Thread Options
|
#1729859 - 08/10/12 07:38 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
Kay
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
|
Yes. The bank would not have to refund fees imposed by a third party, though. The Bureau in fact made some rather outlandish assumptions (my opinion) when discussing this very possibility. On page 6256 of the February 7, 2012, Federal Register document publishing the final rule, column 3, the Bureau in its analysis of §1005.33(c)(2) says --
"Based on this rule, if a remittance transfer is deposited in an account that does not belong to the designated recipient named in the receipt because the sender provided the wrong account number for the designated recipient, the provider may charge the sender for resending the remittance transfer, but may not have the sender provide the principal transfer amount again in the event that the remittance transfer provider is unable to have the funds extracted from the wrong account. The Bureau believes that this approach will encourage providers and other parties involved in the remittance transfer to develop security procedures to limit the risk of funds being deposited in an account when the name of the designated recipient named in the receipt does not match the name associated with the account number. The Bureau notes that remittance transfer providers will be supplied with both the name, and if provided by the sender, the telephone number and/or address of the designated recipient, which the provider must disclose on the receipt under § 1005.31(b)(2)(iii)."
Last edited by John Burnett; 08/10/12 08:11 PM.
_________________________
John S. Burnett BankersOnline.com Fighting for Compliance since 1976 Bankers' Threads User #8
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1729875 - 08/10/12 08:14 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
Kay
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
|
Apparently, the Bureau expects that U.S. banks and other providers will be able to convince recipients' banks in foreign countries to adopt the added verification to ensure against credits to mismatched accounts.
I agree that might work in a closed system. In an open system, I think there might be some rose-colored glasses in use.
_________________________
John S. Burnett BankersOnline.com Fighting for Compliance since 1976 Bankers' Threads User #8
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1730032 - 08/13/12 01:18 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
Kay
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
|
That is the single most frustrating part of the rule, even with the ability to, in many cases, provide estimates. When it wrote the law, Congress had (IMO) rose-colored glasses on, assuming that the international marketplace would be forced to adapt to its rules, forgetting that it (Congress) has no power to make foreign participants in the market conform, instead of imposing rules reflecting the reality of the marketplace. So that leaves the U.S. banks with the responsibility of figuring out how to make the non-U.S. participants adapt their practices to accommodate the U.S. banks' compliance responsibilities.
As the old punchline says, "Let me know how that works for you."
_________________________
John S. Burnett BankersOnline.com Fighting for Compliance since 1976 Bankers' Threads User #8
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1730168 - 08/13/12 04:18 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
Kay
|
Power Poster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,927
|
IMHO, it would not count. The original IAT would count since that is the instruction to remit the funds to another party. Your return is not such a remittance.
_________________________
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.--Confucius
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1730211 - 08/13/12 05:18 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
Doug Hendrickson
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
|
IMHO, it would not count. The original IAT would count since that is the instruction to remit the funds to another party. Your return is not such a remittance. But, Doug, the inbound IAT is a debit to the U.S. customer's account, not an instruction from the customer to the bank to send funds out. The instructions were given to the Originator, not the bank. In fact, I can't conceive of a received ACH debit that would be a remittance transfer under subpart B of Reg E.
_________________________
John S. Burnett BankersOnline.com Fighting for Compliance since 1976 Bankers' Threads User #8
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1730213 - 08/13/12 05:20 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
Kay
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
|
In order for an IAT to be a remittance transfer for your bank, the Originator must be a consumer customer (or the bank must be the Originator at a consumer's request), the bank must be the ODFI and the transfer must be for personal, family or household purposes.
_________________________
John S. Burnett BankersOnline.com Fighting for Compliance since 1976 Bankers' Threads User #8
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1730297 - 08/13/12 06:31 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
John Burnett
|
Power Poster
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,927
|
I stand corrected. Thanks John.
_________________________
I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.--Confucius
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1731425 - 08/15/12 08:17 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
Kay
|
100 Club
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 199
|
Our bill pay service does not allow payments outside the USA. We do not originate IAT ACH. That leaves wires. We had less than a dozen consumer International wires last year. So we are off the hook for disclosures, correct?
If we continue to offer consumer International wires, I believe our remaining hurdle is Reg E disputes. With the larger dollar amounts of wires, I am afraid the risk may still be too much for us. Does anyone have ways to mitigate this risk?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1731898 - 08/16/12 07:05 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
John Burnett
|
100 Club
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 132
Phoenix, AZ
|
Looking for clarification:
Commentary to 1005.30(f)(2)(ii) For purposes of determining whether a person qualifies for the safe harbor under 1005.30(f)(2)(i), the number of remittance transfers provided includes any transfers excluded from the definition of "remittance transfer" due simply to the safe harbor. In contrast, the number of remittance transfers provided does not include any transfers that are excluded from the definition of "remittance transfer" for reasons other than the safe harbor, such as small value transactions or securities and commodities transfers that are excluded from the definition of "remittance transfer" by 1005.30(e)(2).
As a subpart to Regulation E I agree that the transfers to be counted toward the 100 would only be consumer but the question I have is what would be considered a transfer that is excluded from the definition of remittance transfer due simply to the safe harbor? Would we not just simply count the number of consumer remittance transfers made to designated recipients, only excluding those in amounts of $15.00 or less or securities/commodities transfers?
_________________________
CRCM/CAMS
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1732539 - 08/17/12 08:34 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
J Hunt
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
|
Looking for clarification:
Commentary to 1005.30(f)(2)(ii) For purposes of determining whether a person qualifies for the safe harbor under 1005.30(f)(2)(i), the number of remittance transfers provided includes any transfers excluded from the definition of "remittance transfer" due simply to the safe harbor. In contrast, the number of remittance transfers provided does not include any transfers that are excluded from the definition of "remittance transfer" for reasons other than the safe harbor, such as small value transactions or securities and commodities transfers that are excluded from the definition of "remittance transfer" by 1005.30(e)(2).
As a subpart to Regulation E I agree that the transfers to be counted toward the 100 would only be consumer but the question I have is what would be considered a transfer that is excluded from the definition of remittance transfer due simply to the safe harbor? Would we not just simply count the number of consumer remittance transfers made to designated recipients, only excluding those in amounts of $15.00 or less or securities/commodities transfers? Correct, J Hunt. But the Bureau wanted to make very clear that you have to count the ones that would have been subject to the rule but for the fact that you weren't subject to the rule. That's all.
_________________________
John S. Burnett BankersOnline.com Fighting for Compliance since 1976 Bankers' Threads User #8
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1732540 - 08/17/12 08:37 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
Still Developing
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
|
Our bill pay service does not allow payments outside the USA. We do not originate IAT ACH. That leaves wires. We had less than a dozen consumer International wires last year. So we are off the hook for disclosures, correct?
If we continue to offer consumer International wires, I believe our remaining hurdle is Reg E disputes. With the larger dollar amounts of wires, I am afraid the risk may still be too much for us. Does anyone have ways to mitigate this risk? The wires are not subject to subpart A of Regulation A. They are only subject to subpart B. As long as you stay at or under the safe harbor limit of 100, you aren't subject to subpart B. As we used to say in high school algebra: QED!
_________________________
John S. Burnett BankersOnline.com Fighting for Compliance since 1976 Bankers' Threads User #8
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1734359 - 08/23/12 06:13 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
YHWB
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,108
gone fishin'
|
So a Trust wires US dollars to Germany to pay household bills for a home maintained there for the beneficiary of the Trust. Will this be governed by the new disclosures?
And the same situation as above, but a person requests the wire. I don't think so, as the trust is not a consumer... I was told differently. If it's for personal, family, or household purposes - the regulators will more than likely state it applies.
_________________________
My opinions are my own, and not that of my employer.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1734423 - 08/23/12 07:04 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
WonderWoman
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
|
And this is where the definitions are your friend and you can back an examiner away from over-reaching. A "sender" is defined as a "consumer." And, in §1005.2, a "consumer" is defined as a "natural person."
_________________________
John S. Burnett BankersOnline.com Fighting for Compliance since 1976 Bankers' Threads User #8
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1734477 - 08/23/12 07:55 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
Kay
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,108
gone fishin'
|
but this is the same FDIC that is forcing us to comply with the Overdraft FIL, even though we have an ad hoc program.
The trust accounts scares me. Because yes, I totally agree with you. And if I went with "a trust is not a natural person", we would be way under the 100 a year & life would be peachy.
However, if I get a rouge examiner who says otherwise, we will be WAY over the 100 & then could get cited.
Scared to weigh that risk.
That being said - are there any issues to limiting foreign wires?
Example: We'll only send foreign wires for customers of the bank who have been with us more than 5 years (should help curb fraud attempts). Or, we'll limit the $ amount of wires someone can send in a year's time frame.
Or...the thought even came to mind that since we only have one significant relationship that sends foreign wires (see trust account concerns above), could we say we'll only do foreign wires for them & no one else?
_________________________
My opinions are my own, and not that of my employer.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1734586 - 08/24/12 12:14 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
WonderWoman
|
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 960
Lost in a regulatory fog
|
You could start a whole ad campaign- "Foreign wires to the first 99 customers. Come get them while they last!" Sorry, couldn't resist. I think we're hitting the tipping point where each new additional consumer protection will have more negative consequences than benefit.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#1734759 - 08/24/12 03:46 PM
Re: Remittance Transfer Rule-Intl. Wires
Cornfed Turtle
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,108
gone fishin'
|
That cracked me up! Maybe our foreign wire fee could rival our fees for other behaviors we don't want. Hah! but then we'll get regulated in the fee area too ... though I already foresee that coming down the pipeline ...
_________________________
My opinions are my own, and not that of my employer.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|