Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, § 3-103
(b) Other definitions applying to this article and the sections in which they appear in this title are:
"Acceptance" Section 12A-3-409
"Accommodated party" Section 12A-3-419
"Accommodation party" Section 12A-3-419
"Alteration" Section 12A-3-407
"Anomalous indorsement" Section 12A-3-205
"Blank indorsement" Section 12A-3-205
"Cashier's check" Section 12A-3-104
"Certificate of deposit" Section 12A-3-104
"Certified check" Section 12A-3-409
"Check" Section 12A-3-104
"Consideration" Section 12A-3-303
"Draft" Section 12A-3-104
"Holder in due course" Section 12A-3-302
"Incomplete instrument" Section 12A-3-115
"Indorsement" Section 12A-3-204
"Indorser" Section 12A-3-204
"Instrument" Section 12A-3-104
"Issue" Section 12A-3-105
"Issuer" Section 12A-3-105
"Negotiable instrument" Section 12A-3-104
"Negotiation" Section 12A-3-201
"Note" Section 12A-3-104
"Payable at a definite time" Section 12A-3-108
"Payable on demand" Section 12A-3-108
"Payable to bearer" Section 12A-3-109
"Payable to order" Section 12A-3-109
"Payment" Section 12A-3-602
"Person entitled to enforce" Section 12A-3-301
"Presentment" Section 12A-3-501
"Reacquisition" Section 12A-3-207
"Special indorsement" Section 12A-3-205
"Teller's check" Section 12A-3-104
"Transfer of instrument" Section 12A-3-203
"Traveler's check" Section 12A-3-104
"Value" Section 12A-3-303
(c) The following definitions in other articles of this title apply to this article:
"Bank" Section 12A-4-105
"Banking day" Section 12A-4-104
"Clearing house" Section 12A-4-104
"Collecting bank" Section 12A-4-105
"Depositary bank" Section 12A-4-105
"Documentary draft" Section 12A-4-104
"Intermediary bank" Section 12A-4-105
"Item" Section 12A-4-104
"Payor bank" Section 12A-4-105
"Suspends payments" Section 12A-4-104
(d) In addition, Article 1 of the Uniform Commercial Code, this title, contains general definitions and principles of construction and interpretation applicable throughout this article.
Oklahoma Code Comment
Subsection 3-103(a)(7) provides in part: "In the case of a bank that takes an instrument for processing for collection or payment by automated means, reasonable commercial standards do not require the bank to examine the instrument if the failure to examine does not violate the bank's prescribed procedures and the bank's procedures do not vary unreasonably general general usage not disapproved by this article or Article 4 of this title."
It is clear that the UCC approves bank procedures that do not involve the manual examination by a bank, particularly a payor bank, of all instruments. See Official Comment 4 to Section 4-406. But what is general banking usage in Oklahoma and elsewhere on this matter?
The 1992 American Bankers Association Check Fraud Survey indicated that forged signatures were reported much more frequently than check kiting, counterfeit instruments or other types of fraud involving "on us" instruments for paying banks. Further, and not surprisingly, while employee training was the most used action to prevent check fraud losses, signature verification on all checks over a specified amount was employed by 51.6% of the banks responding, with a minimum figure of $1,000 and a median figure of $3,000 being used.
An Oklahoma Bankers Association survey printed in the December 23, 1991, edition of Legal Update indicated, based on the responses of 264 banks, that many small banks ($5 - $50 million in assets) in small areas (10,000 population and under) still examine basically all checks, but larger banks in populous areas do not. Moreover, beyond very small banks ($10 million and less in assets) in very small areas (5,000 population and under) most banks do not examine all checks. This fatter pattern is repeated when the division is made by the amount of the check; most banks examine checks over a certain dollar amount. The minimum amount tends to be lower in Oklahoma than nationally, with some Oklahoma banks examining even $100-$500 checks, although as banks get larger, the $1,000 figure is popular, as is a figure of $5,000. The minimum figure tends to be higher as population size increases. Random sampling of checks that are not routinely examined does not seem to be a widespread practice however
Laws 1961, SB 36, p. 102, §3-103; Amended by Laws 1991, SB 25, c. 117, § 28, eff. January 1, 1992.