Is the bank required to have 2 forms of identification to open an account? Our Compliance Officer says it is the legal requirement of the Patriot Act, however I cannot find where it is required, only recommended.
The federal financial institution regulatory agencies have issued joint guidance on what constitutes an information security breach and how such a breach should be handled.
Because some of our customers checking accounts were opened Pre-Patriot Act, we do not have a copy of the primary ID, along with other things. Are we required to do the entire CIP (including primary and secondary ID's) for a customer that has had a checking account for years and wants to open a new savings account?
If a customer manipulates his SSN/TIN in an effort to hide a record on ChexSystems, does a SAR need to be filed? Would it matter if the SSN/TIN was corrected and the account kept?
Note: The following is a message received from a representative of a business that operates or franchises rent-to-own stores all over the country. I have removed all references to the specific business. We have several bank relationships for store depository accounts (about 350). Several of the bank relationships that we use for store deposits have "pushed back" on us accepting third party checks. If a third party check is a legal tender, and the depositor is liable for the risk, why do they have a concern about our acceptance of third party checks? Also, is there a form letter or legal document that we can sign that will put the banks at ease about our acceptance of third party checks without opening ourselves up to all risk of fraud with an indemnity agreement?
We're having a debate in our company about if/when we need to file a CTR. One side says that we must track all "conductor" data and aggregate that information to file a CTR when a specific "conductor" exceeds the $10,000 daily limits, regardless of whether or not the "conductor" is a customer. The other side says that the aggregation requirement applies only to "customers," and conductor information is only required when the aggregation by "customer or account" exceeds the reporting threshold. Can you weigh in on this issue?
In a recent speech, Acting Comptroller of the Currency Julie Williams said, "Disclosures are the heart of the consumer protection system, but the system is on the verge of breaking down and fundame
I knew when I saw the look in the chimney sweep's eyes that I had been a bad, bad girl.
Could you expand upon the implications of having cash-intensive retailers (i.e. grocery stores) who are registered with FinCEN as MSBs? It just came to our attention that because they're an MSB they cannot be exempted, nor can we exempt the grocery store portion of their business and continue to file on the MSB portion unless they're operated under separate TINs. If that's the case, a bank would often need to file a daily CTR, further clogging FinCEN's database. This seems like a regulatory policy that's contrary to the intention of the CTR process. Do we really want 260 more CTRs in the system for a legitimate business? Shouldn't the fact that they've registered with FinCEN make them legitimate and exemptable? Am I missing something? What solutions do you see to such a situation? I suspect many banks are struggling with this emerging issue and would welcome your guidance.
Since their invention or evolution, banks have been designed for protection and security. Those who manage financial institutions are protectors.