[az_gila]

Cain has been in the real estate consulting business for decades. He says the law is intrusive and threatens to create fraud when it's designed to prevent it.

Cain has been notarizing documents for more than a quarter century, but he says unless the fingerprint rule is revoked, he plans to get out of the business.

“I would probably just quit; liability for me is too much,” Cain said.

---

Sounds like Mr. Cain is just worried about getting caught falsely notarizing documents -

But that wouldn't go on in Cook County, would it? /s

[caseinpoint]

Might well be his concern. A notary can be liable for not taking a fingerprint when it is required but I don’t see that a notary would be liable if the person turned out not to be the one supposedly with the right to sell the property. My example earlier of Junior selling Senior’s property is a clear situation where one can present valid identification as John Smith and point to his name on the deed and the notary has no reason to know the Junior/Senior situation, the notary has not been negligent and cannot be held liable. The fingerprint is a piece of evidence which can be used to track down frauds but it doesn’t necessarily prevent the fraud in the first place.