Andy Zavoina, CRCM, is an Executive Vice President and Chief Relationship Officer with the Glia Group, Inc., best known for its interest in BankersOnline.com. He joined Glia and BOL in 2003.
Mr. Zavoina has been in finance and banking for 35 years. Over 20 years were with a two-bank holding company which had $534 million in assets, 89 branches spanning Texas and nearly 500 ATMs. He managed loan workouts, has been a consumer, commercial and real estate lender, managing those departments, as well as being his banks first Webmaster. He was responsible for compliance -management, -auditing, and -training for both banks.
Andy is a frequent webinar presenter for BOL Learning Connect and a key contributor to conferences put on by BOL Conferences, Inc. In addition, Andy teaches live presentations at state association schools and regional compliance organizations across the U.S. and has served on the faculty of national banking schools. He has written articles and lectured on many facets of compliance, the use of the internet and technology as a tool, as well as compliance in cyberspace.
As a BankersOnline Guru, Andy assists banks in every day, and not so every day, compliance questions on BankersOnline, BankCompliance.com and other organizations.
Mr. Zavoina is a recipient of the American Bankers Association’s Distinguished Service Award for his involvement and accomplishments in the field of regulatory compliance management. He is a past Chairman of the ABA’s Compliance Executive Committee, the Editorial Advisory Board for the ABA Compliance Magazine and served as a member of the ABA’s Compliance School Board. He also served on the Texas Bankers Association's Compliance Committee.
He is a graduate of the ABA National Commercial Lending School, National Compliance and National Graduate Compliance School and is a Certified Regulatory Compliance Manager with the Institute of Certified Bankers.
You can reach Andy on the Internet by using his e-mail address, email@example.com, or visiting https://www.bankersonline.com
If NSF fees occur outside of the “statement + 60-day time period” that would not have occurred without the unauthorized EFTs, is the bank required to refund those as well or only NSF fees that were applied within the statement + 60 day period?
How far back can a cardholder report unauthorized activity?
When can we hold a member liable in a scam situation?
If a cardholder calls to report an unauthorized transaction from a merchant they have previous transactions with because they do not recognize the transaction, can we ask that they contact the merchant first to see what the transaction was for? How would they know if it is truly unauthorized if they don't even know what it is for?
When access is given on a device, is the customer liable for any transactions that happen on their device?
Is there a limit on a consumer submitting an unauthorized transaction? I was told it's two years now?
If a consumer is scammed and instructed to purchase gifts cards and give the scammer the card information, is this covered under Reg E?
Can we deny a p2p transfer dispute (such as CashApp) if the customer is claiming fraud however, the customer has sent money in the past to that same payee previously?
For police reports, if the bank is taking the loss on large dollar amount claims, can the bank file a police report?
It has been my experience that most financial institutions request a consumer sign a specific form (vendor developed; card processing developed; or internally developed) - what I would consider "industry standard." I have a client who was cited by the FDIC (who said "all" regulatory agencies are citing this as an issue) for "requiring the use of a particular form." Regulation E allows for requiring disputes be put in writing and signed, providing the investigation is not delayed if a written form is not received. The bank's process includes beginning the investigation upon notification (oral or written) and follows up with getting a specific form signed (card processor developed).
Has anyone else heard of regulators citing for "required use of a specific form"? If the card processor requires disputes be submitted on their form, how can the bank complete the investigation process without "requiring" the use of a specific form?