U.S. Code » Title 12 » Chapter CHAPTER 50— CHECK TRUNCATION

12 U.S.C. § 5001

Findings; purposes

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 12 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) FindingsThe Congress finds as follows:(1) In the Expedited Funds Availability Act [12 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.], enacted on August 10, 1987, the Congress directed the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System to consider establishing regulations requiring Federal reserve banks and depository institutions to provide for check truncation, in order to improve the check processing system.(2) In that same Act, the Congress—(A) provided the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System with full authority to regulate all aspects of the payment system, including the receipt, payment, collection, and clearing of checks, and related functions of the payment system pertaining to checks; and(B) directed that the exercise of such authority by the Board superseded any State law, including the Uniform Commercial Code, as in effect in any State.(3) Check truncation is no less desirable in 2003 for both financial service customers and the financial services industry, to reduce costs, improve efficiency in check collections, and expedite funds availability for customers than it was over 15 years ago when Congress first directed the Board to consider establishing such a process.(b) PurposesThe purposes of this chapter are as follows:(1) To facilitate check truncation by authorizing substitute checks.(2) To foster innovation in the check collection system without mandating receipt of checks in electronic form.(3) To improve the overall efficiency of the Nation’s payments system.(Pub. L. 108–100, § 2, Oct. 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 1177.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Expedited Funds Availability Act, referred to in subsec. (a)(1), (2), is title VI of Pub. L. 100–86, Aug. 10, 1987, 101 Stat. 635, which is classified principally to chapter 41 (§ 4001 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 4001 of this title and Tables.

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (b), was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 108–100, Oct. 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 1177, which is classified generally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out below and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 108–100, § 20, Oct. 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 1194, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter, amending section 412 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section] shall take effect at the end of the 12-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 28, 2003], except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act.”

Short Title

Pub. L. 108–100, § 1(a), Oct. 28, 2003, 117 Stat. 1177, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter, amending section 412 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section] may be cited as the ‘Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act’ or the ‘Check 21 Act’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: Speedy Check Cashers, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 286 F. Supp. 3d 934 (E.D. Ill. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Speedy Check Cashers, Inc. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 286 F. Supp. 3d 934 (E.D. Ill. 2017). · cites it 2× “The Postal Service argues, in the alternative, that it is entitled to summary judgment because Speedy Check's remaining holder-in-due-course claim is preempted by federal law, specifically by the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act ("Check 21 Act"), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5001 , et…”
W. & Lake Check Cashers, LLC v. Propane Pete, LLC, 2023 IL App (2d) 220291, 219 N.E.3d 1279. “Plaintiff explained that under the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (Check 21 Act) ( 12 U.S.C. § 5001 et seq. (2018)), electronically depositing check 4024 created a substitute check.”
Peter E. Shapiro, P.A. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 352 F. Supp. 3d 1226 (S.D. Fla. 2018). “§ 4001 , et seq ; 12 U.S.C. § 5001 , et seq. Both acts were passed to expedite the transfer of funds through banks and to diminish the length of time that banks held funds between transfers.”
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Burrier (In Re Burrier), 399 B.R. 258 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2008). · cites it 2× “12 U.S.C. § 5001 et seq. 16 . Wells Fargo Commercial, "Check 21 Improves Payment Processing Efficiency,” https:llwww.”
Robert J. Triffin v. Jumpinjax Kids Corp., No. A-0542-22 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Nov. 22, 2023). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff also claimed he was entitled to collect the amount owed on the dishonored check under the Federal Check Clearing for the 21st Century A-0542-22 2 Act, 12 U.S.C. §§ 5001 to 5018 (2003). ("Check 21 Act").”
State of Md. Comptroller v. Badlia Bros., 333 A.3d 919 (Md. 2025). · cites it 2× “2 The United States Congress anticipated this problem concerning the use of mobile deposit “substitute checks” when it passed the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (“Check 21 Act”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5001 – 5018. Under the Check 21 Act, a “substitute check” is a reproduction of…”
Allied Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Viewpoint Bank, No. 14-0727 (Tex. Jan. 5, 2015). · cites it 2× “.....4, 16 TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 3.301 .”
Tony Lamont Pugh v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 1299161 (Va. Ct. App. May 23, 2017). “-5- Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5001 et seq., shall be admissible in evidence in any Virginia legal proceeding, civil or criminal, to the same extent the original check would be.”
Robert J. Triffin v. One Nj Neptune 230 Mgmt. LLC, No. A-3279-21 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. Dec. 22, 2023). “" 12 U.S.C. § 5001 (b). Triffin's argument that 12 U.”
Speedy Check Cashers, Inc. v. United States Postal Serv., No. 1:17-cv-01489 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 12, 2017). “The Postal Service argues, in the alternative, that it is entitled to summary judgment because Speedy Check’s remaining holder-in-due-course claim is preempted by federal law, specifically by the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (“Check 21 Act”), 12 U.S.C. §§ 5001 , et…”
63rd & Morgan Currency Exch., Inc. v. Citibank, N.A., No. 1:23-cv-05048 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 23, 2024). “” 12 U.S.C. § 5001 (b)(1)-(3). See also Speedy Check Cashers, Inc.”
Baker v. Cenlar FSB, No. 0:20-cv-00967 (D. Minn. Apr. 1, 2022). “12 U.S.C. §§ 5001 (b), 5002(16). Second, Baker argues that failure to return the payment she tendered violates U.”
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.