Banks that allow ACH push without account verification (trial deposits,etc)

Finance
1

Original thread started by jfat10. Information is dated and possibly inaccurate. Needs updating.

I can’t find much info about banks that allow ACH push without having to do account verification of some sort (trial deposits or login).

I want to send money via ACH to anyone using only a routing and account number. You can easily do this in most countries outside the USA.

Basically, I want the functionality of a wire transfer without the fees…(hmm, maybe that’s why USA banks are stuck in the past: they make tons of money from wire transfer fees)

Here’s the list, any others?

Banks:

  • AAFCU (billpay)
  • American Heritage Federal Credit Union (billpay)
  • USAA
  • Bank of North Carolina (billpay)
  • Consumers Credit Union (billpay)
  • Lake Michigan Credit Union (billpay)
  • Northwest Federal Credit Union (billpay)
  • Susquehanna Bank (billpay)

Other:

  • Skrill/Moneybookers
  • Popmoney.com (not free - fees depend on bank) Message edited by: jfat10 on 2013-01-25 19:16:54 CST

Original Thread Archived

2

Don’t most business accounts allow this? Not for free but for much less than a wire. For B2B payments or payroll deposits.

3

Possibly. I’m not familiar with business accounts, but with services like Zelle coming on to the scene, this feature is probably less important than it once was. Still I moved the thread over incase others are interested.

4

Santander Bank does it.

Banks offering instant verification (i.e.without trial deposits):
Ally, PNC & Santander and Capital One 360 to certain banks.

5

This thread is about banks that offer linking with no account verification. This is different than banks that offer instant verification because some verification is still required.

6

@DrGForce
That what Santander bank does.

However, I also find it very useful to know the banks which offer instant verification. I don’t think that extra information is going to harm anyone :slight_smile:

7

I would never try this.

Even if a 3d party ACH goes through fine, it generally will be under the assumption that you’re on both accounts. If you are not, you’re liable to be banned from the service. Checkfree is notorious for doing this.

8

Yes. Linking is for “same name” transfers. You want an ACH payment service.

9

I have a Wells Fargo (WF) Simple Business Checking account ($500 balance to remain fee free). WF has a service called Direct Pay for business accounts. It does exactly what you are looking for.* Direct Pay costs $10 per monthly billing cycle plus a per payment fee. Payments to non-WF personal bank accounts are $.50 per payment. Payments to WF personal accounts are free. Payments made to business bank accounts are $3 each.

*There is actually a “verification deposit” of $0.00 that shows up in the account you are sending to, but no “verification steps” like trial deposits with amounts that need to be confirmed.

Depending on how often you need to do this, this is pretty cheap. I use it to mimic direct deposits for bank account opening bonuses. Since most bonuses are over $200, the $10/mo is totally worth it for peace of mind if I have to dispute with the bank that I got a direct deposit rather than just a simple ACH from one of my other bank accounts.

4 Likes
10

Great tip meed18, thanks for sharing!

2 Likes
12

First, why am I posting on this old thread?

It’s because I didn’t want to start a new thread and this old thread comes as close to my topic as any I can locate in the forum. This post is about ACH verification and it is about trial deposits and this thread is as close as I could come.

Yesterday I had an interesting experience at PurePoint… I was swept into their security and fraud net on account of something I thought was a routine matter. Turns out I was wrong:

It began when I sought to link an outside financial institution. PurePoint. allows ten, I had space on my link list, and I needed to add PenFed. So I went ahead. Did the usual stuff by answering PurePoint.'s questions to describe the PenFed account. They said they would send two small trial deposits, each less than a buck, following which I would verify. This was commonplace stuff I had done many times before, at PurePoint. and elsewhere. Nothing special. Nothing to see here.

They sent the trial deposits. I saw them in my PenFed account couple of days later. Logged into my PurePoint. account and went through the verification process successfully, whereupon PurePoint. informed me the accounts were linked. Still nothing novel. Routine stuff.

Or not. It was routine until I received notification from PurePoint.'s security/fraud department of a problem. I was instructed to telephone them. I did so without any trepidation because I had done this many times prior, at PurePoint. and elsewhere, and I knew from experience everything was OK.

It wasn’t. Turns out they told me they were unable to confirm my ownership of my PenFed account. I was like: Huh? I verified the trial deposits, didn’t I? They agreed I had done so, but they then politely informed me I had failed their second test. Not realizing such a second test even existed, I was caught flat footed.

Turns out PurePoint. has been experiencing fraud when trial deposits alone are used to verify ACH links. So they contact the linked financial institution in order to “double check” account ownership. It is that second test my link had failed because PurePoint. was, at first, unable to obtain confirmation from PenFed (they did later after making a second try).

Analysis and opinion

I think not all financial institutions are following this “double check” procedure when it comes to verifying ACH links. But knowing about double check helps me understand why those that do limit the number of linked accounts you are allowed. Because such an added level of security comes at a cost.

I’m particularly concerned about Alliant. I seriously doubt Alliant, with unlimited linked accounts, is today using double check. But if one is kicked out of Alliant and forced to go with a new financial institution using double check, setting up many new ACH links there could be problematic.

My opinion is that “double check” of ACH links is today used only by the large banks. But with ACH link verification via trial deposits alone apparently too often leading to fraud, I believe the double check process is likely to spread even to smaller financial institutions.

1 Like
13

I used PurePoint back some time ago when their savings rates were very nice. I don’t remember the double check problem.

The thing I do remember about PP in particular was their dropping of one of my accounts. Even though they hold funds for 4 days before you can do an ACH transfer I got caught making too many moves at the same time.

PurePoint has rules & they won’t budge on them. I tried to add that account again & they refused. But after my closed accts at Alliant I have gone back to PP for a second look. Still low rates??

14

Thank you for mentioning that, pattyb53.

Yes I, too, linked many accounts in the past at PurePoint. without any inkling of a double check going on. Evidently this is a recent thing. I base that on my conversation with the PurePoint. fraud folks.

Whereas trial deposits alone, for ACH link setup, worked OK in the past, apparently the crooks came up with a method to defraud the banks despite trial deposits having been confirmed. I do not understand how fraud is perpetrated this way. But it is. That is what I was told.

So now, in response, some financial institutions are going with the double check “belt and suspenders” approach.

This is yet another example of dishonest people making the lives of honest folks more difficult.

15

I see it as an example of lazy people being too lazy or too stupid to implement proper security procedures properly and securely. My guess is that either the protocol isn’t properly defined or it isn’t properly followed.

For example, I’d expect the protocol to be something like (1) the ACH transaction must contain the full name of the recipient, and (2) the receiving bank must compare the name in the transaction with the name of the receiving account owner and reject it if they don’t match. If that’s not the protocol, banks are not required to implement it, or some banks do not implement it correctly, then the small deposits cannot be used to authenticate the owner.

2 Likes
16

I have gotten tripped up by this on joint accounts. If I am the first named on one account and my wife is the first named in the second account, they reject as not matching.

17

That’s an example of the bank being too stupid and implementing the verification incorrectly, since a joint account is owned equally by the joint owners. The whole first-named and second-named is a software problem.

2 Likes