Our bank does servicing of "Contracts for Deed." This is where a buyer and seller enter into a contract for deed between themselves, the bank receives the payment from the buyer and disburses it to the seller. My question is, are we required to verify both buyers and sellers for CIP?
Working in a coastal area where the sale of property is abounding, we have several clients who escrow funds, particularly, for 1031 exchanges. Those monies may be placed in an escrow account and held for a period of time (145 days). The account is usually opened by an attorney or title company with the signors/agents being authorized representatives of the respective firm. The principals, of course, are the individuals for whom the funds are being held and may live anywhere within the United States. Are we correct in assuming our customer is the agent and/or firm who deposits and withdraws the proceeds from the account; and as such, the agent is responsible for securing identity of the individual from whom they collect and disburse? (Please keep in mind the principal in whose behalf the funds are deposited may benefit from interest paid on the account.)
I am the BSA officer and just did some quick research for 1031 exchanges. Our bank has just become a Qualified Intermediary for 1031 exchanges. What do I need to do for CIP purposes?
At our bank we open Escrow Trust Accounts. Our customer is the Escrow Company and they are opening accounts under their client's name and social security number as a trust. We are only obtaining the name and social security number of these individuals. Are we obligated to ask the escrow companies for more information on their clients, such as their address and date of birth and identification?
What can you tell me about a trust account, similar to an IOLTA account, that is used by real estate or property management companies to hold renters' security deposits. The funds in this account cannot be commingled with operating funds and my understanding is that they can be interest bearing. My concerns lie in the account titling and what happens to the interest.
Our Bank is investigating the possibility of no longer tracking insurance on improved real property under a Blanket Mortgage Security Policy we currently have in place. Provided that the Bank: 1) verifies insurance coverage at closing by obtaining a copy of the Declaration Page (i.e., Evidence of Property Coverage); 2) notifies the mortgagor once a year of the requirement for insurance and; 3) force places coverage for those properties known to be lacking coverage , we feel we do not need to track insurance for improved real property and equipment and inventory residing at the real property location once initial evidence is obtained.My question is by doing this, would we meet all Regulatory Compliance standards as far as flood insurance is concerned? Also, how common is this practice of 'not tracking insurance'?
The Federal Reserve Board staff has held constant and issued a proposed update to Regulation Z's Official Staff Commentary in time for the holiday mail.
The storm-related flooding that occurred in the late summer and fall of 1999 in the Eastern United States was so severe that areas in the 100-year flood plain and even the 500-year flood plain were