Skip to content
 

John Burnett

John Burnett
Bio: 

John Burnett joined Glia Group, Inc., and BankersOnline in 2004, and currently serves as Executive Editor. He is a 1990 honors graduate of the Stonier Graduate School of Banking and is an alumnus of the ABA National Compliance School, where he served on the faculty for several years.

John began his banking career in high school when he started as a teller at a $15 million bank that didn't have account numbers for its checking accounts (he says they actually filed by signature!) He joined Cape Cod Bank and Trust Company in 1971 and assumed the position of Compliance Officer in 1976. He also served as corporate secretary and secretary of CCBT's Board of Directors, as well as Clerk of the bank's holding company.

He was a member of the Massachusetts Bankers Association Legal and Regulatory Compliance Committee, and of the American Bankers Association Compliance Executive Committee and NCS/NGCS Advisory Board. He is a regular presenter of BOL Learning Connect webinars and a presenter at BOL Conferences events.

Contact info: 

You may contact John via email at jburnett@bankersonline.com.


Questions Answered

Dispute Past Allowable Network Time Frame

08/23/2020

I have a customer who is submitting a dispute for services not as described. After filing all the information, we have received a response that it is past the allowable network time frames for this dispute. Are we required to give the customer credit for this transaction?

Monetary Instruments Log for Credit Union

08/09/2020

I am trying to create a monetary instruments log for our credit union. I have not been able to find a list of the required information needed on the log. Where can I find that information?

Reg CC Hold-One Large Exception Hold?

08/09/2020

This pertains to a Reg CC Hold. I have a check for $25,475.00 drawn on a closed retirement account issued from the retirement bank to the customer. For a large deposit exception would I make $200 available next day, $4,800 available the 2nd business day and the remaining $20,475 available on the 7th business day after the deposit, correct? Is this considered one large deposit exception hold or two separate holds, the first being a case-by-case and the second being the large deposit, or should I make the first $5,000 available the next day and the remainder available on the 7th business day?

CTR Scenario-Deposit in 2 Different Accounts

08/02/2020

I have a CTR scenario that I need guidance on: John Doe comes in and deposits $10,500 in cash into two different accounts. He deposits $9000 into an account that he owns by himself. He deposits $1500 into an account that he jointly owns with his girlfriend Jane. Does a Part One need to be filled out on the girlfriend Jane?

Guidance Published by FINCEN on 10/01/19

07/19/2020

This question primarily refers to the guidance published by FINCEN on 10/01/19, particularly the line "If more than one Item 2 options applies to a Part 1 person, a separate Part 1 section will be prepared on that person for each Item 2 option." In addition to reading the publication, I watched a BOL Webinar by John Burnett on this topic and was hoping he may be available to answer this question. I am aware that this ruling has postponed and is not currently effective, but our institution has been filing CTRs in accordance to this guidance since it came out in order to prepare. If this guidance were in place and I was trying to follow it correctly would the following scenario be filed as explained, or is my understanding incorrect. Jane Doe is the sole owner of a checking account for her Sole Proprietorship, Doe Inc. Jane Doe makes an $7,000 withdrawal from the Doe Inc checking account on behalf of the business. John Smith is a signer on the Doe Inc checking account and makes a $5,000 withdrawal on behalf on the business. Based on my understanding of the 10/01/20 guidance three part 1's would be filed on this CTR as follows: The first Part 1 for Jane Doe would have box 2a marked for the $7,000 she withdrew on her own behalf/on behalf of the business because she and the business are the same entity. This part 1 would include the trade name Doe Inc and contain Jane's DOB, SSN, etc. and would have $7,000 in section 22. An additional Part 1 for John Smith would have box 2b marked for the $5,000 he withdrew on behalf of the business. The Part 1 would contain John's personal information and would show $5,000 in section 22. The second Part 1 for Jane Doe would have box 2c marked for the $5,000 that was withdrawn on behalf of the business, but not by Jane herself, therefore not qualifying for the previous 2a we filed for Jane. This part one would include the trade name Doe Inc and contain Jane's DOB, SSN, etc. and would have $5,000 in section 22. Because Jane fulfills a 2a and 2c role for this set of transactions it is my understanding that a separate part 1 would be filed for each role based on the guidance I quoted at the beginning of this message. Please advise as to the correct way to file for a transaction of this nature (based on the 10/01/20 guidance) and If my understanding is incorrect, please explain what the issue was.

HELOC Access Check to Advance Funds

06/07/2020

If a customer uses a HELOC access check to advance funds, does a transaction description other than "Advance" need to appear on the periodic statement?

More than One Account- Review All?

06/07/2020

When an account holder has more than one account and the first account review reveals that there are no protected funds and there is sufficient funds to satisfy the judgement, are we required to conduct a review on any remaining accounts? When reading section 212.5 Account Review, I am finding that we should perform an account review on all accounts. (f) Separate account reviews. The financial institution shall perform the account review separately for each account in the name of an account holder against whom a garnishment order has been issued. In performing account reviews for multiple accounts in the name of one account holder, a financial institution shall not trace the movement of funds between accounts by attempting to associate funds from a benefit payment deposited into one account with amounts subsequently transferred to another account. However, I am finding in the analysis of the final rule that agencies agree that it serves no useful purpose to follow the rule’s procedures in situations where a financial institution has made a determination not to take any action affecting an account as the result of the receipt of a garnishment order. The analysis also goes on to say that that if a financial institution will not be freezing or removing funds from an account in response to a garnishment order, then the financial institution should not perform an account review to determine if a protected amount should be established. Does this mean that we don’t have to do an account review on the remaining accounts if there are no protected funds and the amount satisfies the judgement in the first account? In our situation, the first account review did not have protected funds and the amount satisfied the judgement, but some of the remaining accounts do have protected funds. If we do have to review all accounts, even if the first review satisfies the judgement, are we still required to send the notice since other accounts did have protected funds, even though no funds were garnished from those accounts?

Pages

Banker Tools View All

A collection of useful resources for various areas of the bank which have been developed by members of the BankersOnline staff or have been created and contributed by users of the BankersOnline site.

Banker Tools

Banker Store View All

From training, policies, forms, and publications, to office products and occasional gifts, it’s available here:

Banker Store

hot right now

image description

Looking for effective, convenient training on a particular subject?

BOL Learning Connect offers more than 200 courses ON-DEMAND or on CD ROM from AML to Reg Z and every topic in between.