{
  "question_text": "When verifying a suspicious instrument, which phone number should a teller use to contact the issuing institution?",
  "options": [
    "The institution's published verification line — not the number printed on the check",
    "The number printed on the check, which provides the most direct connection to the issuing institution",
    "Any number the conductor provides for the institution",
    "The BSA/AML Compliance Officer's contact number, who will then contact the institution on the teller's behalf"
  ],
  "correct_answer": "The institution's published verification line — not the number printed on the check",
  "correct_response": "Correct. A fraudster may have placed a controlled number on the instrument. Using the published verification line ensures the teller reaches the actual institution.",
  "incorrect_response": "Always use the institution's published verification line — never the number printed on the check. The number on the check may be one the fraudster controls. Using a conductor-provided number or routing the call through the BSA/AML Compliance Officer are not the correct procedures.",
  "unsure_response": null,
  "question_bank": [
    {
      "question_text": "When a teller identifies a red flag on a presented instrument, how should the supervisor be notified?",
      "options": [
        "Signal the supervisor without alerting the conductor to the review",
        "Ask the conductor to step aside and then call the supervisor over the intercom",
        "Decline the transaction first and then report the red flags to the supervisor",
        "Document the red flags before signaling the supervisor so the record is accurate"
      ],
      "correct_answer": "Signal the supervisor without alerting the conductor to the review",
      "correct_response": "Correct. The conductor must not become aware that a review is in progress. Alerting them could allow them to fabricate an explanation or leave before the supervisor arrives.",
      "incorrect_response": "Signal the supervisor without alerting the conductor. If the conductor realizes a review is underway, they may leave or fabricate an explanation. The teller does not decline the transaction before the supervisor has reviewed it.",
      "unsure_response": null
    },
    {
      "question_text": "When inspecting an instrument for physical alteration, which of the following is a specific indicator of chemical washing?",
      "options": [
        "Chalky or bleached surface areas on the check face",
        "A routing number that does not appear in the Federal Reserve directory",
        "Shiny or raised characters along the MICR line at the bottom of the check",
        "Straight scissor-cut edges instead of machine-cut or perforated edges"
      ],
      "correct_answer": "Chalky or bleached surface areas on the check face",
      "correct_response": "Correct. Chalky or bleached areas are the signature of chemical washing — a method used to remove original ink so the check can be altered.",
      "incorrect_response": "Chalky or bleached surface areas indicate chemical washing, which is an alteration method. An unverifiable routing number is a counterfeit indicator; shiny MICR characters are a counterfeit indicator; scissor-cut edges are a counterfeit indicator — those are different fraud categories.",
      "unsure_response": null
    }
  ],
  "enrichment_content": "<p><strong>Key point:</strong> Tellers are the first line of detection. Two procedures are especially critical: using the right phone number for verification, and signaling the supervisor without alerting the conductor.</p><ul><li>Always call the institution's <strong>published verification line</strong> — the number on the check may be fraudulent.</li><li>Signal the supervisor quietly so the conductor does not know a review is underway.</li><li>Chalky or bleached areas on the check face indicate chemical washing — an alteration technique.</li><li>If verification cannot be completed, do not release funds. Escalate immediately.</li></ul>"
}