Click to return to BOL home page
Banker Store eCard Exchange Vendor Connect Career Connect Learning Connect Bankers Information Network
 

Support for BOL is provided by:

MAIN CONTENT 
Compliance

    Agency Road Maps

    Alphabet Soup

    Compliance Tools

    FACTA/FCRA

    OFAC

Lending

    FACTA/FCRA

    Lending Tools

    SCRA

Marketing

Operations

    Check 21

    Operations Tools

    SAR Resrch Guide

Security

    AML/BSA

    Bank Robbery

    Counterfeits

    ID Fraud/Phishing

    Security Tools

Technology/eBanking

    Info Security


SPECIAL AREAS 
BOL Archives

BOL Blogs

Briefing Archive

Calendar

Court Watch
Em@il Education

Examiner's Corner

Executive Briefing

Infovault

Launch Pad

Site Map

Site Orientation

Top Stories


~ ~ ~
SERVICES 
CrimeDex

Em@il Education

ID Verification

Record Retention


~ ~ ~
SHOP 

Banker Store

Bankers Info Ntwk
Vendor Connect

CONNECT 

Career Connect

Learning Connect

Vendor Connect

Guru Central

INTERACT 

Ask a Guru
Bankers Threads

Contact Us

Give Us Feedback


TOOLS 

60 Second Solutions

Alphabet Soup

Banker Tools

BOL Forms

FUN 

BOL Recipes

eCard Exchange

LEARN MORE 

About Advertising
About Our Sponsors
About Us




Print Friendly! Email This Article! Discuss NOW!


NACHA's Settlement Date or Reg E's Statement Date?
by John Burnett & Andy Zavoina, BOL Gurus
Guru Bios

Question:  Relative to Reg E, a client notified the bank that unauthorized charges were posted to his checking account on 1/12/06. The charges were posted 10-27, 10-28, 11-3, and the statement was cut 11-22. He notified us within 60 days of the statement, but NACHA states 60 days from settlement date. We originally provided provisional credit, but when the claim was denied from ACH, we took provisional credit back from the customer. I feel the bank is in error and a refund is due to the customer since regulation states 60 days from statement. Do you have an opinion?

Answer by Andy Zavoina:  Liability for a consumer under Reg E is covered in Section 205.6. A common misconception is that if the consumer waits beyond 60 days of their statement date, they have all liability (i.e. unlimited). That isn't necessarily the case. That unlimited rule applies to amounts withdrawn AFTER that 60 day period. The amounts withdrawn before that revert to the other limits and are based on when you are notified and when the withdrawals were made. So it is possible that the consumer waits beyond 60 days to notify you, and they still have minimal liability because of when the transfer was made.

Also, NACHA rules or merchant refunds have nothing to do with your responsibilities under Reg E and your requirement to satisfy investigation requirements under §205.11. Your requirements are between you and your customer and the times required are not adjusted based on other rules you may have to follow. Reg E implements the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, a law, imposing very specific requirements on you.

Answer by John Burnett:   Another way to look at this question is to split up the two rules. Regulation E covers the relationship between you and your customer. Your customer's liability for unauthorized transactions will be determined under section 205.6. The NACHA rules on adjusting entries determine whether you will be able to send back a transaction that your customer has said is unauthorized. You refund to your customer based on Regulation E, and recover from the ODFI that which you are able to recover under the NACHA rules.

First published on BankersOnline.com 7/03/06



Privacy Policy    Disclaimer   Recommend This Site !   Contact Us


BankersOnline is a free service made possible by the generous support of our advertisers and sponsors. Advertisers and sponsors are not responsible for site content. Please help us keep BankersOnline FREE to all banking professionals. Support our advertisers and sponsors by clicking through to learn more about their products and services.