Going round with our customer's store manager who refuses to provide SSN for CTR. We've heard it all before... the requirement to "identify" the conductor only states we must get an "official document. It does not specifically state SSN. Can someone please direct me to something that states the SSN is required in this case? I don't want to go quoting something only to find out it is just preferred or suggested... This young lady is being a real pill and I want to have all my ducks lined up before I tell the branch manager to refuse to allow HER to make deposits.

All you have to do is read the instructions on the legacy CTR form. The only blanks allowed are if you check one of the boxes, which are not available for in-person deposits. Call the store owner and tell them the store manager is not cooperating and you will either 1) refuse deposits from her, or 2) close the account.

...and on the form 112 it is a "critical" field; it will not let you submit the form if you do not put in the TIN. Any reviewer would cite the absence of the SSN as a violation.

You don't need any ducks...this isn't a negotiation.

I have a similar situation where a teller has now cashed 2 checks (even after being told not to do it after the 1st time) on behalf of an MSB for a person that does not have or won't give us an SSN or ITIN (they gave us a state issued DL). On the "New" form there is an "unknown" box, would this be a situation where it would be okay to use the "unknown" box? What are the likely reprecussions with auditor and examiners if this box is used?

You will likely get asked in an audit why "Unknown" was selected. It gives them something to look for.

Regulators have also lately querried FinCEN to see which CTRs have inconsistencies in occupation as well. Luckily for us, those are typically non-customer CTRs and we have to rely on the response the teller receives at the time of transaction.

But these "Uknown" areas, if when not required do open doors for the regulators to look for holes in your procedural process as well.

Just food for thought.

I'll make this a little simpler. The bank is in a position to demand the SSN or turn the transaction away. If the conductor legitimately does not have either an SSN, on what basis is he or she working for the MSB?

As for the teller, management pointedly reminded him or her to get the SSN and apparently made no impression. Decide whether or not to give him/her one more chance.

Finally, contact the MSB management and make it clear that you won't deal with conductors who won't provide such information.

Simpler still: Fire the teller.

And file a SAR on the Customers employee.

What about Public Officials? I'm being told that they don't have to provide an SSN, but other than what CompliKat stated, I don't find anything that specifically states they're exempt from providing any informtion. Is it just something that's known?

A public official acting as an individual? Why would they not have to supply an SSN?

I'm being told that they don't have to provide an SSN,

Told by whom?? Whoever it is, they are sadly mistaken.

There are circumstances where you might not be required to obtain full personal identification on a law enforcement officer, but "public official?" Gimme a break. That would take in everybody from the mayor to the dog catcher.

If he or she is knowledgeable, whoever is telling you that can provide you with a citation to authority.

Sorry - I left out a few important pieces of information. The person is a Deputy Public Guardian and the cash was deposited to a County Public Guardian account on behalf of their ward. He was not acting as an individual.

If this government entity was to open an account, it could be said that it does not meet the regulation's definition of a "customer" and the CIP regulation would not apply. Thus, it would be completely up to the terms of your bank's CIP whether you performed CIP on the customer or the signatories.

However, there is no connection between that and not requiring identification, including an SSN, on a CTR. Again, depending on circumstances, a law enforcement officer might not be required to provide personal identification, but no one else. Failing to obtain identification from this person could and should be classified as a violation by any third party reviewer.

If this is an account controlled by the county, the customer is the county and is therefor eligible for a Phase I exemption and the dilemma is really self imposed.

Hmmm, that would be an interesting exemption scenario to put in front of the Helpline; i.e. the money is controlled by a government entity, but it actually belongs to an individual.

Again, the exemption applies only to transactions involving the
“exempt person's” own funds.

http://www.ffiec.gov/bsa_aml_infobase/documents/FDIC_DOCs/BSA_Manual.pdf

Ken,

Would you know if this is still current?

We happened to be at the end of a BSA exam when this transaction took place and I asked the examiner if we could exempt the County Public Guardian and she said probably not based on exactly what Ken said. I didn't ask her about the currency transaction and if the ssn was required for the conductor.

I told the Public Guardian's attorney that the ssn exemption only applied to CIP but she told me otherwise...even our legal counsel said it didn't apply quoting 31 CFR 1010.311 which is what CompliKat is referencing in her post.

I called FinCEN - FinCEN's BSA Q&As question #21 answers my question. If we choose to do a CTR, it would be completed similar to the way we are now to do for Armored Card Service.

I called FinCEN - FinCEN's BSA Q&As question #21 answers my question. If we choose to do a CTR, it would be completed similar to the way we are now to do for Armored Card Service.

I called FinCEN - FinCEN's BSA Q&As question #21 answers my question. If we choose to do a CTR, it would be completed similar to the way we are now to do for Armored Card Service.

Well, you can tell I was having computer problems...

If we choose to do a CTR

What the heck does that mean??

Sorry - I keep leaving out information because I'm in hurry. Depending on the circumstances, we can either exempt them or file a CTR but we need more information on who the funds actually belong to before we can make that decision. No matter who the funds belong to we could file a CTR so I guess that's why I said if we choose to do a CTR. As it is, I think the funds belong to an individual so we'll probably be doing a CTR with that individual's information and conducted by the County Public Guardian not the actual conductors of the transaction.

I like the fact that FinCEN makes up the rules as they go along. Why can't every business deposit be treated like an armored car transaction if this is the case?