Most Popular Compliance Content
Where are Check Return Limits Specified
11/03/2024
Where in the regulations does it spell out the time limits and liabilities for banks regarding counterfeit checks, altered checks, forged endorsements, etc?
Conditioning Overdrafts on Opt-in
11/03/2024
Reg E (12 CFR 1005.17(b)(2)) says we cannot condition the payment of checks and other transaction on the whether the consumer has opted into overdrafts via ATM and one-time debit card transactions. However, it does not clarify whether the opposite is allowed – meaning can you condition ATM and one-time debit card transactions on whether someone has opted into overdrafts via check and other transactions? I can't find any guidance on this question, so any advice is much appreciated.
Rep Payee and Reclamations
11/03/2024
If Representative Payee dies, what happens to existing funds in the account post reclamation of that months funds? Does the new Rep Payee have authorization to access funds?
Reasonable Cause Holds
10/27/2024
We are a small community bank that maintains strong connections with our customer base. From time to time, a customer we know well brings us a check for deposit that's accompanied by a seemingly legitimate backstory. But the appearance of the check, based on our experience leads us to believe that the check may not be paid because not ALL of the boxes can be checked to rule out that that it's a fraudulent check. Knowing our customers we tend to give them the benefit of the doubt by accepting the check for deposit and placing a Reasonable Cause hold for 4-5 days. Our acceptance of the check is done in good faith that our customer's story is legitimate and our Reasonable Cause hold is done as a means of ensuring that our customer doesn't end up on the wrong side of a scam. I have read several opinions which state the ONLY course of action that's entirely compliant is to refuse to accept the check for deposit. Most opinions are that we simply cannot place a hold for Reasonable Cause to Doubt Collectibility in this situation. Even after completing due diligence on the check and the facts offered by the customer, by refusing a check where some facts indicate authenticity and others indicate potential fraud, why would we not be allowed to try in good faith to accept the check, while protecting our customer from potential loss by way of a Reasonable Cause hold? After all, the teller has formed a "well grounded belief that the check MIGHT not be paid," but is also acting in good faith on behalf--and in favor--of our customer. We are all advocates for our customers, and simply refusing to accept a check for deposit simply because we couldn't check off EVERY box that it isn't a fraudulent check, seems counterintuitive to the consumer-favoring language of Reg CC.
Compliance tiers for Dodd-Frank Section 1071
10/27/2024
What criteria is used for determining compliance tiers for Dodd-Frank Section 1071?