10-004769 Office Of Financial Regulation vs. Isaiah Check Cashing Store, Inc. Status: Closed Recommended Order on Tuesday, November 23, 2010.

Summary: The OFR proved that money service business failed to have copies of checks with thumbprints; failed to have copies of checks with its endorsement, and failed to have an electronic payment log in compliance with statute and rule. Recommend a $3,000 fine.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

OFFICE OF FINANCIAL REGULATION , )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. ) Case No. 10 - 4769

)

ISAIAH CHECK CASHING STORE, )

INC., )

)

Respondent. )

_________________________________)

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Pursuant to notice, a for mal hearing was held in this case

on August 30, 2010 , by video teleconference, with the parties

appearing in Miami, Florida, before Patricia M. Hart, a duly -

designated Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings, who presided in Tal lahassee, Florida.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner: Diane E. Leeds, Esquire

Office of Financial Regulation

3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 302

West Palm Beach, Florida 33405

For Res pondent: Frantz Chery, pro se

19501 Northeast 19th Avenue

Miami, Florida 33179

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in

the Administrative Complaint for Imposition of Sanctions and

Notice of Rights ("Administrative Complaint") dated June 10,

2010, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On Jun e 10, 2010, the Office of Financial Regulation

("OFR") issued an Administrative Complaint, in which it charged

the Is aiah Check Cashing Store, Inc., with several rule and

statutory violations, which are summarized as follows:

a. Failure to have in place a n anti - money laundering

program with policies, procedures, and internal controls

addressing check cashing activities, in violation of Title 3 1,

Section 103.125, Code of Fede ral Regulations, and

Sections 560.114(1)(y) and 560.1235(2), Florida Statutes (2009 ) 1 ;

b. Failure to maintain a t humbprint of the customer in

56 of the 163 samples of payment instruments with a face value

of $1,000.00 or more that were accepted between February 1,

2009, through April 30, 2009 , in violation of

Section 560.310(1)(b)2., Fl orida Statutes, and Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69V - 560.704(4)(a) ;

c. Failure to maintain for five years copies of payment

instruments endorsed with the legal name of Isaiah Check Cashing

Store at the time the instruments were accepted, in violation of

Section 560.1105, Florida Statutes, and Florida Admini strative

Code Rule 69V - 560.704(2 )(a); and

d. Failure to include in the el ectronic payment instrument

log the name of the conductor and the amount of currency

provided for transactions occurring between January 13 , 2009,

and May 28, 2009, in violation of Section 560.310(1)(c), Florida

Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69V -

560.704(5)(a).

Isaiah Check Cashing Store timely requested an

administrative hearing to resolve disputed issues of material

fact, and the OFR transmitted the matter to the Division of

Administrative Hearings for assignment of an administrative law

judge.

The final hearing was held on August 30, 2010. The OFR

presented the testimony of Maykel Rico, and Petitioner's

Ex hibits A, B, and C were offered and received into evidence.

Isaiah Check Cashing Store presented the testimony of Frantz

Chery, Carline Charles , and Colette Cesar Chery ; Respondent's

Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 were offered and received into evidence.

The one - vo lume transcript of the proceedings was filed with

the Division of Administrative Hearings on September 20, 2009,

and the parties timely filed proposed findings of fact and

conclusions of law, which have been considered in the

preparation of this Recommende d Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the

final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the

following findings of fact are made:

1. The OFR is the state agency responsible for licensing

and regula ting money services business es in Florida. See

§§ 560.105(1) and 560.141(2), Fla. Stat.

2 . At the times material to this proceeding, Isaiah Check

Cashing Store was a Florida corporation, with its principal

place of business located at 5905 Northeast Seco nd Avenue,

Miami, Florida.

3 . At the times material to this proceeding, Isaiah Check

Cashing Store was licensed to engage in the business of cashing

payment instruments, pursuant to Chapter 560, Part III, Florida

Statutes.

4 . The OFR conducted an examina tion of Isaiah Check

Cashing Store beginning on May 26, 2009 , and concluding on

May 29, 2009.

5 . At the Isaiah Check Cashing Store office, t he OFR

examiner found a hard copy of a Western Union manual that

contained anti - money laundering policies and procedures related

to money transmissions and money orders . Upon review, the

examiner determined that the Western Union Manual did not

include anti - money laundering policies and procedures related to

Isaiah Check Cashing Store's check cashing activities.

6 . Isaiah Check Cashing Store also had available to its

employees a manual containing anti - money laundering policies and

procedures specifically relating to check cashing activities .

Additionally, t he Internal Revenue Service conducted a Bank

Secrecy Act examination of Isaiah Check Cashing Store's anti -

money laundering compliance program for the period extending

from March 1, 2009, through August 31, 2009, and notified Isaiah

Check Cashing Store in a letter dated January 26, 2010, that

" [b] ased on the scope and depth of our examination and the

evaluation and testing of the implementation of your Anti - Money

Laundering (AML) compliance program, no violations were

identified during the examination period." 2 The letter

specifically referenced the f inancial service of "check casher"

as one of the activities subject to its examination.

7 . As part of his examination, the OFR examiner requested

on May 28, 2009, that Isaiah Check Cashing Store produce copies

of original thumbprints on all payment instru ments of $ 1,000.00

or more that it cashed between January 13, 2009, and May 26,

2009. Out of a total of 163 payment instruments of $1,000.00 or

more that were cashed by Isaiah Check Cashing Store du ring the

specified time period , only 107 of the payment i nstrume nts

produced to the examiner included an original thumbprint.

8 . With respect to the 56 payment instruments of $1,000.00

or more that did not contain thumbprints, Frantz Chery, on

behalf of his wife Col ette Cesar, attested on May 28, 2009, that

he had diligent ly search ed all the records maintained by Isaiah

Check Cashing Store but was unable to locate copies of the

56 payment instruments that included an original thumbprint.

Isaiah Check Cashing Store did, however, su bsequently locate and

produce c opies of five of the 56 payment instruments that did

contain original thumbprints , but it failed to produce c opies of

the 51 remaining payment instruments . 3

9 . The OFR examiner reviewed all of the records made

available to him by Isaiah Check Cashing Store during the

examination and was unable to find copies of any payment

instruments that exhibited the endorsement of Isaiah Check

Cashing Store. Even though Isai ah Check Cashing Store had a

stamp with which to endorse checks that were accepted for

payment, Mr. Chery, on behalf of his wife Colette Cesar,

attested on May 28, 2009, that he had diligently searched all

the records maintained by Isaiah Check Cashing Sto re but was

unable to locate copies of the se documents.

10 . Isaiah Check Cashing Store maintained an electronic

payment instrument log for checks of $1,000.00 or more that it

cashed between January 13, 2009, and May 28, 2009, but , at the

time of the OFR ex amination in May 2009, the log failed to

include fields for the name of the conductor, if the check was

made payable to a corporation, 4 and for the amount of currency

provided to the person cashing the check.

11 . Isaiah Check Cashing Store relied on a sof tware

company to provide the format for the electronic log it

maintained. When the software was updated, the company failed

to include fields for the conductor and for the amount of

currency paid. In the presence of the OFR examiner, Mr. Chery

telephoned the software company, which subsequently added the

required fields to the electronic log format used by Isaiah

Check Cashing Store.

Summary

A. Violation of Title 31 , Section §103.125 , Code of

Federal Regulations and Sections 560.114 (1) (y) and 560.1235(2),

Florida Statutes .

12 . The evidence presented by the OFR is not sufficient to

establish that Isaiah Check Cashing Store failed to maintain,

review, and update an anti - money laundering compliance program

in accordance with T itle 31, Sec tion 103.125, Code of Federal

Regulations . T he OFR examiner testified that he did not find a

manual governing Isaiah Check Cashing Store's check cashing

activities during his examination, but this is not sufficient to

establish that Isaiah Check Cashing S tore did not have anti -

money laundering policies and procedures in place at the tim e of

the examination . Indeed, Isaiah Check Cashing Store presented

evidence establishing that , after an examination, the Internal

Revenue Service had found that Isaiah Chec k Cashing Store's

anti - money laundering policies and procedures were in compliance

with the requirements of federal law during the period extending

from March 1, 2009, through August 31, 2009 . The policies and

procedures that the Internal Revenue Service had approved

included those relating to Isaiah Check Cashing Store's check

cashing activities.

13 . On rebuttal, t he OFR examiner testified that the Bank

Secrecy Act examination of Isaiah Check Cashing Store conducted

by the Internal Revenue Service was "totally different " from the

examination conducted by the OFR and that the finding by the

Internal Revenue Service that Isaiah Check Cashing Store's anti -

money laundering compliance program satisfied federal law was

not determinative of whether Isaiah Chec k Cashing Store violated

provisions of Florida law. 5 The examiner identified several

items required by Florida law that were not required under

federal law, such as filing suspicious activity reports; due

diligence activities that must be performed by cas hiers when

cashing checks of $1,000.00 or more for corporations or third

party customers; affixing thumbprints to checks of $1,000.00 or

more ; endorsing checks by the money service business at the time

they are accepted ; and keepi ng an electronic log of ch ecks of

$1,000.00 or more . 6

14 . Significantly , the violation alleged in the OFR's

Administrative Complaint was that Isaiah Check Cashing Store

failed "to maintain, review, and update an anti - money laundering

program in accordance with 31 C.F.R. s. 103.125 ." This

violation did not reference the requirements of Florida law

enumerated by the OFR examiner, and t he examiner did not offer a

persuasive explanation of the alleged difference between the

requirements of the Florida and federal laws governing anti -

m oney laundering compliance program s related to check cashing

activities .

15 . In addition, the testimony that the Internal Revenue

Service 's examination and the OFR's examination were different

begs the question of whether a finding by the Internal Revenue

Service that the Isaiah Check Cashing Store's anti - money

laundering compliance program satisfied federal requirements is

persuasive evidence that the anti - money laundering compl iance

program satisfied the requirements of Florida law. The

testimony of the OFR examiner was , therefore, not persuasive and

did not support the OFR's contention that Isaiah Check Cashing

Store did not have in place anti - money laundering policies,

proced ures, and internal controls with respect to its check

cashing activities.

Violations of Sections 560.310(1)(b)2 . and (c) and 560.1105,

Florida Statutes, and of Florida Administrative Code Rule 69V -

560.704(2)(a), (4)(a), and (5)(a) .

16 . The evidence prese nted by the OFR is sufficient to

support findings that , between January 13, 2009, and May 26,

2009, Isaiah Check Cashing Store failed to maintain copies with

thumb prints for some of the payment instruments of $ 1,000.00 or

more that it accepted and cashed; that, between January 13,

2009, and May 26, 2009, Isaiah Check Cashing Store failed to

keep copies of payment instruments of $1,000.00 or more that it

accepted and cashed that carried the endorsement of Isaiah Check

Cashing Store; and that, between Januar y 13, 2009, and May 28,

2009, Isaiah Check Cashing Store did not maintain an electronic

log that included the name of the conductor or the amount of

currency paid on payment instruments of $1,000.00 or more .

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

17 . The Division of Adminis trative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and of

the parties thereto pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1),

Florida Statutes (20 10 ).

18 . In its Administrative Complaint, the OFR seeks to

impose penalties against Isa iah Check Cashing Store that include

suspension or revocation of its license and/or the imposition of

an administrative fine. Therefore, it has the burden of proving

by clear and convincing evidence that Isaiah Check Cashing Store

committed the violations alleged in the Administrative

Complaint. Department of Banking & Finance, Division of

Securities & Investor Protection v. Osborne Stern & Co. , 670 So.

2d 932 (Fla. 1996); Ferris v. Turlington , 510 So. 2d 292 (Fla.

1987).

19 . In Evans Packing Co. v. Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services , 550 So. 2d 112, 116, n. 5 (Fla. 1st DCA

1989), the court explained:

[C]lear and convincing evidence

requires that the evidence must be found to

be credible; the facts to which the

witnesses testify must be distinctly

remembered; the evidence must be precise and

explicit and the witnesses must be lacking

in confusion as to the fac ts in issue. The

evidence must be of such weight that it

produces in the mind of the trier of fact

the firm belief of conviction, without

hesitancy, as to the truth of the

allegations sought to be established.

Slomowitz v. Walker , 429 So. 2d 797, 800

(Fl a. 4th DCA 1983).

Judge Sharp, in her dissenting opinion in Walker v. Florida

Department of Business and Professional Regulation , 705 So. 2d

652, 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(Sharp, J., dissenting), reviewed

several pronouncements on clear and convincing evide nce:

Clear and convincing evidence requires more

proof than preponderance of evidence, but

less than beyond a reasonable doubt. In re

Inquiry Concerning a Judge re Graziano ,

696 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1997). It is an

intermediate level of proof that entails

both qualitative and quantative [sic]

elements. In re Adoption of Baby E.A.W. ,

658 So. 2d 961, 967 (Fla. 1995), cert.

denied , 516 U.S. 1051, 116 S. Ct. 719, 133

L. Ed. 2d 672 (1996). The sum total of

evidence must be sufficient to convince the

trier of fact without any hesitancy. Id.

It must produce in the mind of the trier of

fact a firm belief or conviction as to the

truth of the allegations sought to be

established. Inquiry Concerning Davie , 645

So. 2d 398, 404 (Fla. 1994).

Violation One: Title 3 1, Section 103.125, Code of Federal

Regulations and Sections 560.114(1)(y) and 560.1235(2), Florida

Statutes .

20 . Section 560.114, Florida Statutes, provides in

pertinent part:

(1) The following actions by a money

services business, authorized vendor, o r

affiliated party constitute grounds for the

issuance of a cease and desist order; the

issuance of a removal order; the denial,

suspension, or revocation of a license; or

taking any other action within the authority

of the office pursuant to this chapter:

* * *

(y) Violations of 31 C.F.R. ss. 103.20,

103.22, 103.23, 103.27, 103.28, 103.29,

103.33, 103.37, 103.41, and 103.125, and

United States Treasury Interpretive Release

2004 - 1.

21 . Section 560.1235(2), Florida Statutes, provides:

" A licensee and authorized vendor must maintain an anti - money

laundering program in accordance with 31 C.F.R. s. 103.125. The

program must be reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure that

the program continues to be effective in detecting and deterring

money launderin g activities."

22 . Title 31, Section 103.125, Code of Federal

Regulations, provides in pertinent part:

(a) Each money services business, as

defined by § 103.11(uu), shall develop,

implement, and maintain an effective anti -

money laundering program. An ef fective

anti - money laundering program is one that is

reasonably designed to prevent the money

services business from being used to

facilitate money laundering and the

financing of terrorist activities.

(b) The program shall be commensurate with

the risks posed by the location and size of,

and the nature and volume of the financial

services provided by, the money services

business.

(c) The program shall be in writing, and a

money services business shall make copies of

the anti - money laundering program av ailable

for inspection to the Department of the

Treasury upon request.

(d) At a minimum, the program shall:

(1) Incorporate policies, procedures, and

internal controls reasonably designed to

assure compliance with this part.

(i) Policies, procedures, and internal

controls developed and implemented under

this section shall include provisions for

complying with the requirements of this part

including, to the extent applicable to the

money services business, requirements for:

(A) Verifying customer ide ntification;

(B) Filing reports;

(C) Creating and retaining records; and

(D) Responding to law enforcement requests.

(ii) Money services businesses that have

automated data processing systems should

integrate their compliance procedures with

such s ystems.

* * *

(2) Designate a person to assure day to day

compliance with the program and this part.

The responsibilities of such person shall

include assuring that:

(i) The money services business properly

files reports, and creates and retains

rec ords, in accordance with applicable

requirements of this part;

(ii) The compliance program is updated as

necessary to reflect current requirements of

this part, and related guidance issued by

the Department of the Treasury; and

(iii) The money services business provides

appropriate training and education in

accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this

section.

(3) Provide education and/or training of

appropriate personnel concerning their

responsibilities under the program,

including training in the detection of

suspicious transactions to the extent that

the money services business is required to

report such transactions under this part.

(4) Provide for independent review to

monitor and maintain an adequate program.

The scope and frequency of the re view shall

be commensurate with the risk of the

financial services provided by the money

services business. Such review may be

conducted by an officer or employee of the

money services business so long as the

reviewer is not the person designated in

paragr aph (d)(2) of this section.

23 . Based in the findings of fact herein, the OFR has

failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Isaiah

Check Cashing Store violated Title 31, Section 103.125, Code of

Federal Regulations. The Internal Revenue Serv ice evaluated and

tested the implementation of Isaiah Check Cashing Store's anti -

money laundering program for check cashing for the period of

March 1, 2009, through August 31, 2009, and found that Isaiah

Check Cashing Store was in compliance with federal l aw. Given

this finding by the Internal Revenue Service, it is reasonable

to infer that the federal law to which the Internal Revenue

Service referred includ ed Title 31, Section 103.125, Code of

Federal Regulations , and the OFR did not prove otherwise.

Be cause the OFR failed to carry its burden of proving a

violation of Title 31, Section 103.125, Code of Federal

Regulations, it has also failed to prove that Isaiah Check

Cashing Store violated Sections 560.114(1)(y) and 560.1235(2),

Florida Statutes.

Violat ion Two: Section 560.310(1)(b)2. , Florida Statutes, and

Florida Administrative Code Rule 69V - 560.704(4)(a) .

24 . Section 560.310, Florida Statutes, provides in

pertinent part

(1) In addition to the record retention

requirements specified in s. 560.1105, a

licensee engaged in check cashing must

maintain the following:

* * *

(b) For any payment instrument accepted

having a face value of $1,000 or more:

* * *

2. A thumbprint of the customer taken by

the licensee.

25 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 69V - 560.704 provides

in pertinent part:

(4) In addition to the records required in

subsections (1) and (2), for payment

instruments exceeding $ 1,000.00, the check

casher shall:

(a) Affix an original thumbprint of the

conductor to the origina l of each payment

instrument accepted which is taken at the

time of acceptance;

26 . Based on the findings of fact herein, the OFR has

proven by clear and convincing evidence that Isaiah Check

Cashing Store failed to include, in all cases, the thumb print s

of persons cashing payment instruments with a face value of

$1,000.00 or more. The OFR has, therefore, carried its burden

of proving that Isaiah Check Cashing Store violated

Section 560.310(1)(b)2., Florida Statutes, and Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69V - 560.704(4)(a).

Violation Three: Section 560.1105, Florida Statutes, and

Florida Administrative Code Rule 69V - 560.704(2)(a) .

27 . Section 560.1105, Florida Statutes, provides: "Each

licensee and its authorized vendors must maintain all books,

accounts, documents, files, and information necessary for

determining compliance with this chapter an d related rules for

5 years unless a l onger period is required by other state or

federal law.

28 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 69V - 560.704 provides

in pertinent part:

(2) Every check casher shall maintain

legible records of all payment instruments

cashed. The records shall include the

f ollowing information with respect to each

payment instrument accepted by the

registrant:

(a) A copy of all payment instruments

accepted and endorsed by the licensee to

include the face and reverse (front and

back) of the payment instrument. Copies

shall be made after each payment instrument

has been endorsed with the legal name of the

licensee. Endorsements on all payment

instruments accepted by the check casher

shall be made at the time of acceptance.

29 . Based on the findings of fact herein, the OFR has

proven by clear and convincing evidence that Isaiah Check

Cashing Store failed to maintain copies of checks endorsed with

its legal name. Consequently, the OFR has carried its burden of

proving that Isaiah Check Cashing Store violated

Section 560.110 5, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative

Code Rule 69V - 560.704(2)(a).

Violation Four: Section 560.310(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and

Florida Administrative Code Rule 69V - 560.704(5)(a) .

30 . Section 560.310, Florida Statutes, provides in

pertinent pa rt :

(1) In addition to the record retenti on

requirements specified in s. 560.1105, a

licensee engaged in check cashing must

maintain the following:

* * *

(c) A payment instrument log that must be

maintained electronically as prescribed by

rule. For pu rposes of this paragraph,

multiple payment instruments accepted from

any one person on any given day which total

$1,000 or more must be aggregated and

reported on the log.

31 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 69V - 560.704 provides

in pertinent part:

(5)(a ) In addition to the records required

in subsections (1) an d (2) for payment

instruments $ 1,000.00 or more, the check

casher shall create and maintain an

electronic log of payment instruments

accepted which includes, at a minimum, the

following informatio n:

1. Transaction date;

2. Payor name;

3. Payee name;

4. Conductor name, if other than the payee;

5. Amount of payment instrument;

6. Amount of currency provided;

7. Type of payment instrument;

a. Personal check;

b. Payroll check;

c. Government check;

d. Corporate check;

e. Third party check; or

f. Other payment instrument;

8. Fee charged for the cashing of the

payment instrument;

9. Branch/Location where instrument was

accepted;

10. Identification type presented by

conductor; and

11. Identification number presented by

conductor.

32 . Florida Administrative Code Rule 69V - 560.704(1)(b)

defines "conductor" as " a natural person who presents a payment

instrument to a check casher for the purpose of receiving

currency. "

33 . Based on the findings of fact herein, the OFR has

proven by clear and convincing evidence that, on the date of the

OFR examination, the electronic payment instrument log

maintained by Isaiah Check Cashing Store did not include a field

for the name of the conductor, if other than the payee, or for

the amount of currency provided . Consequently, the OFR has

carried its burden of proving that Isaiah Check Cashing Store

violated Section 560.310(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Florida

Administrative Code Rule 69V - 560.704(5)(a)4. and 6.

Penalties

34 . Section 560.114 , Florida Statutes, provides in

pertinent part:

(1) The following actions by a money

services business, authorized vendor, or

affiliated party constitute grounds for the

issuance of a cease and desist order; the

issuance of a removal order; the denial,

suspension, or revocation of a license; or

taking any other action within the authority

of the office pursuant to this chapter:

(a) Failure to comply with any provision of

this chapter or related rule or order, or

any written agreement entered into with the

office.

35 . The OFR has proven that Isaiah Check Cashing Store

violated Sections 560.1105 and 560.310(1)(b)2. and (c), Florida

Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69V -

560.704(2)(a), (4)(a), and (5)(a). Isaiah Check Cashing Store

is, therefore, subject to disciplinary action pursuant to

Section 560.114 (1) , Florida Statutes.

36 . Section 560.114(7), Florida Statutes, provides: "The

office may, in addition to or in lieu of the denial, suspension,

or revocation of a license, impose a fine of at least $1,000 but

not more than $10,000 for each violation of this chapter."

37 . In its Proposed Recommended Order, the OFR has

suggested that the appropriate penalties in this case ar e entry

of an order directing Isaiah Check Cashing Store to cease and

desist the above - referenced unlawful activities and imposition

of a $1,000.00 administrative fine for each violation . The

undersigned agrees that the penalties suggested by the OFR are

reasonable under the circumstances and adopts these penalties.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation

enter a final order finding that Isaiah Che ck Cashing Store ,

Inc., violated Sections 560.1105 and 560.310(1)(b)2. and (c),

Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 69V -

56 0.704(2)(a), (4)(a), and (5)(a); directing Isaiah Check

Cashing Store, Inc., to cease and desist this unlawful acti vity;

and imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $3,000.00.

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of November , 2010, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

_______________________________ ____

PATRICIA M. HART

Administrative L aw Judge

Division of Administrativ e Hearings

The DeS oto Building

1230 Apa lachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 3 2399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax F iling (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Fil ed w ith the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 23rd day of November , 2010.

ENDNOTES

1 / All references herein to the Florida Statutes are to the 2009

edition unless indicated otherwise.

2 / Respondent's Exhibit 1.

3 / An employee of Isaiah Check Cashing Store testified that the

OFR may have been mistakenly provided with copies of some of the

sample payment instruments that had been made before the

instruments were cleared for payment. The employee explained

that, when a check was presented to Isaiah Check Cashing Store,

a copy of the endorsed check was made before the check was

cl eared for payment. Once the check was cleared and the payee

agreed to the check - cashing fee, the payee's thumb print was

placed on the check and a copy of the thumb - printed check was

made. This explanation is not persuasive because Isaiah Check

Cashing S tore apparently undertook a diligent search of its

records and failed to find copies of 51 payment instruments in

the sample examined by the OFR that contained thumb prints.

4 / According to the OFR examiner, a "conductor" is the person

cashing a check ma de payable to a corporation.

5 / Transcript at page 62.

6 / See Transcript at pages 61 - 63.

COPIES FURNISHED:

Diane E. Leeds, Esquire

Office of Financial Regulation

3111 South Dixie Highway, Suite 302

West Palm Beach, Florida 33405

Colette Cesar

19501 Northeast 19th Avenue

Miami, Florida 33179

J. Thomas Cardwell, Commissioner

Office of Fina ncial Regulation

200 East Gaines Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0350

Robert Beitler, General Counsel

Department of Financial Services

200 East Gaines Street, Suite 526

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0350

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this recommended order. Any exceptions

to this recommended order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the final order in this case.