Do "crossed checks" work in the United States?

Question

I grew up in Australia, and learned that when I write a check, I should generally cross it with two diagonal lines with Not Negotiable written between them. The idea being that this signifies that the check can only be deposited into an account owned by the named person.

I read, obliquely, in this question on this site that a similar thing can be done in the United States by saying For Deposit Only.

Do two diagonal lines mean the same thing on an check in the United States?

For those who think this is urban legend see this link on the National Australia Bank website.

Effect of crossing

If you cross a cheque (by drawing two parallel lines from top to bottom across the front of the cheque), you are telling NAB not to cash it over the counter. The cheque therefore must be paid to a bank (e.g. into a customer's account). If NAB does cash a crossed cheque, it may be liable for any loss suffered by the true owner.

Meaning of 'not negotiable'

You may write the words 'not negotiable' between the two parallel lines on your cheque. This means that if the cheque is transferred to another person, the person who obtains the cheque has no greater rights to it than the person who gave it.

For example, if the cheque was stolen, the person from whom the cheque was stolen might recover the amount of the cheque from the person who received payment, even though that person who received it may have done nothing wrong.

Answer 1

Crossed Checks don't mean anything over here. As you mentioned, For Deposit Only has the same effect, and that's what banks/retailers look for.

Source: Wife is a former bank teller.

Answer 2

Sometime ago, I wrote the following in response to a different question:

Once upon a time (not all that long ago), British cheques used to say something like "Pay to the order of ..,,,, or bearer the sum of ...,.." (emphasis added) and could be cashed by anyone unless the cheque-writer drew two parallel lines in the upper left corner of the cheque. These lines converted the instrument into a crossed cheque which could only be deposited into a bank account of the payee; a bearer of the cheque could not walk into the bank and waltz out with the cash equivalent. Perhaps British banks no longer use this styling (Indian banks still do) but if that cheque for 60k is not a crossed cheque, it better be sent securely with lots of insurance. An uncrossed cheque is the same as cash since it can be cashed by anyone.

In response, I was told that British cheques no longer had the "... or bearer" pre-printed on them, and thus were automatically considered to be crossed cheques.

Presumably, Australian banks used the or bearer styling on cheques when OP Peter K was growing up. Whether they still do or not is something I don't know. That being said, I have never seen the or bearer styling on a US check, and so the concept of a crossed check is generally unknown in the US. Perhaps that's why they spell it check instead of cheque.

Answer 3

In the UK, for most people, cheques are pre-printed with an A/C Payee crossing so can only be paid into an account bearing the name stated and are non-endorsable. It would take effort to get a cheque book with uncrossed cheques.

Answer 4

As check depositing can be done on an ATM, I assume it will have zero implication.

I remember that the exact same concept was used in Germany in the seventies (when I saw the last time checks there), but it was basically an urban legend - most people believed that's what it meant, but in reality it had no binding meaning at all for banks.