Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 560.309 (2025)
Conduct of business.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
560.309 Conduct of business.—
(1) A licensee may transact business under this part only under the legal name under which the person is licensed. The use of a fictitious name is allowed if the fictitious name has been registered with the Department of State and disclosed to the office as part of an initial license application, or subsequent amendment to the application, prior to its use.
(2) At the time a licensee accepts a payment instrument that is cashed by the licensee, the payment instrument must be endorsed using the legal name under which the licensee is licensed.
(3) A licensee under this part must maintain and deposit payment instruments into its own commercial account at a federally insured financial institution. If a licensee ceases to maintain such a depository account, the licensee must not engage in check cashing until the licensee reestablishes such an account and notifies the office of the account as required by s. 560.126(4).
(4) A licensee may not accept or cash a payment instrument from a person who is not the original payee; however, this subsection does not prohibit a licensee from accepting or cashing a corporate payment instrument from a conductor who is an authorized officer of the corporate payee named on the instrument’s face.
(5) A licensee must report all suspicious activity to the office in accordance with the criteria in 31 C.F.R. s. 1022.320. In lieu of filing such reports, the commission may prescribe by rule that the licensee may file such reports with an appropriate regulator.
(6) Each location of a licensee where checks are cashed must be equipped with a security camera system that is capable of recording and retrieving an image in order to assist in identifying and apprehending an offender. The licensee does not have to install a security camera system if the licensee has installed a bulletproof or bullet-resistant partition or enclosure in the area where checks are cashed.
(7) The commission may by rule require a check casher to display its license and post a notice listing its charges for cashing payment instruments.
(8) Exclusive of the direct costs of verification, which shall be established by rule not to exceed $5, a check casher may not:
(a) Charge fees, except as otherwise provided by this part, in excess of 5 percent of the face amount of the payment instrument, or $5, whichever is greater;
(b) Charge fees in excess of 3 percent of the face amount of the payment instrument, or $5, whichever is greater, if such payment instrument is the payment of any kind of state public assistance or federal social security benefit payable to the bearer of the payment instrument; or
(c) Charge fees for personal checks or money orders in excess of 10 percent of the face amount of those payment instruments, or $5, whichever is greater.
(9) A licensee cashing payment instruments may not assess the cost of collections, other than fees for insufficient funds as provided by law, without a judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction.
(10) If a check is returned to a licensee from a payor financial institution due to lack of funds, a closed account, or a stop-payment order, the licensee may seek collection pursuant to s. 68.065. In seeking collection, the licensee must comply with the prohibitions against harassment or abuse, false or misleading representations, and unfair practices in the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. ss. 1692d, 1692e, and 1692f. A violation of this subsection is a deceptive and unfair trade practice and constitutes a violation of the Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act under part II of chapter 501. In addition, a licensee must comply with the applicable provisions of the Consumer Collection Practices Act under part VI of chapter 559, including s. 559.77.
(11) A licensee may not cash corporate checks where the aggregate face amount of all corporate checks cashed for each payee exceeds 200 percent of the payee’s workers’ compensation policy payroll amount during the same dates as the workers’ compensation policy coverage period.
History.—s. 3, ch. 94-238; s. 3, ch. 94-354; s. 723, ch. 2003-261; s. 41, ch. 2008-177; s. 6, ch. 2012-85; s. 7, ch. 2014-81; s. 6, ch. 2023-130.
Arrestable Offenses under F.S. 560.309
M = misdemeanor · F = felony · degree: F=1st S=2nd T=3rd§560.309(11)PUBLIC ORDER CRIMESCASH CHECKS EXCEED 200% WORKMANS COMP PAYROLL
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Betts v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 827 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).
Betts v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 827 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “Again, this analysis is based upon the fact that the deferred deposit service will be offered and managed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, and specifically within the fee caps contained within Section 560.309(4), Florida Statutes. We also note that…”
McKenzie Check Advance of Florida v. Betts, 928 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2006). “The rule provided that "[a] check casher may accept a postdated check, subject to the fees established in Section 560.309(4), F.S." Fla. Admin. Code R.”
Betts v. Advance Am., 213 F.R.D. 466 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “Fla. Stat. § 560.309 (4) provides that: Exclusive of the direct costs of verification which shall be established by department rule, no check casher shall: (a) Charge fees, except as otherwise provided by this part, in excess of 5 percent of the face amount of the payment…”
Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc. v. Talcott, 830 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “§ 560.309. Rule 3C 560.801 of the Florida Administrative Code permits a check casher to collect the "direct costs associated with verifying a payment instrument holder's identity, residence, employment, credit history, account status, or other necessary information.”
Betts v. McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC, 879 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “In the letter, the Department authorized "deferred deposit" transactions provided they were "offered and managed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, and specifically within the fee caps contained within section 560.309(4), Florida Statutes." See id.”
FastFunding the Co., Inc. v. Betts, 852 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “Betts contended that the trial court erred by finding that the deferred presentment transactions were legally permitted as a check cashing activity authorized by section 560.309(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and that the transactions did not violate Florida's usury laws.”
Betts v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 863 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “, and other “Unknown Defendants,” basically asserting that certain transactions involving Ace violated Florida’s usury laws as well as section 560.309(4)(c), Florida Statutes. It appears that Ace Cash Express, Inc.”
Speedy Mart, Inc., Etc. v. Florida Off. of Fin. Reg. (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). “Appellants failed to file SARs when the total of checks cashed by corporate customers exceeded the check cashing limits established for them by Appellants, in violation of section 560.309(5), Florida Statutes (2024), and rule 69V-560.”
— 560.309(4) — 4 cases
Betts v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 827 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “Again, this analysis is based upon the fact that the deferred deposit service will be offered and managed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, and specifically within the fee caps contained within Section 560.309(4), Florida Statutes. We also note that…”
McKenzie Check Advance of Florida v. Betts, 928 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2006). “The rule provided that "[a] check casher may accept a postdated check, subject to the fees established in Section 560.309(4), F.S." Fla. Admin. Code R.”
Betts v. McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC, 879 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “In the letter, the Department authorized "deferred deposit" transactions provided they were "offered and managed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, and specifically within the fee caps contained within section 560.309(4), Florida Statutes." See id.”
Betts v. Advance Am., 213 F.R.D. 466 (M.D. Fla. 2003). “Fla. Stat. § 560.309 (4) provides that: Exclusive of the direct costs of verification which shall be established by department rule, no check casher shall: (a) Charge fees, except as otherwise provided by this part, in excess of 5 percent of the face amount of the payment…”
— 560.309(4)(a) — 1 case
Betts v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 827 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “Again, this analysis is based upon the fact that the deferred deposit service will be offered and managed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, and specifically within the fee caps contained within Section 560.309(4), Florida Statutes. We also note that…”
— 560.309(4)(b) — 1 case
Any Kind Checks Cashed, Inc. v. Talcott, 830 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). “§ 560.309. Rule 3C 560.801 of the Florida Administrative Code permits a check casher to collect the "direct costs associated with verifying a payment instrument holder's identity, residence, employment, credit history, account status, or other necessary information.”
— 560.309(4)(c) — 3 cases
Betts v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 827 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). “Again, this analysis is based upon the fact that the deferred deposit service will be offered and managed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 560, Florida Statutes, and specifically within the fee caps contained within Section 560.309(4), Florida Statutes. We also note that…”
FastFunding the Co., Inc. v. Betts, 852 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “Betts contended that the trial court erred by finding that the deferred presentment transactions were legally permitted as a check cashing activity authorized by section 560.309(4)(c), Florida Statutes, and that the transactions did not violate Florida's usury laws.”
Betts v. Ace Cash Express, Inc., 863 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). “, and other “Unknown Defendants,” basically asserting that certain transactions involving Ace violated Florida’s usury laws as well as section 560.309(4)(c), Florida Statutes. It appears that Ace Cash Express, Inc.”
— 560.309(5) — 1 case
Speedy Mart, Inc., Etc. v. Florida Off. of Fin. Reg. (Fla. 4th DCA 2026). “Appellants failed to file SARs when the total of checks cashed by corporate customers exceeded the check cashing limits established for them by Appellants, in violation of section 560.309(5), Florida Statutes (2024), and rule 69V-560.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.