I am so confused on this new ruling:

We have two customers, Vince and Haley, who came into the bank together and opened two new joint deposit accounts with cash they received from their wedding. The amount is over $10,000 and a CTR is required. A joint checking in the amount of $8012 and a joint savings in the amount of $2000.

They were both present when the accounts were opened.

How would we file the CTR?

Would we have four part 1’s?
Vince – 2a. Person conducting on own behalf
Vince – 2b. Person conducting transaction for another
Haley-2a. Person conducting on own behalf
Haley – 2b. Person conducting transaction for another

OR

Would we have

Vince – 2a. Person conducting on own behalf
Vince – 2b. Person conducting transaction for another
Haley – 2b. Person conducting transaction for another.


Thanks!

While the two joint owners were both present, pick one of them and identify him or her as the conductor and treat the other as an observer.

Let's say that you designate Haley as the conductor.

You will create a Part I section for Haley, checking item 2a and 3 for the conductor.
You will create a Part I section for Vince, checking item 2c and 3 to tag him as a person on whose behalf ....
On each Part I you will List $10,012 and the two account numbers in item 21
That's just the same as a normal CTR for a conductor making a reportable deposit to a joint account.

In this way you identify both parties and that they each benefited from the transactions (because it's a joint account). It really doesn't matter that both of them were there unless each of them did one of the transactions (separately). That can occur, for example, if they go to different offices or come in at different times on the same day. In that case, you would create a part I for Haley (2a) and one for Vince (2c) for one of the transactions, and a part I for Vince (2a) and one for Haley (2c) for the other transaction, all with box 3 checked, and a Part II section that ties both of them together.

I reached out to FinCEN on this example at the same time as I posted this thread. I actually just cut and paste my email to them into this thread.

Their response is:

Vince – 2a. Person conducting on own behalf
Vince – 2b. Person conducting transaction for another
Haley-2a. Person conducting on own behalf
Haley – 2b. Person conducting transaction for another

So, I have documentation from them. That is what we are going with. I am emailing them a lot on any unsure issues and keeping the documentation.

FinCEN called and amended their response.

2 Part 1 a. One for Vince conducting on own behalf and one for Haley conducting on own behalf. Multiple transactions two account numbers.

They indicated they are confused with this new rule, as well!

And that's enough for me to suggest that the important information is identifying a conductor and the persons on whose behalf the transactions were conducted. Any of the suggestions above would accomplish that goal, except for the amended FinCEN response in post 2246166 on 12/4/20, which clearly does not accurately show on whose behalf the transactions were completed.

Like a lot of FinCEN's CTR "instructions," the agency simply does not understand adequately what it is trying to regulate, and that means the regulated (banks) are left to scratch their collective heads. Getting inconsistent views from FinCEN staff on one-off questions is not helpful.