Aside from the deterrence, for reasons ranging from the practical to the technical, it is unlikely that bank fingerprinting will not generally be useful in actual prosecutions. From a practical perspective, taking proper fingerprints is a skill that requires training to do properly. Criminalists get extensive training in the proper way to take fingerprints in order to insure that a good set is taken. In contrast, bank tellers have no training in fingerprinting. Indeed, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, fingerprinting will not even necessarily be administered by the teller.
Legal problems prevent bank fingerprints from being used in prosecution as well.
It is highly unlikely that such prints would be admissible in court. No means exists to establish a chain of custody from an evidentiary stand point. Too many holes appear for bank fingerprinting to be valid evidence in court. After all, they say, even if the practical and legal problems are solved, fingerprinting will only help catch a criminal who already has fingerprints on file with a law enforcement agency. If you have never had a set of fingerprints taken, there is nothing to compare to the thumbprint a bank places on the check.