I am a little confused. We do not originate ACH's but we receive them. If there is an unauthorized or error with an ACH in one of our clients account we still have to act under Reg E. Can't we just return the ACH and be done with it? What if it happened 2 months ago, does Reg E still apply?

As a receiving bank for ACH you still have to follow the NACHA rules. You have from settlement date of the ACH 60 days to return it. But yes Reg E still applies as well. I some cases you just have to eat it as Reg E is a consumer protection law.

Like NLC stated, you have to follow the NACHA rules as well as Reg E.

In order to return any unauthorized ACH item back into the network, NACHA requires you to obtain a Written Statment Under Penalty of Perjury.


ACH Rules - 60 calander days from settlement date of transaction in question

Reg E - 60 days from date periodic statement made available

Which leaves room for a potential "gray area" that will leave the RDFI with having to manually contact the ODFI and seek permission to return the item back.

Gently remind the ODFI of their warranties when seeking permission in returning an item that falls into the "gray area" before taking a lose if your within the time frames. If all else fails... take a loss as the RDFI for the disputed ACH item because Reg E is all for the consumer!

Some of our disputes folks attended a NACHA-related seminar in December, and they came away with the impression that a signature on the WSUPP was no longer required. "Search_Me"'s response indicates a written WSUPP is required, but doesn't indicate if it's required to be signed. Thoughts?

Some of our disputes folks attended a NACHA-related seminar in December, and they came away with the impression that a signature on the WSUPP was no longer required. "Search_Me"'s response indicates a written WSUPP is required, but doesn't indicate if it's required to be signed. Thoughts?

Referring back to the ACH Rules 2007 page OG79-OG80 where it speaks of the WSUPP - it says that the account holders do not NECESSARILY have to sign the WSUPP in person at the FI. Receivers could, for example, provide a written statement via fax or other electronic means.

Unless I’m not seeing another comment regarding WSUPP there must be some form of signature on the WSUPP.

Someone please correct me if I’m wrong and give me the reference I need.

Also in all my training with Swacha, they say the "original" signature is the best vs a signature via fax etc.

One simply cannot make a written statement under penalty of perjury without authenticating the statement in some way. Theoretically, it can be signed electronically, under E-Sign. And a fax is acceptable. But I can't see a way to have a WSUPP without a signature.