various embodiments, the risk score may be combined with risk scores that are descriptive of other aspects of a check cashing transaction to calculate a risk score for the transaction as a whole. In some embodiments, the transaction risk score may be used to generate an accept/decline recommendation for the transaction.

Claims

1. A computerized method for determining whether to authorize a financial transaction associated with a negotiable instrument, the method comprising:

obtaining input about at least one authenticating mark on a negotiable instrument presented for a proposed financial transaction as well as information about a location associated with the negotiable instrument;

comparing the input about the authenticating mark with stored data about authenticating marks;

determining a risk score based at least in part on the comparison and the information about the location associated with the negotiable instrument; and

determining based at least in part on the risk score whether to authorize the financial transaction.

2. The computerized method of claim 1, wherein comparing the input with the stored data further comprises determining a degree of similarity between the input and an expected configuration for the authenticating mark.

3. The computerized method of claim 2 wherein determining a risk score based at least in part on the comparison comprises determining a risk score indicative of a degree of similarity.

4. The computerized method of claim 2 wherein determining a risk score based at least in part on the comparison comprises determining a risk score indicative of lower risk when the degree of similarity is greater and determining a risk score indicative of higher risk when the degree of similarity is less.

5. A computerized apparatus that indicates to an entity whether to accept a check, the apparatus comprising:

a computer processor configured to receive information about at least one authenticating mark on a check presented to an entity and about a location associated with the check, the computer processor further configured to determine a gradated risk score associated with accepting the check, wherein the gradated risk score is based at least in part on the information about the authenticating mark and about the location associated with the check, the computer processor further configured to indicate to the entity whether to accept the check based at least in part on the gradated risk score.

6. The computerized apparatus of claim 5, wherein the authenticating mark comprises a watermark, barcode, insignia, heat-sensitive mark, security validation number, color scheme, background pattern, microprinting, colorshifting ink, holographic strips, or plurality of ultraviolet light sensitive fibers.

7. The computerized apparatus of claim 5, wherein the computer processor determines the gradated risk score based on a degree of similarity between insignia-related input received by the entity and stored information about expected configurations of authenticating marks.

8. The computerized apparatus of claim 7, wherein the computer apparatus determines a gradated risk score indicative of less risk when the degree of similarity is higher.

9. The computerized apparatus of claim 8, wherein the gradated risk score reflects a degree of confidence that the insignia-related input matches a selected expected authenticating mark.

10. The computerized apparatus of claim 5, wherein the computer processor is further configured to compare the information about the authenticating mark with stored information about expected configurations of authenticating marks.

11. The computerized apparatus of claim 5, wherein the computer processor is further configured to receive the information about the authenticating mark from a third party service.

12. The computerized apparatus of claim 5, wherein the computer processor is further configured to receive the information about the authenticating mark from the entity.

13. The computerized apparatus of claim 5, wherein the computer processor is further configured to indicate to the entity whether to accept the check based at least in part on information about a check presenter associated with the check.

14. The computerized apparatus of claim 5, wherein the computer processor is further configured to indicate to the entity whether to accept the check based at least in part on information about an issuer location associated with the check.

15. The computerized apparatus of claim 5, wherein the computer processor is further configured to indicate to the entity whether to accept the check based at least in part on positive pay information associated with the check.

16. A computerized method that indicates to an entity whether to accept a check, the method comprising:

receiving from an entity information about at least one watermark on a check associated with a proposed check transaction;

determining a gradated risk score associated with the proposed check transaction based at least in part on the information about the watermark; and

indicating to the entity whether to accept the check based at least in part on the gradated risk score.

17. The computerized method of claim 16, wherein determining the gradated risk score further comprises determining the gradated risk score based at least in part on information about a location associated with the check.

18. The computerized method of claim 17, wherein the location associated with the check comprises a location associated with an issuer of the check.

19. The computerized method of claim 17, wherein the location associated with the check comprises a location associated with the entity.

20. The computerized method of claim 16, wherein the watermark comprises a barcode, insignia, heat-sensitive mark, security validation number, color scheme, background pattern, microprinting, colorshifting ink, holographic strips, or plurality of ultraviolet light sensitive fibers.

21. The computerized method of claim 16, wherein determining the gradated risk score comprises comparing the authenticating mark on the check with stored data to determine a degree of similarity between the authenticating mark on the check and an expected configuration for the authenticating mark.

22. The computerized method of claim 21, wherein the gradated risk score reflects a degree of confidence that the authenticating mark on the check corresponds to the stored data associated with an expected authenticating mark.

23. The computerized method of claim 22, wherein the gradated risk score reflects a degree of confidence that the authenticating mark on the check matches the expected authenticating mark.

24. The computerized method of claim 16, further comprising determining the gradated risk score based at least in part on information about a check presenter associated with the check

25. The computerized method of claim 24, wherein the information about the check presenter associated with the check comprises biometric information.