Most Popular Compliance Content
Next Day - Same Day Availability
10/27/2024
We were recently audited and it was noted that because a customer can immediately withdraw funds from a deposit made that same day, that we should be disclosing as a same day availability bank. instead of next day availability. What is your opinion and how do you recommend wording the change on policy, notices, and disclosures? It seems most examples I find are all next day examples.
Compliance tiers for Dodd-Frank Section 1071
10/27/2024
What criteria is used for determining compliance tiers for Dodd-Frank Section 1071?
Reasonable Cause Holds
10/27/2024
We are a small community bank that maintains strong connections with our customer base. From time to time, a customer we know well brings us a check for deposit that's accompanied by a seemingly legitimate backstory. But the appearance of the check, based on our experience leads us to believe that the check may not be paid because not ALL of the boxes can be checked to rule out that that it's a fraudulent check. Knowing our customers we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt by accepting the check for deposit and placing a Reasonable Cause hold for 4-5 days. Our acceptance of the check is done in good faith that our customer's story is legitimate and our Reasonable Cause hold is done as a means of ensuring that our customer doesn't end up on the wrong side of a scam. I have read several opinions which state the ONLY course of action that's entirely compliant is to refuse to accept the check for deposit. Most opinions are that we simply cannot place a hold for Reasonable Cause to Doubt Collectibility in this situation. Even after completing due diligence on the check and the facts offered by the customer, by refusing a check where some facts indicate authenticity and others indicate potential fraud, why would we not be allowed to try in good faith to accept the check, while protecting our customer from potential loss by way of a Reasonable Cause hold? After all, the teller has formed a "well grounded belief that the check MIGHT not be paid," but is also acting in good faith on behalf--and in favor--of our customer. We are all advocates for our customers, and simply refusing to accept a check for deposit simply because we couldn't check off EVERY box that it isn't a fraudulent check, seems counterintuitive to the consumer-favoring language of Reg CC.
Stopping Preauthorized Payments
10/20/2024
We currently have outside counsel providing what I believe is inaccurate guidance. However, I'm struggling to find resources I can use to refute their regulatory interpretations. Specifically, this applies to a consumer's right to stop payment under 1005.10(c). Can you please advise how these requirements apply to: 1. Preauthorized transfers for loan payments (we are the lender/servicer) drawn on both external (we obtain debit authorization) and internal deposit accounts; and 2. Preauthorized bill payments both issued against the bank's/vendor's account and debited directly from the consumer's account. We hold the consumer's deposit account and offer the bill pay service.
Special handling for National Security Letters
10/20/2024
Who should handle any National Security Letters that our bank might receive?