Inquiring if others have modified their CIP Policy in regards to the a ruling by FinCEN dated 11/3/09. They are stating that we may use the state ACP sponsored agency street address for CIP purposes if the customer partiipates in the program and therefore only has a PO Box. However in California and looking at the majority of the ACP agenicies, they all provide only a PO Box not a street address. The California agency is reluctant to provide their street address and a call into FinCEN for feedback on this has gone unanswered. Therefore, curious what others are doing to comply with this ruling.

Thanks

We've not made any changes yet, as I believe legislation is still pending in Texas. However, I thought the FIN-2009-R003 ruling was quite explicit:

"a [financial institution] should collect the street address of the ACP sponsoring agency for purposes of meeting its CIP address requirement."

If that is not available/feasible, I would suggest the individual use the address of "another contact individual." Their choice as to whom to select; your choice as to whether to accept or not.

Since California's program is sponsored by the Secretary of State, wouldn't we just use that address? It's available on the website.
http://www.casafeathome.org/
California Secretary of State
1500 11th Street
Sacramento, CA. 95814

While some prior guidance specifically requires incorporation into policy (reduced CTR identification requirements for the elderly or disabled), this one does not.

However, as a practical matter, your employees may not be aware of it unless it is acknowledged in new account opening procedures.

diva,

As I read the ruling, it does not require use of the agency address (only that if it is used, the address should be the physical location). So, I'd say, "Yes," to your question, but also keep in mind the spirit of the law. I believe the intent is to be able to locate your customer physically.

So, the real question is how to accomplish that objective?

Is the SoS address the best way to "reach" your customer?
Would it be better to have an address of a close friend/relative?
Who is able to best act as a liaison to provide necessary communication(s) to your client?

M Cockrell - I agree with your thoughts. I also suspect that someone in this situation would be hesitant to provide any information that would allow her to be physically located, because she is in fear for her safety and possibly her life. (Could also be a "he", just statically more often a "she".)

If they are willing to provide a friend or relative's address, we'll happily accept it. However, based on the guidance, we're not going to require it. We'll use the SoS address if that's all we have.

In these situations, we're dealing with someone who's already been victimized. If we can find a way to make things just a little easier (while staying within the regs), I think we should do so. <---- personal opinion

I agree, as well (if I miscommunicated any contrary idea, I apologize).

An assurance & reinforcement of bank privacy & security measures may go a very long way with ACP clients.