I hate to dredge this back up from the dead, but does this regulatory change to 31 CFR 103.85 make things worse for us on the Armored Car CTR issue?

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-27449.pdf

I kind of think it does make it a little more problematic for us...

I think that is a polite way for FinCEN to get out of general publication in the Federal Register of these administrative rulings that have caused a huge uproar in the banking community - the first was the sole prop. ruling that they had to rescind and now the armored car ruling, which I also expect a further clarification on at some point.

My take on it, at first reading, agrees with Randy's view.

I am in an unusually charitable mood regarding FinCEN today (I don't know why and I am sure I will get over it ). I think they are trying to find a way to ditch all the old baggage except the ones they want to have considered "precedential," and put the precedential rulings on the web site.

I want to believe that along about December 17 we will see a collection of past Administrative Rulings that FinCEN wants us to rely on, all in one place. What would be wonderful would be a re-issuance of appropriate guidance or rulings from the '90s (like that 1995 one that we keep dredging up) and a specific statement from FinCEN about certain rulings that it is now tossing out (how about the "shrimp boat" rule as a candidate?). But I wanted to believe in Santa Claus when I was a wee one, too.

It's been 141 days since the armored car ruling was published.

Ken - The orignal sole prop ruling was issued on 02/10/06 and the revision was issued 01/25/08, so I think there may still be some hope

I hate to bring this up again, but a fresh read of the ruling caused me to question.
The ruling is titled "Deposits by armored cars" and the ruling mainly talks about cash in transactions.
-Is it too much of a stretch to take the stance that cash out transactions by armored car would not be subject to the same ruling? This would make my life alot easier.
-Also, in general, how is asking for armored car employee information going for others? We're not having much luck.

A few years ago, I posted a suggestion to completely overhaul cash reporting.

Since most banks report credit transaction data each month to credit reporting agencies, how about devising a similar reporting to FinCEN that reports the following:
Account Number
Account Owner(s)
SSN/TIN
Street Address
Amount of Cash In for the month if total exceeds $10,000 and allow a $100 tolerance.
Amount of Cash Out for the month if total exceeds $10,000 and allow a $100 tolerance.

All of this information could simply go into a modern database that FinCEN and law enforcement can slice and dice to their hearts content.

Bankers would then have more time and resources to focus on TRULY suspicious activity.

The CTR is an anachronism that dates back to the 70's. Filling one out requires about the same amount of time and brain power as filling out a 1040EZ. It's not rocket science, but each one is still going to take 5 to 10 minutes to make sure all of the "i's" are dotted, "t's" are crossed, and all appropriate boxes checked.

The problem is that life and business are a FAR FAR cry from what they were in the 70's, and trying to keep the CTR relevant is almost as futile as trying to run your bank on an old Atari 400.

Funny story - I mentioned this idea to a member of the local HIFCA task-force, and he was horrified, saying "That would be a total invasion of privacy!" Oh - and what we have now, isn't?

Another person's take on this was that it would never happen because FinCEN and law enforcement wanted to make sure that Bank's did their "fair share" of the work. To be honest, I think that was just a personal opinion.

I have been reading the previous posts and want to be sure we are handling this correctly. We do not have armored car deliveries from multiple businesses, but we do have separate deliveries for separate businesses that may at times include more than $10,000 in cash. We complete a CTR on the business in Section A, and Section B is on the driver. Except the driver refused to give us his personal information, so we use the Armored Car address, EIN, and leave the DOB blank.

Is this an "acceptable" report? And has there been any further proclomation/clarification from FinCEN?

They are still reviewing the situation. (It's been 250 days since "the armored car ruling" was published).

As for the specifics of how to complete the CTR when the employee refuses to give the information, call the Helpline. They have a template response; i.e. they have a detailed response they give to everyone.

Make a written record of your call and the advice you received.

I actually agree with the bolded part. I know a number of banker's, consultants, etc. who do as well.

I'm guessing that there has still not been any further clarification on this issue? We've never had an armored car pick up for multiple entities, but we've just contracted with an armored car service to pick up deposits at 27 stores and deliver them to a branch. As I understand the threads (and rants), we would check 'Armored Car' in Section B without additional ID on the service or individual guard because the FI contracted; my question is - Are we required to aggregate the amount delivered, indicate Multiple Persons and Multiple Transactions, and complete 27 Section 'A's and list 27 account numbers affected on one CTR AND also complete a separate CTR for any individual business whose deposits are reportable, whether made solely through the armored car or when aggregated with other branch activity?

I've got a week to figure it out!

Amazingly, the Helpline called me back within 10 minutes. Unfortunately, nothing has changed - in the scenario described, a separate Section A is required for every entity whose cash is included in an aggregate over $10000 brought in by the same armored car, regardless of their individual amount (which makes even less sense!)
A separate CTR is not required for individual entities whose portion of the aggregate is over $10000.
If the entity has additional transactions,which when added to their portion of the aggregate exceeds $10000, the FI has the option of:
a) including the additional amounts on the aggregated CTR, check 'Multiple Transactions' and complete Section Bs as needed (making the data even more worthless); OR
b) Filing a separate CTR for the entity but do not reduce the aggregated CTR amount (effectively doubling the reported cash)

Any cash from the aggregated amount which is attributable to an Exempt depositor is subtracted from the aggregate.

Difficulties in e-filing these massive CTRs due to lack of TIN on the armored car employee or trying to process multiple Sectiion 'A's should be addressed to the e-filing hotline to bypass error messages.
While the two Helpline gentlemen were obviously reading from their template Q&A, they did acknowledge that the issue is being reviewed 'in light of industry concerns' - not because it makes no sense!

Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday...

Where does the time go! It doesn't seem to have changed at all in the ensuing year.

It's been 619 days since the armored car ruling was issued.

No, I'm not obsessing, it's just that there was no NASCAR race today and, for fun, I was reading FinCEN's Outreach Report on it's organized contacts with community banks. I found this:

Armored Car Ruling

On July 2, 2009, FinCEN issued a ruling titled Treatment of Deposits by Armored Cars for Currency Transaction Report (CTR) Purposes.97 The intent of this ruling was to clarify that armored cars that are conducting transactions on behalf of bank customers should be treated differently from armored cars that are conducting transactions on behalf of a bank.

FinCEN discussed a few institutions’ concerns with this guidance during the course of our outreach, and is also aware of concerns that have been put forth by other representatives of both the banking and armored car industries. FinCEN continues to review this subject, and in deciding what additional steps may be taken, FinCEN will balance both the obligations that this ruling may place on the affected industries against the benefit that law enforcement will receive in having this CTR information available.

Okay, toga party on the next anniversary! Retread's bringing the beer!

P.S. The law enforcement folks I've spoken with claim this thing does not pose any advantages; aggregating transactions on the armored car employee would turn data into garbage. Regardless, commenting on the level of compliance banks have been able to achieve so far in the face of armored car personnel's refusal to provide ID would be like critiquing the emperor's new clothes.

First, it should have never been published. Second, it should have been summarily withdrawn.

They are assuming we will all eventually forget this was a major change.

Like the bumper sticker says, "H e l l no, I ain't forgettin'."

Just found this link in a google search on the subject.

We just had a lovely confrontation with an armored car employee who had come in to set up the procedures THEY want US to follow, but when we explained we will need their identification information for any deposits over $10,000, they outright refused.

I have a call into FinCEN Helpline.

Are others still having issues? How do you handle it?

Ours won't give info either, we just put armored car delivery as the reason for no info on conductor and move on. It's a stupid requirement and LE doesn't care which armored car courier delivers it. If they want to cite me, so be it.

I had a similar problem. I called FinCEN on the problem and they were aware that this is an issue. They told me if it was our armored car, to check the Armored Car box. If it was the customer’s armored car leave the conductor section blank.

I have started getting my CTRs back for missing conductors. I called the IRS and was told to write "Per FinCEN’s instructions" on each CTR. They told me that all similar CTR will also come back (they cannot do anything about the system programming), and that FinCEN had given the same instructions to a number of banks without consulting with them.

We have been checking the box for Armored Car and also entering the name and badge ID of the armored car employee. As BC78a reported, we started getting them back a few weeks ago and just send them back with a note about the armored car situation. Until FinCEN changes their mis-guided ruling there is nothing else to do.

I heard back from FinCEN and they told me to fill in as much detail about the guard as possible in the conductor section and leave the rest blank. He said we should have documentation in our files stating why the areas are left blank. Oh, and not to mark the Armored Car box if we didn't hire the service.

Thanks for your input.

I'm absolutely speechless. Thank goodness we don't conduct any CTRs related to Armored Cars. Phhheeewwwww!

Loving all the mixed answers!