I have seen a couple other threads on this subject but none specifically address this question. Our Retail deposit folks are wanting to separate the collected beneficial ownership information from the signature certifying the accuracy of the information. The signature certifying the accuracy would be the signature on the front of the signature card where the customer is also certifying that they received the new account disclosures and agree to the terms and conditions of the account.

The excerpt from the Rule states that financial institutions can get the certification of accuracy in the same way its gets other customer information in the account opening process. This isn't much to go off of but I believe separating the certifying signature from the rest of the beneficial ownership information defeats the purpose of the customer having the information right in front of them to certify. Also, if there is more than one person that is a signer, there is no way to tell who is certifying the beneficial ownership information without having a separate signature just for this purpose.


“The certification of accuracy by the
individual submitting the information
may be obtained without use of the
Certification Form in the same way the
financial institution obtains other
information from its customers in
connection with its account opening
procedures. FinCEN expects that such
flexibility will facilitate the
implementation of the beneficial
ownership requirement—some
commenters noted that giving financial
institutions flexibility in integrating this
requirement would substantially reduce
resource outlays to change customer
onboarding processes and to train frontline
employees.”

What are other folks thoughts on this? Are other banks altering the certification form other than adding some additional fields?

The person opening the account and providing the beneficial ownership information may not be a signer on the account and, thus, would not sign the signature card.

Assuming the person opening the account is also a signatory, the Preamble does not say a bank cannot make the certifying signature serve anciallary purposes, but it does not say you can either. In assuming the certification does not require a dedicated signature, your bank is subjecting itself to the judgment of any third party reviewer with a contrary opinion...

Mine is that it doesn't make any difference whether the information and the certification are on the same piece of paper, but if an examiner asks you for the "certification" it needs to be a dedicated signature (wet or dry) tied specifically to this new account and Appendix A's certification language. Remember, the proponents believe this certification would be useful in a prosecution; it's doubtful they would want it watered down more than it already is. (Their premise is hogwash, but examiners I've spoken with already believe it's true.)

Hi Ken,

You have made some very good points - I appreciate your input!

Puzzled, you may also want to consider that there may be triggering events that are not tied to the opening of an account. If you don't have a signature card, how will you collect the certifying signature?

Another good point- we need a separate PDF form for flexibility when we open accounts and also for trigger points as you pointed out.

FinCEN designed pdf form with fillable fields

It reflects some subtle improvements over the one found in the regulation. Most likely enhancements banks will add if they design their own:
* account number,
* percentage of ownership and
* description of ID used for verification.