Thread Options
#2168610 - 03/16/18 03:04 PM IOLTA and CTR
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 78
Good morning,

I just finished reading through a lengthy and very informative thread on this topic but since it went from 2013-2016, I just wanted to be sure nothing has changed since then and be sure I understand what I read:


Person brings in $11,000 total cash.

$8000 goes into Account A (law firm account)
$3000 goes into Account B (IOLTA account)

CTR would include:
Part 1 on Conductor (Person conducting transaction)
(2) Part 2's to include the law firm and the IOLTA account (as "Person" on whose behalf transactions were conducted)

And due to the fact that the IOLTA deposit was below the reporting threshold itself, I do NOT need to gather the client information from the attorney, am I understanding that correctly?

Also, in the event the law firm itself collected over $10,000 in cash on behalf of any one client in a 24 hour period it would be required to file Form 8300 as well OR if they were to receive multiple payments relating to that same client transaction within a 12 month period.

We are not faced with this situation as the norm so my knowledge is limited - however; knowing the barrage of questions the firm may have smirk I just want to be armed ahead of time and to be able to train the front line staff accordingly.

Hopefully, I didn't muddy this up too much...thank you all in advance.

Hope YOUR Friday treats you kindly!

Return to Top
#2168643 - 03/16/18 04:32 PM Re: IOLTA and CTR GOWITHYOURGUT
BuckDog Offline
100 Club
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 123
I believe that you will need to collect the information for the persons that the $3,000 represents because they are the ones considered benefiting from this cash deposit along with the law firm and conductor. Please see the ruling listed below.

FIN-1989-R005 (Formerly 89-5)
Issued: December 21, 1989

Return to Top
#2168663 - 03/16/18 05:15 PM Re: IOLTA and CTR BuckDog
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 78
Thank you BuckDog, I do have the suggested ruling printed (with scenario No. 3 highlighted). Rereading it, along with the original thread I meant to reference earlier (CTR for IOLTA account 6/04/13), I'm perceiving it differently. In the scenario in the ruling, they are using the example of ONE account being deposited into. So, like a "joint" account per se, you would reference those that are benefitting. I see that.

However; the Law and Analysis section (pg 2), bottom of first paragraph states "Identifying information about the person on whose behalf the transaction is conducted must always be furnished if the transaction is reportable under the BSA..." in which case, splitting hairs, this transaction alone would not be.

Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand - as we are well aware, some of these rulings can be less than clear given different viewpoints, in which case - a phone call to the powers that be is most beneficial. frown

Thank you again. Still interested in others understanding of this scenario.

Return to Top

Moderator:  Andy_Z