Hello its been a while since last post, but I have a question about filling out part 1 sec A of CTR. We have a situation where a conductor "Y" came in and made a $5,000.00 deposit to the joint account of X an Y, then another conductor "Z" made a $4,000.00 deposit to the single account of X, then a $4,000.00 deposit to a Custodial UTMA "X" custodian for "Z". Do I list Y and Z on a sec A or not, is the question. Generally both parties go on when it's a deposit, but in this case accountholders "Y" and "Z" didn't get benefit of reportable transaction. We have all pertinent info so it's just a question of proper completion I suppose.

If I do the math correctly, I'm not sure a CTR is needed here.

Y - Deposited $5,000 benefit $5,000
X - Benefited from Y's $5,000 deposit and Z's $4,000 deposit = $9,000.
Z - Deposited $8,000 Benefited from $4,000.

If X is the custodian for Z, X does not have ownership of these funds and therefore would not benefit from them. Consequently, no single person received more than $10,000 and no single individual deposited more than $10,000.

(The normal caveat to this answer is to of course, make sure that you are looking at these accounts for potential structuring.)

If, on the other hand, X and Z have a joint account and therfore X benefited from $12,000, aggregation rules would dictate that all joint owners are included so you would have 3 section A's and Section B would be left blank with the "Conducted on own behalf" box checked.

I am trying to lay my hands on the FinCEN ruling or guidance on CTRs and fiduciaries. I believe it says that the fiduciary (in this case, the custodian) is a person on whose behalf the transaction is completed. If indeed that's correct, then all three deposits benefit X, for a total of $13,000, and you'd file.

Section A entries for X, Y and Z. Check "conducted on own behalf" in Section B.

If I am wrong on the fiduciary, then Brian is correct, and no CTR.

Ok so we have 2 extremes: No one or everyone. I seem to remember FinCen treating fiducuaries as "owners". I was leaning to filing on X, just want to be sure that Y and Z get a sec A. If I understand you, even though Y and Z benefit standing alone is not threshold, X is sort of the common thread, thereby necessitating the others be included.

That's my view, Nick

What would be interesting as well is if they later transferred any of these funds back to just one of the accounts noted in the example. I had a customer do this years ago and we caught them structuring by moving money around to different accounts that ended up having a common thread who later transferred all of the funds back to their sole account later.

Interesting. I am leaning toward a CTR being neede based on X's involvement and relationships.