Thread Options
#2243441 - 10/01/20 03:11 PM CTR Part 1 new requirement
Pinhead76 Offline
New Poster
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 10
Good Morning Folks. We are now a month into the new requirement of multiple Part 1 pages for folks who play multiple roles in a transaction and we as an FI do not do many of them to begin with. So I am looking to see how everyone read that new requirement. So if I have a Joint Account, Tax Select makes a deposit, would the Tax Select have 2 pages on the CTR even though they are an owner of the account? Or does this apply only to accounts where the transactor is not an owner of the account? Thoughts?

Return to Top
BSA/AML/CIP/OFAC Forum
#2243524 - 10/05/20 01:54 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
John Burnett Offline
10K Club
John Burnett
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 39,157
Cape Cod
If John Jones completed a reportable transaction in his joint account with Harry Smith, Each of the joint owners has one Part I entry (same as before). Jones's Part I has item 2a checked, and Smith's has item 2c checked. Each Part I includes the account number and cash amount in item 21.

If Jones completes two reportable cash transactions, one of which is on his own behalf and the other of which is on behalf of another person, you complete two Part I entries for him. The first is for the transaction completed on his own behalf (2a checked) and the second is for the transaction completed on the other person's behalf (2b checked). Then complete the third Part I entry for the other person (individual or entity), marking 2c.

If Jones completes two reportable cash transactions, with one to his joint account with Smith and the other to their LLC, you combine the two paragraphs above. There will four Part I sections in all.
  • Part I for Jones for the deposit to the joint account with 2a checked
  • Part I for Smith for the deposit to the joint account with 2c checked
  • Part I for Jones for the deposit to the LLC's account with 2b checked
  • Part I for the LLC with 2c checked.
_________________________
John S. Burnett
BankersOnline.com
Fighting for Compliance since 1976
Bankers' Threads User #8

Return to Top
#2243526 - 10/05/20 02:06 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement John Burnett
Pinhead76 Offline
New Poster
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 10
Thank you so much.

Return to Top
#2244252 - 10/19/20 04:35 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
Kisha Offline
100 Club
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 222
Hello. I would like to add on to this thread for a moment, please. We have one gentleman that will come in and make four cash deposits. The first will be to his personal account and the other three are into three separate business accounts. I understand we now need a Part I for just his personal transaction. I also understand we need 3 Part I's for all of the business transactions. What I am confused on is whether we only need one more Part I for the conductor for all three of the business deposits or do we need 3 more Part I's for the conductor for each of the business deposits. The example given in FinCen is only the two deposits, one being personal and one being for another and not another example of more than two transactions. Thank you in advance.

Return to Top
#2244255 - 10/19/20 05:12 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
BrianC Online
Power Poster
BrianC
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,926
Illinois
Assuming that the businesses are all LLCs, corporations or partnerships and you don't have any sole-proprietor accounts in there, the CTR will have five Part 1's

Three of them will be 2c - person on who's behalf the transactions are conducted (one for each of the three legal entities)
One will be 2a for the transaction that your customer conducted on their own behalf.
One will be 2b for all the transactions that your customer conducted on behalf of another.

You have additional part one's for each additional role in item 2, not for each additional deposit.
_________________________
Sola Gratia, Sola Fides, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria!
www.tcaregs.com

Return to Top
#2244256 - 10/19/20 05:20 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
Kisha Offline
100 Club
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 222
Thank you, Brian. In this scenario, these are all true business entities, not sole-proprietorships. With that said, if there would be an additional transaction for a sole proprietorship we would need another Part I for the conductor to show the Alternate Name on line 8, correct? Would this still be a 2a situation or would we do 2b? Typically we would list it as 2a on own behalf prior to this rule change.

Return to Top
#2244258 - 10/19/20 05:27 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
BrianC Online
Power Poster
BrianC
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,926
Illinois
No need for an additional Part I. List the assumed name item 8 on the same 2a you already have and add the sole-proprietor account number and amount.
_________________________
Sola Gratia, Sola Fides, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria!
www.tcaregs.com

Return to Top
#2244261 - 10/19/20 05:38 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
Kisha Offline
100 Club
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 222
Ok, that is what we have done normally. This will change once the new rule takes effect that has been postponed, correct? The DBA/Sole Proprietorship changes.

Return to Top
#2244281 - 10/19/20 09:22 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
John Burnett Offline
10K Club
John Burnett
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 39,157
Cape Cod
As presently written and suspended, I believe so. There is, however, no guarantee there won't be changes when the ruling is re-presented.
_________________________
John S. Burnett
BankersOnline.com
Fighting for Compliance since 1976
Bankers' Threads User #8

Return to Top
#2244293 - 10/20/20 12:39 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
Kisha Offline
100 Club
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 222
Thank you BrianC and John for your help and input.

Return to Top
#2244295 - 10/20/20 12:45 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
Kisha Offline
100 Club
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 222
I have one more question I just thought of. Looking back to our CTRs in September, I believe we filed two CTRs incorrectly in accordance with this multiple role rule change. Should we amend those filings? I've never amended a CTR so I would have to research the process. Thank you.

Return to Top
#2244303 - 10/20/20 02:32 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
ColoradoAML Offline
100 Club
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 202
You could, or you could contact FinCEN and ask them, they may say there's no need. If they do, document the conversation or save the email, and write a memo of what training or steps you've taken to ensure you file correctly going forward. Save all of this for your next exam.

Return to Top
#2245367 - 11/10/20 05:12 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
JennKK2 Offline
100 Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 193
-
so wondering on the sole proprietorship filing....
customer operates a DBA, has one account under his tax ID. I am reading FIN-2020-R001 which states use person info in line 4-6,7, and 17; put DBA in item 8 "alternate name"; and complete rest of CTR based on item 8. the only difference is the address for customer v. the address on check. so in reality i'm using all the other identifying documentation on the person...DL ss# etc. to complete the form.

correct
_________________________
plan your Work and Work your Plan

Return to Top
#2245368 - 11/10/20 05:26 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
BrianC Online
Power Poster
BrianC
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,926
Illinois
Since FinCEN indefinitely suspended compliance with FIN-2020-R000 to a date yet to be determined due to COVID, I'd wait and see how this plays out before making changes to process since we don't know if it will take on the same form if/when the requirements are resurrected.
_________________________
Sola Gratia, Sola Fides, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria!
www.tcaregs.com

Return to Top
#2245376 - 11/10/20 05:47 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
JennKK2 Offline
100 Club
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 193
-
thank you BrainC
_________________________
plan your Work and Work your Plan

Return to Top
#2255784 - 06/23/21 03:22 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
unknown Offline
100 Club
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 118
In 2021 Top Gun Conference for CTR session, John gave a “Multi-deposit complex example”:

A deposits $13,000 in sole owner account
A deposits $1600 in account of B (LLC)
A deposits $20 in joint account with C
D deposits $200 in checking account owned by A and E
D also deposits $144 in sole owner account

In this example, there was no Part I for $144 conducted by D. Is this because A is not involved in this at all?

Yet, Part I for $200 conducted by D is reported since A is involved?

Return to Top
#2255794 - 06/23/21 04:15 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
John Burnett Offline
10K Club
John Burnett
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 39,157
Cape Cod
Straight from the horse's, um, mouth: wink

Person D was involved as a conductor, but only to the tune of $344. That means he's not going to show up in the CTR as a conductor of cash transactions over $10,000. And, because Person D didn't own any of the account involved, he isn't in the CTR as a person on whose behalf cash transactions over $10,000 were conducted.

The $200 deposit that D made on behalf of A and E is part of the CTR because there were cash deposits on behalf of A totaling $13,220.
_________________________
John S. Burnett
BankersOnline.com
Fighting for Compliance since 1976
Bankers' Threads User #8

Return to Top
#2255798 - 06/23/21 04:31 PM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
unknown Offline
100 Club
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 118
Hi John,

With this complex example, can you break down who will be listed in Part 1?

I’m reviewing the training slides and I may be getting confused…..

The training slide has
D with $200 with 2b box checked.
E with $200 with 2c box checked.

Help….

Return to Top
#2255881 - 06/24/21 11:40 AM Re: CTR Part 1 new requirement Pinhead76
unknown Offline
100 Club
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 118
If D was a JOINT OWNER with A & E for the $200 deposit, then would we include the $144 deposit for D on this CTR?

Or is $144 deposit irrelevant no matter what since A was not involved at all?

Return to Top

Moderator:  Andy_Z