Has anyone read this ruling yet?? Did I read this correctly??

Our understanding is that now we have to aggregate all of our customers who contract with the same armored car service and identify the armored car employees.

http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/fin-2009-r002.html

That's the way I read the ruling, too. I'm guessing there will be a flurry of complaints to FinCEN from armored car carriers whose employees won't want to cooperate. On the other hand, I don't have a sense of how many times the scenario -- armored car delivery of deposits when armored car is depositor's agent -- comes up.

All of our armored car deposits are contracted by the depositor.

The ruling seemed to state in the second to last paragraph that the only time we can select "armored car" is if the bank contracts the armored car to pick the cash up from the customer and deliver it directly to the Federal Reserve Bank. Is that how you read it?

The ruling is ridiculous. We have a customer who is a check casher and employs an armored car to pick up the withdrawn cash. We have always checked box a in Section B but I cannot see entering the info on the armored car employee!

My read of the Ruling and ion particular footnote 6 tells me that if the armored car is acting as the bank's agent, Section B doesn't have to be completed, either (check off armored car), even if the deposits are delivered to the bank itself.

From my correspondence with John earlier today:

“Interesting” is an understatement… So, Joe Schmuck who is a Brinks guard for 20 years will appear in the CTR data base, what, 40,000 times? To what purpose?


It's been a few hours, but I can't think of anything to add.

Thought of something to add: Does this mean we have to go back and correct past CTRs where we just checked the "armored car" box when the customer contracted for the service?

Glad I'm getting older, this is actually funny to me now.

Another #@#$%^&* ruling. What difference does it make who contracts the armored car courier????

I had a question come up about this. What if the armored car is contracted by some of our exempted entities as well? Do we include any of that in the CTR since it is based around the transactor?

My logical answer would be no because they are exempt from reporting, but I have not found much that is logical in this ruling.

You would not include the exempt person's cash on the CTR; i.e. it would not be added to the aggregate amount subject to reporting.

So, when the armored car guards decide they're tired of the hassle and they send one guard in with two deposits, then a second guard follows after with the other deposits (so that neither of the aggregated deposits exceeds the reporting threshold), are we now going to have to file a SAR for structuring, too???

Unbelievable!

I'm told that we have two customers who use armored car services. In both cases, the service drops off sealed bags, they don't actually "make the deposit." Is this the situation this guidance is addressing or are there situations where the delivery person actually makes the deposit? The guidance says "In the situation you have described, the Companies have contracted with the armored car service to make deposits at the Bank ." I'm thinking our situation is what's being addressed by the guidance, but I want to be sure before we change our procedures.

Hmmm, most armored car carriers would agree, they do not "make the deposit." They deliver a bag. That bag presumptively holds cash, but if it's sealed they frankly do not know what is inside. I don't think that was a distinction FinCEN was trying to make here, but I do believe they will eventually be trying to explain this away and that distinction might be a good hook.

Although dated July 2, this little missive arrived in my in-box at 10:14 AM this morning. It was a full 10 minutes before I heard from John!

The point is, 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. If you care to, please let the rest of us know what you are told. Ask them about filing corrections too, please.

Just to let everyone know, I already called and left a message with FinCEN(of course no one ever answers the phone)and asked the following:
1. When this became effective or becomes effective since the initial letter was more than a year old and it did not give a specific date.
2. Whether it would require backfiling and if so, how far back we would have to go.
3. 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.
As soon as I hear something I will post it here.

Just got off the phone with FinCEN and there seems to be a miscommunication.

The instance referenced to in the ruling was unique in that the deposits were being delivered to the Federal Reserve Bank. Also, the four companies apparently went to the armored car together and had a joint contract, not individual contracts.

The normal situation where companies have individual contracts with armored cars to take the deposits to the bank would not require aggregation according to the representative.

When I asked if there was going to be clarification on the ruling for banks and examiners, she said that nothing was planned and that the ruling stood alone. She and I discussed that what she said made sense, but that the letter was not worded that way. She said she would do some research and call us back.

Thank you.

So far, there's no evidence that banks are confused by the aggregation responsibilities that the ruling explains. The ruling does not depart from the obvious on that point.

The issue seems to be the conclusion that if the bank contracts for the armored car service, it can check the "armored car" box on the CTR and not ID the employee. On the other hand, if the customer contracts for the armored car service the bank must ID the armored car employee. That's not an interpretation, it's a change.

This illustrates the problem in publishing rulings that were actually intended to deal with very narrow fact situations (there are others). It also begs clarification. FinCEN has proven its willingness to do that in the past.

The FinCEN representative called back today, and had two colleagues with her to help answer our question.

Today, we were told different information. FinCEN does want a CTR that is aggregated by the armored car deposits with the guard info in Section B. They are going to do some research to determine if we should track it by specific armored guard or by the armored car company.

The other thing that was discussed was that if any of the benefactors from the armored car CTR also have an employee bring a cash deposit, and the cash exceeds $10,000 for the company, that we need to file another CTR for the benefactor. For example, if the armored car brings a $1,500 cash deposit for ABC Company and later that day an employee of ABC Company brings a $9,000 cash deposit we would aggregate the $1,500 with the armored car CTR and have a separate CTR aggregated by the benefactor. I specifically asked "Do you want us to double report cash transactions?" The response was yes.

One of the FinCEN reps said this is how it should always have been done.

This is asinine.

I'll be a bit less forgiving than my good friend Ken. I see some big problems with the ruling:

1. In most cases, neither the armored car representative nor the bank teller will know whether the armored car service is acting as the agent of the bank or of the depositors. That there is a different protocol to follow depending on who the service's customer is doesn't make sense.
2. As noted above, the armored service typically obtains a signature, drops sealed bags and departs long before anyone at the bank knows there is cash in a deposit.
3. There is no justification for obtaining personal information on the armored car representative, regardless of who the service's client is. What need could such information serve?
   

Well over a year ago, FinCEN was purportedly working on clearing up some of the bigger issues for which there were no interpretations or old rulings that are outdated. One of those was the question of how to complete a CTR when cash deposits are delivered not by an armored car service but by a courier service. I had hoped that this ruling was going to address that question. I was disappointed.

Section B calls for information on an individual.



Perhaps in hindsight they would suggest the second deposit be aggregated into the amount of the original CTR.

Ken,

I definitely hope so!! That is how we were orignially looking at it. The conversation this morning went down that road, however, the FinCEN reps said they want the CTR to reflect only the cash that the armored car brought in.

It was aslo discussed that the armored guards are hesitant to give us their SSN. The FinCEN reps brought up that the reg states the SSN/TIN is not required for transactors. My fear is that the IRS Computing Center will return the CTRs due to missing info.

Time for FinCEN to back up, regroup and rethink this ruling. To start, perhaps they should consider whether anything is gained from considering the armored car service a conductor of the transactions and aggregating on that basis. My gut reaction is that the answer is "No." If that's the case, FinCEN should rescind the ruling and reconsider the events that led to its being issued in the first place.

This totally redefines aggregation and reporting rules that we thought were clear. And to restate the obvious, Tammy Teller at the Main Street Branch likely has no idea whether the armored car is delivering for the bank or the customer. They will start trying to ID all of the employees and they will probably start trying to keep manual delivery logs to help with CTR preparation....we've just stepped back 20 years.

[quote]Section B calls for information on an individual.

A quick clarification...do they want us to list all of the guards who made cash transactions that day or just the guards who made cash transactions in excess of $10,000.

That's exactly what I was hoping too. I've been told by FinCEN that I need to put my bank employee who is acting as a courier in Section B. SanFrancisco FDIC stated that was complete nonsense. Then I had someone from FinCEN state we don't put our employee, but the name of the customer who hands our employee the sealed envelope. Of which our courier has NO idea what is inside.

*rant* they need just give in & raise the threshold for CTRs to an amount reflective of inflation. we're still under obligation to file SARs so what's the difference? *rant over*

On the other hand - I pray for the poor individuals at FinCEN that are answering all of our angry phone calls today. They probably weren't even warned this went to all of our inboxes today.

"It was aslo discussed that the armored guards are hesitant to give us their SSN. The FinCEN reps brought up that the reg states the SSN/TIN is not required for transactors. My fear is that the IRS Computing Center will return the CTRs due to missing info."

I wonder if they have ever read the instructions for Item 19? The regs say you have to provide all information called for in the form. To me, that includes Item 19.

The instructions for electronic CTR filing also state that Item 19 is REQUIRED. To me, that sounds pretty clear.

To me, it would make much more sense if you were able to check the "armored car" box and enter the armored car service's EIN in Item 19. I'm sure the armored car services would be more willing to provide the EIN than to suggest that their drivers provide their SSN to the banks. If you think about it, if FinCEN wants to uncover a gigantic money laundering scheme through an armored car service, they are never going to find it by identifying the individual employees, especially since there is a lot of turnover here because of the hazards involved. The EIN would at least give them a clue about how much total cash the armored carriers are transporting for their customers. That could be significant, but how could attributing any of the deposits to a particular employee or employees possibly be of any benefit, unless of course, the employ embezzled millions from the armored car service and deposited it in one lump sum at a bank along his route.

Sometimes I wonder what FinCEN is thinking when they publish guidance like this that could dramatically increase the number of totally useless CTRs. The information obtained about the cash may be useful, but the ID of the individual drivers is totally useless. To top it all off, now somebody at FinCEN says the SSN/TIN is not required for transactors when the instructions clearly indicate that it is required. What's next? Do we start collecting ID to file CTRs on bank robbers in case they obtain more than $10,000 from one location or in the event they structure their withdrawals by going to more than one office and a SAR is required.