Skip to content
BOL Conferences
Thread Options
#88942 - 06/17/03 01:21 PM CIP & Stored Value Cards
Orrsislander Offline
100 Club
Orrsislander
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 112
Any idea how the USA PATRIOT Act will affect "stored value cards?" I'm wondering if we, as the issuing bank, will need to run each cardholder through ID verification, OFAC, etc.

Return to Top
BSA/AML/CIP/OFAC Forum
#88943 - 06/17/03 01:40 PM Re: CIP & Stored Value Cards
JacF Offline

Power Poster
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,719
PA
If your stored value card program meets the "ongoing financial relationship" test, then I would say it meets the CIP definition of "account" and thus, CIP would apply.

Return to Top
#88944 - 06/17/03 02:03 PM Re: CIP & Stored Value Cards
Andy_Z Offline
10K Club
Andy_Z
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 27,769
On the Net
Interesting question, and I agree with Jac. If this is similar to a money order, purchase and leave, I'd say no, there is no relationship. But if it is recharged from an account with you, by virtue of that account CIP applies.
_________________________
AndyZ CRCM
My opinions are not necessarily my employers.
R+R-R=R+R
Rules and Regs minus Relationships equals Resentment and Rebellion. John Maxwell

Return to Top
#88945 - 06/17/03 02:57 PM Re: CIP & Stored Value Cards
Rubaiyat Offline
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,373
Lido Deck
We offer Visa Buxx stored value cards. My question was whether the teenager whose name the card is issued in is a "customer" under CIP. We require that the card be funded through an account at our bank so we know that the parent or guardian funding the account is already a customer.

We asked this question of the OCC and their response was that the teenager is not a customer and we do not need to perform verification and authentication as required under the CIP.
_________________________
--A bad day at sea is better than a good day at work.

Return to Top
#88946 - 06/17/03 04:06 PM Re: CIP & Stored Value Cards
Andy_Z Offline
10K Club
Andy_Z
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 27,769
On the Net
I would agree with that OCC opinion as the child is the receiver and not an accountholder. That would be consistent with other scenarios I have heard.
_________________________
AndyZ CRCM
My opinions are not necessarily my employers.
R+R-R=R+R
Rules and Regs minus Relationships equals Resentment and Rebellion. John Maxwell

Return to Top

Moderator:  Andy_Z