Illinois Compiled Statutes
810 ILCS 5/3-405 (2026)
Employer responsibility for fraudulent indorsement by employee
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/3-405)
(from Ch. 26, par. 3-405)
Sec. 3-405.
Employer responsibility for fraudulent indorsement by employee.
(a) In this Section:
(1) "Employee" includes an independent contractor and | employee of an independent contractor retained by the employer. |
(2) "Fraudulent indorsement" means (i) in the case of | an instrument payable to the employer, a forged indorsement purporting to be that of the employer, or (ii) in the case of an instrument with respect to which the employer is the issuer, a forged indorsement purporting to be that of the person identified as payee. |
(3) "Responsibility" with respect to instruments | means authority (i) to sign or indorse instruments on behalf of the employer, (ii) to process instruments received by the employer for bookkeeping purposes, for deposit to an account, or for other disposition, (iii) to prepare or process instruments for issue in the name of the employer, (iv) to supply information determining the names or addresses of payees of instruments to be issued in the name of the employer, (v) to control the disposition of instruments to be issued in the name of the employer, or (vi) to otherwise act with respect to instruments in a responsible capacity. "Responsibility" does not include authority that merely allows an employee to have access to instruments or blank or incomplete instrument forms that are being stored or transported or are part of incoming or outgoing mail, or similar access. |
(b) For the purpose of determining the rights and liabilities of a
person who, in good faith, pays an instrument or takes it for value or for
collection, if an employer entrusted an employee with responsibility with
respect to the instrument and the employee or a person acting in concert with
the employee makes a fraudulent indorsement of the instrument, the indorsement
is effective as the indorsement of the person to whom the instrument is payable
if it is made in the name of that person. If the person paying the instrument
or taking it for value or for collection fails to exercise ordinary care in
paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to
loss resulting from the fraud, the person bearing the loss may recover from the
person failing to exercise ordinary care to the extent the failure to exercise
ordinary care contributed to the loss.
(c) Under subsection (b), an indorsement is made in the name of the
person to whom an instrument is payable if (i) it is made in a name
substantially similar to the name of that person or (ii) the instrument,
whether or not indorsed, is deposited in a depositary bank to an account in
a name substantially similar to the name of that person.
(Source: P.A. 87-582; 87-1135.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 2004–2012 · leading case: Dr. Linda A. Rodrigue v. Olin Employees Credit Union, Cross-Appellee, 406 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2005).
Dr. Linda A. Rodrigue v. Olin Employees Credit Union, Cross-Appellee, 406 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2005). “Comparative Fault As we noted previously in summarizing the district court’s findings, the court rejected the notion that the “faithless employee” defense embodied in 810 ILCS 5/3-405(b) shielded Olin from liability altogether, and it likewise rejected Olin’s contention that…”
Henry v. Waller, 2012 IL App (1st) 102068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “, 810 ILCS 5/3-401 (West 2010) (a person’s liability on an instrument when signed by an agent or representative); 810 ILCS 5/3-402 (West 2010) (signature by a representative); 810 ILCS 5/3-405 (West 2010) (employer’s responsibility for fraudulent indorsement by an employee).”
Rodrigue, Linda v. Olin Employees (7th Cir. 2005). “See 810 ILCS 5/3-405, UCC Comment 1. In sum, we conclude that application of the continuing violation rule was erroneous, and that the statute of lim- itations barred Rodrigue from recovering on any of the con- verted checks negotiated more than three years before she filed suit…”
Interior Crafts, Inc v. Leparski (Ill. App. Ct. 2006). “810 ILCS 5/3-405 and 3-406 (West 2000). We disagree.”
Advocate Health & Hospitals Corp. v. Bank One, N.A. (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “As a final note, the bank also asserted in its written memorandum to the trial judge that UCC section 3-405 (810 ILCS 5/3-405 (West 2000)), the section pertaining to an employer's responsibility for fraudulent endorsement by an employee, justified dismissal of the hospital's…”
— 810 ILCS 5/3-405(b) — 3 cases
Dr. Linda A. Rodrigue v. Olin Employees Credit Union, Cross-Appellee, 406 F.3d 434 (7th Cir. 2005). “Comparative Fault As we noted previously in summarizing the district court’s findings, the court rejected the notion that the “faithless employee” defense embodied in 810 ILCS 5/3-405(b) shielded Olin from liability altogether, and it likewise rejected Olin’s contention that…”
Henry v. Waller, 2012 IL App (1st) 102068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “, 810 ILCS 5/3-401 (West 2010) (a person’s liability on an instrument when signed by an agent or representative); 810 ILCS 5/3-402 (West 2010) (signature by a representative); 810 ILCS 5/3-405 (West 2010) (employer’s responsibility for fraudulent indorsement by an employee).”
Rodrigue, Linda v. Olin Employees (7th Cir. 2005). “See 810 ILCS 5/3-405, UCC Comment 1. In sum, we conclude that application of the continuing violation rule was erroneous, and that the statute of lim- itations barred Rodrigue from recovering on any of the con- verted checks negotiated more than three years before she filed suit…”
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.
|