When wiring funds from an IOLTA do you reference the name of the client on the transmittal or the name of the firm or both. I am getting push-back from my wire department because I want to include the client name (if the atty will provide). Is there any guidance you might suggest? Thanks!

The wire is being made on behalf of the client. The client should be identified. Perhaps "ABC Law, PC, o/b/o Ima Client" if you have enough characters to allow it.

It's exactly one month since I asked the same question and no one has stepped into the breach since. So, this response is purely from me.

The bank is on notice that the attorney with an IOLTA account is a "professional service provider" as discussed in the Examination Manual; i.e. it knows that the attorney is a "gatekeeper" and the money in this account does not belong to him or the law firm. In FIN 1989-R005 FinCEN made it clear that if a reportable cash deposit is made to the IOLTA account, the bank is required to identify the client on the CTR. Following the same logic, I would say the bank is definitely required to identify the client as the originator of the wire transfer.

As your employees are probably more afraid of asking lawyers questions than they are clients in general, I suggest you submit your question to the Helpline. I will do the same and we can compare notes.

Sounds great! Thanks to you both!

Good Afternoon- Couldn't not take Ken's challenge so here is FinCENs answer regarding the wire transfer from at IOLTA account situation:

The “name of the transmitter” is the name of lawyer’s client; i.e. the person or entity on whose behalf lawyer or law firm is acting and who is funding the wire. FinCEN ruled on a parallel situation more than 25 year ago in FIN-1989-R005 where it directed the bank to require the attorney to disclose the client’s identity when a reportable amount of currency was deposited to an IOLTA account. This situation is analogous.

The alternative, identifying the lawyer or law firm as the transmitter, eliminates the effectiveness of any subsequent 314(a) search of wire transfers in the name of the originator, denies the beneficiary bank valuable due diligence information which it has the right to expect, and eliminates the value of the proposed reporting requirement for international wires. A strict interpretation on this point is justified as there are many well publicized occasions where these accounts have been used to facilitate money laundering and official corruption.

My suggestion is that the “account number of the transmitter” is the number of the IOLTA account as it is the only number available to the bank.

Failing to properly disclose the actual name of the transmitter would create a valued portal through which money launderers and terrorist financiers could use wire transfers from a lawyer or law firm in virtual anonymity.

I got exactly the same response...