WILLIAM J. SHOWALTER, CRCM, CRP Senior Consultant, Young & Associates Inc. BSA. Q: Our customer brought in a $25,000 check from their deceased mother (non-customer) along with legal documents showing they could cash the check. The customer just wanted to deposit the funds. Our teller cashed the transit check and then deposited the funds into the customer’s account. Our system shows “cash in” and is triggering a CTR alert. Would a CTR be necessary in this instance? No cash crossed the teller line (but I’d like to think of it as imaginary cash). Reading the manual, the line “of more than $10,000 by, through, or to the bank” is throwing me off. A: No, a CTR would not be required since there was no actual exchange of currency. The bank should note the file with language similar to, “Transaction involved the deposit of a $25,000 check. The core system generated cash debit/credit entries for processing purposes only. No currency was received or disbursed; therefore, the transaction is not reportable on a CTR.” Be sure to retain appropriate documentation in your BSA files. The phrase in the BSA regulations “by, through, or to the bank” refers to actual currency movements; it does not convert a non-cash instrument into currency. The bank could look into a more accurate way to process the transaction. CRA. Q: With the repeal of the CRA regulation, I know that the bank is now examined under the old CRA rule. However, I went to the FDIC regulation in 12 CFR 345.43(c), which states that the CRA public file must be posted on the bank’s website. Can you please tell me whether this requirement has been repealed or remains in effect? A: The agencies proposed a rule to rescind the 2023 CRA rule and go back to the 1995 rule generally. We have not yet seen that proposal finalized, but they have held that, with the court action against the 2023 rule, they are enforcing the 1995 rule. The 1995 rule does not require posting anything to the bank’s website, though it also does not prohibit doing so. When the FDIC (and other agencies) adopted the 2023 rule, it was posted to eCFR on its effective date. Then the lawsuit(s) came, and the agencies put the new rule on COMPLIANCE Q & A hold. They seem to be taking their time in finalizing the proposal to roll back to the 1995 rule. TILA. Q: We have a loan customer who received the Loan Estimate, Closing Disclosure, and Notice of Right to Rescind. He signed an intent to proceed and agreed with the amounts on the CD. The funds were to be distributed on Thursday to consolidate loans. The customer is now stating that he miscalculated what he needed and actually needs additional funds. We have talked to the title insurance company, and they can update the policy easily and give us the updated premium today. Our question is: Can we just restart the timeline on this same loan by redisclosing the LE and CD and giving him the rescission notice? Or should it be considered that he exercised his right to rescind, and it must be a brand-new loan and application? A: There is no reason to restart the whole process. Document the reason for the change (customer request) in the file, then give the customer a revised CD (no need for another LE) and rescission notices. That should take care of it. ECOA. Q: On the Uniform Residential Loan Application, in the Type of Credit section, where it says “each borrower intends to apply for joint credit” and has a place to initial, do both applicants have to initial there? 16 Community Banker
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTg3NDExNQ==