The FinCEN rep cited 31 CFR 103.28 to state that we don't need the SSN/TIN for the transactor.

Retread has the better argument or at least the only one I would be willing to put forth to an examiner with a straight face.

Perhaps the FinCEN rep should read 103.27(d)) which says
Reports required by §103.22, § 103.23 or § 103.24 shall be filed on forms prescribed by the Secretary. All information called for in such forms shall be furnished.(Emphasis supplied) The form calls for a SSN/TIN in Item 19, so it is required.

I finally heard back from FinCEN from my call last week and here are the responses to my questions:
Question: When did this became effective or becomes effective since the initial letter was more than a year old and it did not give a specific date.
Answer: Became effective the date it was posted on FinCEN's website.
Question: Whether it would require backfiling and if so, how far back we would have to go.
Answer: This is being looked at on a case by case basis and they are willing to discuss it once we have specific information concerning the number of transactions involved.
Question:Clarifications on the armored car "making a deposit". I gave the same scenario that Ken gave where the driver doesnt really know what is in the bag and neither does the bank until it is opened, by which time the driver has already left.
Answer: If the customer contracted with the armored car service then we are responsible for aggregating all deposits made by or on behalf of the customer and expected to collect the identification of the armored car employee to complete the CTR.

So my next question would be, how many have begun collecting information on the armored car employees and how have they responded to the teller's request for their SSN?

One wonders whether FinCEN has any real appreciation for banking in the real world.

I don't even see where the EIN of the armored car service will provide any benefit to anything. If there is reportable cash in a deposit, you file a CTR on the business anyway. It will get reported and if you check the armored car delivery box they'll know it wasn't 'hand delivered' by the customer to the bank. None of this makes any sense to me.

It seems to me that someone over at FinCEN is interpreting the law just a wee bit too literally. So, the customer contracts for the armored car service, the armored car service is now an agent of the customer and thus "making the deposit". Give me a break. I wonder if since the bank's customers are "contracting" for their deposit accounts if banks will soon have to start gathering this identifying information on the bank employees that perform the cash transactions on 'behalf' of the customers who "contracted" with the bank for that service. It will be just as useless to law enforcement anyway...

Needless to say, we too will probably be making that ever helpful call to FinCEN as well. But we have decided not to change procedure until the dust settles a little more or until FinCEN rescinds or clarifies this ridiculous ruling.

I've spoken with some bankers who have attempted to implement this. Uniformly, the guards simply refuse to provide the information saying "None of the other banks require it! or "I've never had to do that before and I'm not going to!"

Obviously, dealing with guards one at a time is not a solution. Contact the armored car services that bring cash to your bank. Do it in writing. Provide them with a copy of the ruling before you try to explain why you now need the information. (You can express regret rather than enthusiasm.) Point out that they will hear from other banks as soon as they get the message; i.e. they do not need to try to figure out how to deal with your bank, they need to figure out how to deal with all of the banks where they make deliveries.

Eventually, push will come to shove and you will tell the affected carriers you will not accept their deliveries without the information. It would be prudent to make the customers affected aware of that communication in advance. Acknowledging that it is unfair to put the armored car services' er, valuables, in a vise, if there is an alternative I do not see it.

Of all the vagaries that needed a written interpretation, this is a clear choice to spend limited resources bolixing up that which was abundantly clear... It is embarassing.

P.S. I'm tired, so if someone can explain to me how it is that the ruling took effect when published, but it might require CTR amendments retroactively, I would really appreciate it. I think I remember what ex post facto means, but maybe I'm a little fuzzy on it right now.

I just had the joy of explaining this to the CEO. Needless to say, he was not too thrilled.

I'm gathering info on our armored car customers to try and figure out which ones engaged the service directly and which ones were contracted by the bank.

I need some aspirin.

Okay. Can someone please break this down for us in the simplest terms. ALL of our customers contract with the Armored Car services on their own. I am going to have to explain this to Sr Mgmt, and I'm not sure that I know how. Surely this ruling isn't saying that we need to track, for instance, ALL of the cash brought in corporate-wide by Loomis (even if they are made at 100 different branches) and report one giant amount - followed by 100's of Section A's to indicate every customer Loomis was depositing for - then report the personal info for every Loomis driver that made the deposits? The ruling and this thread have confused me. Please help!

Only the people who wrote it can explain an interpretation that alters 14 years of mutual understanding about what putting a check in a box means. Call the FinCEN Helpline and ask.

As it reads to me: the guidance discusses well understood rules for aggregating multiple deposits on behalf of the same person. However, the regulation also requires aggregation of multiple deposits on the same banking day "...if the financial institution has knowledge that they are by or on behalf of any person." (Emphasis supplied.)

The effect of this ruling for transactions where the armored car service is acting as the customer's agent is to identify the guard as the person by whom the transaction is conducted. So, it seems you would aggregate by the individual guard on a daily basis.

The end result may very well be a CTR with many Section A's, many Section B's (guard and employees making other deposits), and a gi-normous aggregated dollar amount that is completely, totally, meaningless.

We've provided the ruling to the armored carriers that we and/or our customers contract with, just as a "heads up" about the changes to the process. Once we figure out what we're actually supposed to be doing, we'll notify them in writing.

Every single one said their employees would not provide their SSN and every single one will be calling FinCEN themselves.

I also left a 5-minute long voicemail for FinCEN with numerous questions on this ruling last week. When they get around to calling back, I'll post the questions and answers here.

The ABA has come to the table in an 8/21 newsletter article in which it reports that "several bankers have raised questions" about the Ruling. No kidding!

It's really no surprise to hear that bankers are questioning the Ruling, when it comes, as it has, completely out of "left field," running so diametrically opposed to any banker's common sense.

This thread would be a terrific place to comment on what you've done or will do about the ruling.

• Are you getting cooperation or push-back from armored car personnel?
• Have you figured how you'll aggregate when you have over $10K brought in by an armored car representative and one of the depositors in that bunch has other cash transactions besides?
• How will you address the problem of not knowing what's in the sealed bags being delivered by an armored guard?
• What are your other concerns?

This mess really needs to be straightened out!

(Side issue: I may be nuts, but I seem to recall when I was working at a national bank that if the bank hired the armored car service it fell under the mobile branch rule, so we never did that. )

I did place a call to FINCEN since I have several clients struggling with this. FINCEN left me a message saying the banks are to aggregate by the driver who delivers deposits for multiple bank customers.

I sure hope ABA can get some action here.

We are working on a tracking sheet for our tellers (since our system doesn't have a way to do this) and a letter to send to our customers that contract the armored cars. We are getting push back from the armored car company about giving us the info we need, so we want to give our customers a "heads up" that we will need the info to accept the deposit.

I assume the interpretation means we are to extend the same aggregation requirements to OUTGOING armored car shipments/change orders?

If the basis for the aggregation is the armored car delivery person and not the beneficiary or "on behalf of" entity, will exemptions still stick?

What usefulness could there possibly be in an aggregated dollar amount including multiple, unrelated beneficiaries?? If FinCEN has concerns regarding armored delivery companies or armored personnel, then they need to address that directly with those entities.

The problem is around a misinterpretation (recently by FinCEN) of the "Armored Car" checkbox and the fact that the box is a reason there is NO CONDUCTOR (as banks have traditionally completed the form), so how could there be a COMMON conductor? With no common conductor, there is no basis to file a combined CTR. The check box has never been interpreted considering the difference between who the armored car is acting as an agent for ... armored cars always have been treated as a common carrier, like the USPS.

The scary thing is that FinCEN has no idea how this will negatively affect the usefulness their data -- they are so removed from the front lines it is shameful.

I thought this might be helpful:

The Anderson Turn is a maneuver used to bring a ship or boat back to a point it previously passed through, often for the purpose of recovering a man overboard, an emergency situation in almost all circumstances.

The Anderson Turn is most appropriate when the point to be reached remains clearly visible. For other situations, a Scharnow turn or a Williamson turn might be more appropriate. Both will require more time before returning to the point in question.

Of the three maneuvers mentioned, Anderson seems to be the most appropriate for FinCEN to attempt.

Oh, Ken! Thank you for that. It brought me back to my senses after being royally irked by the truth in UpperMWBanker's post.

How nautical of you!

A simple U turn would make me happy.

Sorry, Kath, but this is like turning a deepwater tanker, not a MasterCraft.

A sincerely worded apology and a statement appearing on the front page of the FinCEN site along the lines of: "The idiot/moron/jerk [or Neanderthal - hey, it worked for Maxine Waters] who issued the ruling has been terminated" would go a long way in making me feel better.

I just returned from a Compliance School and was able to question several other BSA Compliance Officers about this ruling. All have decided to take the position that drivers are not making deposits, just deliveries. Our armored car service refuses to give driver info and the driver refuses to give it also. Our regulator responded to my email and said just keep sending the CTR's without the information and see if FinCEN sends them back. We'll see. We are making no changes at this time.

Hopefully there is safety in numbers, because we are not changing anything either at this point.