Skip to content
BOL Conferences
Thread Options
#2256660 - 07/14/21 02:04 PM Large Deposit Hold
Banker75 Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 93
For large deposits, are we required to provide the $5,525 of a large deposit available immediately? We have been following the example from the regulation found in 229.13(b)(2) where we give the $225 immediately, give $5,300 next business day with the remaining on hold as a large deposit. I have an auditor that is telling me that we are out of compliance and that we are required to provide $5525 available immediately for all large deposit holds. Can someone advise us on this?

Return to Top
Deposits and Payments
#2256663 - 07/14/21 02:08 PM Re: Large Deposit Hold Banker75
rlcarey Online
10K Club
rlcarey
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 83,227
Galveston, TX
There is no requirement to give immediate credit on any check deposit unless that is what your funds availability policy says.

"Although the first $5,525 of a day's deposit is subject to the availability otherwise provided for checks, the amount in excess of $5,525 may be held for an additional period of time as provided in §229.13(h)."
_________________________
The opinions expressed here should not be construed to be those of my employer: PPDocs.com

Return to Top
#2256664 - 07/14/21 02:12 PM Re: Large Deposit Hold Banker75
Banker75 Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 93
Thank you rlcarey! I will advise my auditor of this.

Return to Top
#2256671 - 07/14/21 03:21 PM Re: Large Deposit Hold Banker75
John Burnett Offline
10K Club
John Burnett
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
Put another way, you can place both a case-by-case hold* on all but $225 of the first $5,525 and a large-deposit hold on the rest of the checks in the deposit.

* - This assumes the bank is normally a next-day availability bank. In the case of multiple checks deposited, the bank can select which checks (or parts of checks) are subjected to the CBC and large deposit hold. If the bank puts next-day items in the first $5,525, they can't be subject to the CBC hold.

If you do place both a CBC hold and exception hold you need to provide the depositor with a hold notice for each hold (separate notices or a combination notice can be used).
_________________________
John S. Burnett
BankersOnline.com
Fighting for Compliance since 1976
Bankers' Threads User #8

Return to Top
#2256672 - 07/14/21 03:27 PM Re: Large Deposit Hold Banker75
Banker75 Offline
Member
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 93
Thank you John!

Return to Top
#2256724 - 07/15/21 11:44 AM Re: Large Deposit Hold Banker75
Adam Witmer Offline
Power Poster
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 2,658
It's hard to tell from what you provided, but I think your auditor might be confused because it doesn't look like you are actually using both a large deposit exception hold and a case-by-case hold as John described. In other words, if you are giving $225 immediately and $5,525 next day, you aren't in alignment with what you could do under Reg CC. Now, anything better for the customer than what you could do is fine as Reg CC really just lays out the max of what you can do.

As John said, you could give $225 next day and $5,525 second day if you utilized both a case-by-case hold and a large deposit exception hold. However, it appears to me that you are technically just utilizing the large deposit hold as you are actually giving the $5,525 to the customer on the next day - it doesn't matter that you are giving part of it sooner than next day, i.e. $225 immediately, as the end result is that $5,525 is available to them next day, as is required for the large deposit exception hold without a case-by-case hold. To explain it another way, if you didn't use a case-by-case hold, all you would have to do is make $5,525 available the next day and the remainder would have seventh day availability. (Some financial institutions do this as they have gotten rid of case-by-case holds altogether, just to simplify things.)

Now, all of that said, we have to acknowledge Randy's point that if your policy (disclosure) is more strict that what Reg CC permits (for example, if you require $225 to be immediately available), then you have to follow your policy.

My point here is that what you are doing appears fine (based on what was provided) and doesn't appear to be a violation of Reg CC. If I was your auditor, I would just point this out and comment that it may be worth revisiting your process if your intention was to delay funds for as long as possible, as you are not currently doing that. Alternatively, you could revise your process to simplify it and just remove the $225 requirement as you aren't really using a case-by-case hold. Regardless, what your are doing appears fine under Reg CC if the process is working for you.
_________________________
Adam Witmer, CRCM

All statements are my opinion, not those of my employer, and should not be taken as legal advice.
www.compliancecohort.com

Return to Top

Moderator:  John Burnett