FINRA Manual: Contents
FINRA Manual
Notices
1987
87-88 Request for Comments on Proposed Amendments to Section 66 of the NASD Uniform Practice Code Regarding Syndicate Expense Statements and Prompt Settlement of Commissions
87-87 Request for Comments on Proposed Amendments to Schedule E to the NASD By-Laws Regarding the Definition of a Qualified Independent Underwriter
87-85 SEC Approves Revised Rules for Reporting NASDAQ/NMS Trades Executed Between 4 p.m. and 5 p.m. Under Schedule D to the NASD By-Laws
87-79 Request for Comments on Proposed New NASD By-Law Authorizing Mandatory Reporting of Trade Comparison Information
87-77 Request for Comments on Proposed Amendments to the Rules of Practice and Procedures for the NASD's Small Order Execution System and to Schedule D to the NASD By-Laws
87-76 New Category of Limited Representative Registration for Corporate Securities and Availability of a Study Outline for the Series 62 — Corporate Securities Limited Representative Qualification Examination
87-75 Revised Series 4 — Registered Options Principal (ROP) Qualification Examination and New Study Outline
87-73 Request for Comments on Amendment to Board of Governors' Free-Riding Interpretation Concerning Investment Partnerships
87-69 Front-Running of Blocks—Interpretation of the Board of Governors on Article III, Section 1 of the Rules of Fair Practice
87-67 Proposed Amendment to Article III, Section 35 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice Concerning Testimonials
87-65 Statutorily Disqualified Persons Who Obtain a Controlling Interest in an NASD Member Firm and Failure of NASD-Registered Persons Who Become Statutorily Disqualified to Timely Amend Form U-4
87-61 Suggested Escrow Agreement Provisions for Members' Compliance With Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-4
87-53 Request for Comments on Proposed Amendments to NASD By-Laws and Rules of Fair Practice, and Proposed New Government Securities Rules
87-52 Request for Comments on Proposed Amendment to the NASD Board of Governors' Corporate Financing Interpretation Concerning Public Offerings When Proceeds Are Directed to NASD Members
87-51 Treasury Department Adopts Changes to the Requirements Concerning Financial Recordkeeping and Reporting of Currency and Foreign Transactions
87-50 Amendments to SEC Rules 15c3-l, 17a-3, and 17a-13 Regarding Treatment of Repurchase and Reverse Repurchase Agreements
87-48 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 3,019 Securities With 30 Voluntary Additions on August 4, 1987, and One Mandatory Inclusion On August 4,
87-47 Request for Comments on a Proposed New Level of Registration, Designated Assistant Representative-Order Processing, Under Schedule C to the NASD By-Laws
87-46 SEC Approval of NASD Corporate Governance Standards for NASDAQ/NMS Issuers and Amendments to Schedule D to the NASD By-Laws Concerning Designation of NASDAQ National Market System (NASDAQ/NMS) Securities
87-45 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,993 Securities With 20 Voluntary Additions on July 21,
87-44 Proposed Amendment to Article III, Section 26(m) of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice Governing Prompt Payment for Investment Company Shares
87-43 Adoption of Amendment to Article III, Section 35 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice Regarding Advertising and Sales Literature for Direct Participation Programs
87-42 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,972 Securities With 29 Voluntary Additions on July 7,
87-41 Proposed Amendments to Definitions of "Branch Office" and "Office of Supervisory Jurisdiction" Under the NASD By-Laws, Schedule C to the By-Laws, and the Rules of Fair Practice
87-40 Request for Comments on a Proposed Amendment to Article III, Section 35 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice Concerning Testimonials
87-39 Request for Comments on Addition of a Corporate Securities Limited Representative Category of Registration Under Schedule C to the NASD By-Laws
87-37 Proposed Amendment to Article I, Section (c) of the NASD By-Laws Relating to the Definition of the Term "Branch Office"
87-35 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,940 Securities With 23 Voluntary Additions on June 16,
87-34 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,9 17 Securities With 28 Voluntary Additions on June 2,
87-33 Forms BD and U-4 Revisions, Government Securities Brokers and Dealers Registration Requirements
87-30 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,893 Securities With 21 Voluntary Additions on May 19,
87-27 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,873 Securities With 19 Voluntary Additions on May 5, 1987, and Four Mandatory Inclusions on May 12,
87-26 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,850 Securities With 12 Voluntary Additions on April 21,
87-24 Request for Comments on Proposed Amendments to Article III, Section 35 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice
87-23 Effectiveness of Amendment to Section 66 of the NASD Uniform Practice Code Regarding Prompt Settlement of Syndicate Accounts
87-22 Amendments to Resolution of the Board of Governors Concerning Its Policy on Publication of Disciplinary Actions
87-21 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,847 Securities With 37 Voluntary Additions on April 7,
87-20 Request for Comments on Proposed Amendment to Article V, Section 1 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice
87-19 Federal Regulation of Government Securities Brokers and Dealers Under the Government Securities Act of 1986
87-17 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,802 Securities With 20 Voluntary Additions on March 17,
87-16 Request for Comments on Proposed Amendments to Article IV, Sections 3 and 4 of the NASD By-Laws and Article IV, Section 5 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice
87-15 Proposed Amendments to Article III, Sections 21(b) and 41 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice and the Interpretation of the Board of Governors Concerning Short Sales
87-14 Request for Comments on Proposed Amendments to Article I, Section (c) of the NASD By-Laws and Schedule C to the NASD By-Laws Relating to the Definition of the Term "Branch Office"
87-11 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,788 Securities With 17 Voluntary Additions on March 3,
87-10 Proposed Amendment to Section 66 of the NASD Uniform Practice Code Regarding Prompt Settlement of Syndicate Accounts
87-9 Proposed Amendments to Article XIV of the NASD By-Laws and Article V, Sections 1 and 2 of the NASD Rules of Fair Practice Concerning Disciplinary Sanctions
87-7 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,775 Securities With 17 Voluntary Additions on February 17,
87-6 Request for Comments on Proposed Amendments to the NASD's Rules of Practice and Procedure For the Small Order Execution System (SOES)
87-5 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,754 Securities With 24 Voluntary Additions on February 3,
87-3 NASDAQ National Market System Grows to 2,729 Securities With 17 Voluntary Additions on January 20,
| View Whole Section | Text only | Print Manager | Link |
87-51 Treasury Department Adopts Changes to the Requirements Concerning Financial Recordkeeping and Reporting of Currency and Foreign Transactions
TO: All NASD Members and Other Interested Persons
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of the Treasury has finalized amendments to the implementing regulations of the Bank Secrecy Act. Also known as the "Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act of 1970," these regulations govern the financial recordkeeping and reporting of currency and foreign transactions. The amendments, which were originally published for comment in August 1986, change the requirements concerning reporting multiple, same-day currency transactions; the time periods for filing reports; verifying customer identity when filing currency transaction reports; and recording taxpayer identification numbers. The amendments also include civil penalties for structuring transactions.
The text of the release containing all final changes (Federal Register, April 8, 1987) is attached.
BACKGROUND
The Bank Secrecy Act (the Act) was enacted as a means of requiring certain financial institutions, including broker-dealers, to keep records and file reports regarding various financial matters that may be useful in criminal, tax, or other regulatory investigations. The provisions of 31 CFR Part 103 of the Act, also known as the "Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act," govern the payment, receipt, or transfer of currency exceeding $10,000, the export or import of currency or monetary instruments exceeding $10,000 out of or into the United States, and certain foreign financial transactions and accounts.
The Treasury Department is authorized to implement and administer the Act's reporting and recordkeeping requirements. With respect to broker-dealers, however, the Treasury Department delegated its responsibility to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). To ensure compliance and effective oversight by self-regulatory organizations, the SEC adopted Rule 17a-8 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act).
SEC Rule 17a-8, which became effective on January 18, 1982, requires broker-dealers to file reports and make and preserve records pursuant to the Exchange Act and the regulations adopted thereunder. Moreover, in accordance with other SEC recordkeeping rules, such as SEC Rule 17a-3(a)(l), the SEC has taken the position that broker-dealers are required to make and retain their records in a manner that identifies the receipt and disbursement of currency in connection with securities transactions.
On August 25, 1986, the Department of the Treasury published in the Federal Register a series of proposed changes designed to strengthen enforcement of the Bank Secrecy Act's provisions by ensuring the collection of additional information regarding transactions in currency or monetary instruments and certain foreign transactions and accounts.
SUMMARY OF FINAL AMENDMENTS
The proposed amendments address a number of issues. After reviewing the comments received, the Treasury Department issued a final rule encompassing most of the original proposals, although a number of provisions were modified.
Changes that affect the activities of broker-dealers are highlighted below.
This requirement has been incorporated into the regulations with one modification — the Treasury Department changed the term "is aware" to "has knowledge." It applies to any partner, director, officer, or employee of a broker-dealer, or any existing system at the broker-dealer that permits the firm to aggregate transactions.
The term "knowledge," as used in the final rule, includes the concept of "willful blindness" as well. For example, if a broker-dealer suspects someone may be structuring transactions to avoid filling out a record or report, but the broker-dealer deliberately refuses to ask questions because it wishes to remain ignorant, the broker-dealer will be deemed to have knowledge for purposes of assessing liability under the Bank Secrecy Act.
This regulation, however, does not require broker-dealers to adopt or purchase new systems to reveal the existence of multiple, same-day transactions.
The Treasury Department altered its original proposal to permit financial institutions to refer to the customer's signature card when filling out Form 4789, but the specific identifying information, i.e., a driver's license or credit card number, must be recorded on the report form.
The Treasury Department received opposition to the requirement to retain records on transactions later cancelled. In the final amendment, recordkeeping requirements were extended to include all incoming transactions but a record of a cancelled transaction must be retained only in instances where such a record is normally made.
In a comment letter to the Treasury Department, the NASD Capital and Margin Committee noted that, to date, broker-dealers have been successfully using one taxpayer identification number to identify a responsible party for each account and report the required information. The Committee questioned the usefulness of the proposed change, especially in light of the financial and operational burden it would place on broker-dealers.
After a review of the comments and similar concerns expressed by others, the Treasury Department decided to retain the requirement, consistent with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules, that only one taxpayer identification number be obtained when an account is maintained by one or more persons.
The proposal also eliminated the 45-day grace period for obtaining the taxpayer identification number. The Treasury Department decided to retain a grace period, but to reduce it to 30 days to be more consistent with IRS rules. In addition, the Treasury Department retained the proposed requirement that additional identifying information be acquired from non-resident aliens subject to the taxpayer identification rules.
* * * * *
The amendments discussed above are the major changes affecting the activities of broker-dealers. The attached release, however, contains all changes finalized by the Treasury Department, including related information and commentary.
July 7, 1987, was the effective date for the amendments concerning the shortened time period for filing reports of the international transportation of currency and monetary instruments (paragraph 103.26(b)(2)), verification of customer identity for purposes of filling out Form 4789 (paragraph 103.27), and the recordkeeping requirements concerning incoming transactions (paragraph 103.33(b)). All other changes were effective May 8, 1987.
Questions concerning this notice may be directed to Susan Lang, NASD Surveillance Department, at (202) 728-6969.
Sincerely,
John E. Pinto, Jp
Senior Vice President
Compliance
Attachment
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Secretary
31 CFR Part 103
Amendments to Implementing Regulations Under the Bank Secrecy Act
AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: The Bank Secrecy Act, Public Law No. 91-508 (12 U.S.C. 1829b, 12 U.S.C. 1951 etseq., 31 U.S.C. 5311 et seq.,) empowers the Secretary of the Treasury to require financial institutions to keep records and file reports that the Secretary determines have a high degree of usefulness in criminal, tax and regulatory matters. On August 25,1986, Treasury published in the Federal Register (51 FR 30233) a series of proposed changes to the Bank Secrecy Act regulations in 31 CFR Part 103 in order to ensure the collection of needed information, and to strengthen enforcement of the Act.
After review of the many comments received, Treasury is issuing a final rule encompassing all but three of the original proposals. One proposal, regarding exempt list customer certification statements, was enacted as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 and was incorporated into Part 103 by final rule dated December 17,1986 (51 FR 45108); two proposals, dealing with the purchase of more than $3,000 in monetary instruments, are still under consideration by Treasury and will be the subject of a separate notice to be issued within the next few months.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 7,1987 for those amendmentsto 31 CFR 103.11(e), 103.26(b)(2), 103.27,103.33(b), 103.34(b)(13), and 103.37. All other changes to Part 103 made by this final rule are effective May 8,1987.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jonathan J. Rusch, Director, Office of Financial Enforcement, Office of the Assistant Secretary (Enforcement), Department of the Treasury, Room 4320, 1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20220, (202) 566-8022.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion of Comments
Over 300 comments, many quite detailed, were received from individuals and financial institutions. Many general comments concerned the burden on financial institutions and the costs of compliance posed by the proposed amendments. The proposals to which commenters objected most frequently concerned the reporting of cash purchases of more than $3,000 in monetary instruments, and for new recordkeeping requirements placed on the purchase of monetary instruments. Because an initial review of the comments on these proposals indicates that further review of the issue is needed prior to promulgation of any final rule, the proposals relating to the cash purchase of more than $3,000 in monetary instruments, the certification requirement relating to those purchases, and the new recordkeeping requirements on the purchase of monetary instruments are being held in abeyance at this time and are not included in this final rule. Treasury anticipates issuing a notice on this issue in the near future.
Several commenters also asserted that the proposed rule, if adopted, would be considered a "major rule" within the meaning of Executive Order 12291. In their view, the proposed rule would create significantly increased operational costs, high implementation costs, and an ultimate cost burden that would be imposed on consumers. Many of the comments on this issue failed to present any substantial evidence to support the assertion, and apparently misunderstood the extent of the burdens the proposed rule would place upon financial institutions. The only new major substantive requirements that this final rule imposes pertain to records maintained by currency dealers and exchangers, and the majority of those records are ordinary business records. Moreover, a number of provisions in the proposed rule have been modified after review of the comments received, and other provisions (such as the monetary instruments purchase provisions) will be treated separately in a future regulatory proposal. Finally, Treasury emphasizes that no provision in this final rule will obligate financial institutions to purchase computer hardware or software to comply with the revised regulations. In view of these considerations, it is the Department's position that any cost created by this final rule will be far below the 100 million dollar threshold for a Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 12291.
A general discussion of the comments and Treasury decisions on the various proposals is presented below.
As this is merely a clarification that comports with Treasury's interpretation of the present regulations, there was no substantial discussion of this issue by the commenters; it will stay as drafted.
Many commenters desired further clarification and expressed a desire to have armored car services, such as Brinks, and private messenger services covered within the definition. Several also suggested that the term "undertaken to do so [supply services] indiscriminately for all persons" be deleted so that companies that supply services only to banks could be covered. The definition will be clarified to include institutions such as Brinks and businesses that limit their clientele to banks. Private messenger services are not covered by the definition of "common carrier."
Five major issues were raised: (a) Many commenters felt that the proposed definition of "check casher" was so broad that it would cover any business which cashed a check, even if only an incidental part of its business, thus putting the concept of exempt lists in jeopardy; (b) some commenters wanted to know what a person "subject to State or Federal banking supervision" meant and whether it covered nonbanking subsidiaries of banking institutions; (c) some commenters wanted a clarification of the term "transmitter of funds;" (d) some commenters wanted to know what were "similar instruments" to money orders not already listed; and (e) some commenters wanted to know the significance of including "agents" in the definition. In response to these comments, Treasury notes that (a) the term "check casher" has been defined further as someone engaged in the business of cashing checks; (b) coverage of those persons under "State or Federal banking supervision" was meant to cover all other banking institutions subject to examination by State or Federal banking supervisory authorities not already covered within the term "financial institution;" but the term does not include nonbanking subsidiaries, even if approval for the subsidiary initially must be given by the Federal or State banking authority; (c) "transmitter of funds, including telegraph companies" will be replaced by language that more closely tracks the relevant statute, 31 U.S.C. 5312; (d) the term "similar instruments" will be deleted; and (e) the term "agent" was added in order to make this definition consistent with the others in section 103.11.
The major issues raised were (a) the use of the term "fictitious payee" and the near impossibility of a bank to determine when a check is made out to a "fictitious payee;" (b) the use of the term "promissory note" and concern as to its scope; (c) a request that the term "traveler's checks" be clarified to describe the different ways that a traveler's check could be considered to be in bearer form; and (d) clarification of the term "endorsed without restriction." Treasury has changed the definition in the final rule to clarify that the term "fictitious payee" is applicable only for the purposes of § 103.23. The issue would arise only in the rare case where a bank has to file a report under § 103.23, such as when the bank sends or receives funds from outside the United States by other than common carrier, and the bank knew at the time it filed the report that the payee was fictitious. The term "promissory note" refers to the UCC definition of that term. Treasury has not changed the definition of "traveler's check" because the definition of "monetary instrument" clearly states that the instrument in question, whether personal check, traveler's check, etc., must be in such a form that title would pass upon delivery; accordingly, that definition need not include separate descriptions of the circumstances in which these instruments could be considered to be in bearer form. The term "endorsed without restriction" is included as an example of how an instrument can be considered to be in bearer form; it does not need to be clarified further. The final rule also clarifies in the definition the difference between incomplete instruments and negotiable instruments, a distinction that previously was not as clear.
There were few comments. One commenter requested clarification of the status of accounts that are not subject to withdrawal by check. As long as withdrawals are by some form of negotiable order, the accounts are covered under this definition. The proposal is adopted as drafted without change.
Many commenters wanted further clarification of the proposed definition, pointing out that the hours the bank is open to the public are not necessarily the same as the hours the bank might be open for other purposes. Several commenters suggested that the definition refer to the day that the transaction is posted to the customer's account. Treasury has adopted that suggestion, and has revised the definition of "business day" to mean that day, as normally communicated to depository customers (such as by teller window sign], on which the bank routinely posts a particular transaction to its customer's account.
A majority of the comments expressed concern about this proposal. These comments were devoted largely to two issues: the meaning of the term "aware" in discussing the scienter element in reporting transactions; and the extent to which banks would have to adopt or purchase new systems to capture currency transaction data if their present systems cannot do so. In order to clarify the requirement, Treasury has changed the term "is aware" to "has knowledge." This term means knowledge on the part of a partner, director, officer or employee of a financial institution, or on the part of any existing system at the institution that permits it to aggregate transactions.
"Knowledge," as used in the final rule, clearly includes the concept of "willful blindness" as well. See United States v. Jewell, 532 F. 2d 697 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 426 U.S. 951 (1976). This concept applies to a person who has deliberately avoided positive knowledge; that is, "if a person has his suspicion aroused but then deliberately omits to make further inquiries, because he wishes to remain in ignorance, he is deemed to have knowledge." Jewell at 700. If a financial institution suspects someone may be structuring transactions in order to avoid the filling out of a record or report, but deliberately refuses to ask questions because it wishes to remain ignorant and therefore, "innocent," the financial institution will be deemed to have knowledge for purposes of assessing liability under the Bank Secrecy Act.
Treasury emphasizes that this regulation does not require institutions to adopt or purchase new systems; however if and when financial institutions are considering the purchase of new computer systems, software or recordkeeping methods, Treasury urges that they consider the systems' ability to aggregate. Therefore, if a bank's existing system provides its officers or employees with information on transactions that may require reporting as aggregated transactions, that bank must make use of that system to comply with the reporting requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act, but need not adopt or purchase enhancements to increase that system's capability to identify multiple related transactions.
The commenters also raised the question of deposits and withdrawals accomplished through the use of night depository slots or automatic teller machines (ATM's). Treasury realizes that there is not a teller physically present when these transactions take place; however, when these transactions are later processed by a teller, if the teller (or the system) has knowledge that an aggregated deposit or withdrawal has taken place, then there is a duty to file a Form 4769 under this section. Commenters also wished to know whether the term "by or on behalf of any person" in the aggregation requirement required institutions to track multiple transactions to one specific account even if made by more than one person, or to track transactions by one person making deposits/ withdrawals in reportabte amounts to or from several accounts. As long as "a transaction in currency of more than $10,000" has occurred, it does not matter if it was done by one person with one account several persons with the same account or one person with several accounts. Examples of reportable transactions would be two people depositing more than $10,000 in one account, though neither deposited a reportable amount or one person making a deposit of more than $10,000, but depositing the money in more than one account Obviously, the regulations cover more than activity tied to a particular account. Reportable transactions need not and often do not, involve an account at all. Finally, Treasury also wishes to reiterate that "cash in or cash out totalling more than $10,000" means the total of all deposits or the total of all withdrawals. Deposits and withdrawals are not to foe aggregated together for purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act. However, the total of all deposits or the total of all withdrawals during a particular business day should be aggregated in order to determine if a reportable deposit or withdrawal limit has been reached.
Subtitle H of Title I of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-570), the "Money Laundering Control Act of 1986," contained an amendment substantially similar to this proposal. By final rule dated December 17,1988 (51 FR 45108), the Treasury Department issued a final rule incorporating this statutory requirement into Part 103 for all exemptions granted after October 27, 1986, the effective date of the legislation.
Most commenters approved of the proposal and requested that the restrictions be lifted which limited the public utilities to governmentally supervised utilities, and the passenger carriers to those whose stock is publicly traded. After consideration. Treasury is dropping the restrictions and expanding the exemption to include all passenger carriers and public utilities.
There was considerable confusion about use of the terra "conveyance." After consideration of the comments, it is being dropped from the final rule, since it seemed to confuse the issue more than clarify it. Several comments were received concerning other exempt issues. Several commenters wanted the exemption privilege extended to other entities such as retail sellers of services or foreign businesses. Others wished the governmental entity exemption to be clarified, and some wished deletion of the requirement to report transactions with foreign correspondent banks. The question of expansion of the exemption privilege Was not a matter at issue in this proposal. Also, Treasury feels that the governmental entity exemption is sufficiently clear as written. However, Treasury is clarifying the exemption privilege as it applies to check cashing services in order to resolve an internal inconsistency in § 103.22. Finally, some commenters raised operational difficulties with the requirement that a centralized exempt list be maintained. These commenters should be aware that the requirement to maintain a centralized list is not a new requirement, as it is presently required under 31 CFR 103.22(f).
Many commenters wanted a universal 30 day filing date; a few commenters were under the mistaken impression that the CTR filing deadline was presently 30 days instead of 15. Many complained about the retention of original records, not copies, of the Form 4789. Some commenters also wanted the forms published for comments. The only changes proposed for 31 CFR 103.26 were to change the date for filing the Form 4790 (CMIR) to 15 days after receipt of the currency or monetary instruments, and to require that any exempt list information requested by Treasury under 31 CFR 103.22(g) be submitted within 15 days. After review of the comments, Treasury is retaining the proposal as originally drafted. As for publishing forms for public comment, information contained on the forms originally is specified in regulations which have been published for notice and comment. There is no need to publish proposed forms and request comments on an issue for which comment had already been solicited. Treasury, however, always is open to any written comments from institutions that may have difficulty dealing with a specific Treasury form.
A few questions were raised about the foreign financial report itself; one bank wanted an assurance that employees authorized to sign ex officio on accounts were not required to file the reports. Another commenter wanted to assure that its international interbank transfer accounts ("nostro accounts") also were not included. Employees authorized to sign on accounts are not required to file a report unless they have a personal financial interest in the account. Additionally, nostro accounts are not subject to the foreign financial account report, but are subject to the Forms 4789 and 4790 requirements.
This was a major target for commenters, centering mainly on the proposal's impact on customer services and customer relations problems. Many banks said that they verify the identity of a customer when opening an account, and that they therefore should be permitted to rely on a signature card when filling out a Form 4789. Other commenters raised the issue of whether they must refuse a transaction if the customer refuses to supply the identification, while others wanted to know to what extent the bank could rely on the identification actually produced. Finally, some commenters wanted clarification of when a report "may be required" for purposes of obtaining the required information. After review of the comments, Treasury has altered the original proposal to permit banks that have obtained sufficient identifying information from the customer when opening the account, and that have noted that specific informaton on the signature card, to refer to the customer's signature card in filling out the Form 4789. Only specific identifying information, i.e., a driver's license or credit card number, may be used on the Form 4789; the notation "known customer" or "signature card on file" still is not permitted. A conforming amendment provides that the signature card need not be consulted prior to conducting the transaction. Other foreign identity requirements are being clarified by specifying a foreign driver's license with a listed residence as an example of an acceptable document proving identity. The term "may be required" has been deleted. While Treasury has not taken the position that a financial institution must refuse a transaction if a customer refuses to supply sufficient identifying information, it reminds financial institutions that § 103.26(a) of the regulations already obligates a financial institution to file complete and accurate Forms 4789 on all reportable transactions. Financial institutions should treat the identification of persons conducting reportable transactions, whether or not account holders, with as much care as they would treat the identification of nondepositors who cash checks.
There was no dissent on this point. The proposal will stay as originally drafted.
There was major opposition on the requirement to retain records on transactions later cancelled, mostly focusing on the fact that few banks recorded nonevents, and that therefore their systems would not capture this information. The regulation will be clarified in order to require that only where a record ordinarily was made of an order later cancelled should that record be retained.
There was major opposition to this requirement-centering on: (a) What is considered a "financial interest" in the account for the purposes of obtaining the TIN of every person who has a financial interest in an account; (b) a conflict with the regulation in proposed § 103.38 (and present § 103.34(a)(4)) that directs adherences to IRS rules, which require the retention of one TIN; (c) the possible retroactivity of the requirement; (d) possible costly recordkeeping and computer system changes; (ej the ambiguity as to which accounts are included in the new requirement; and (f) the problem of obtaining all of the TINs when not all the parties are present at the time of the transaction. After review of the comments, Treasury has decided to retain the requirement, consistent with IRS rules, that only one TIN be obtained, instead of creating two different sets of requirements for obtaining TINs. The proposal also had eliminated the 45-day grace period to obtain the TIN. Treasury has decided to retain a grace period, but to reduce it to 30 days to be more consistent with IRS TIN rules. In addition, Treasury will retain the requirement contained in the proposal that additional identifying information be acquired from those nonresident aliens subject to the TIN rules, and to use the TIN rules for securities and brokers as a guide to formulating TIN rules for currency dealers and exchangers.
The regulation presently in effect provides that copies may be kept of any required documents; the proposed change does not alter this. This minimum amount will stay at $100, in order to maintain the consistency and uniformity of the recordkeeping requirements for banks. Treasury again notes that the originals of these slips need not be kept; copies will suffice. The proposal that the individual deposited items be listed on the slip will be deleted. The deletion was made so that businesses that merely attach a register tape to a deposit slip to indicate the total amount deposited would not have to fill out a large number of deposit slips. The requirement that a bank be able to reconstruct a deposit has not been altered.
The comments received in response to this proposal centered on the low reporting threshold of $500, and the request for a definition of a "foreign currency dealer," with a specific exemption for banks. After review of the comments, it was decided to amend the regulation to change its heading to "currency dealer or exchanger" in order to be consistent with the statute, and to define "currency dealer or exchanger" in the definition section (31 CFR 103.11) as one engaged in business as such. Banks will be specifically exempted, as they already are subject to detailed recordkeeping requirements under Part 103. Additionally, the threshold reporting amount will be raised to 81,000, and the term "air express" will be changed to "common carrier" in order to make the terminology consistent with the rest of the Part.
There was major opposition to this proposal, mainly as to the increased costs associated with compliance and storage problems. Many also questioned the law enforcement utility of an increased retention period for these deposit records. As Treasury still feels that the constraints imposed on the Department by the two-year retention period make it difficult to document Bank Secrecy Act violations and tax and related financial crimes, the regulation will remain as drafted. Additionally, some commenters also wrote of the difficulty of retention of proof tapes. The regulation does not specifically require retention of proof tapes, the preamble in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking merely mentioned proof tapes as the type of record which might be maintained by the bank to be able to reconstruct transactions at a later date.
No real substantive issues were raised, although one commenter questioned changing the term "responsibility for assuring compliance" to "authority for assuring compliance." Further clarification is being accomplished in the final rule by changing the introductory wording in § 103.46(b) to "Authority to examine institutions to determine their compliance with the provisions of this part is delegated as follows:". New language also is being added to the section to incorporate the clarification in the Anti-Drug Abuse Act concerning what documents may be reviewed in a Bank Secrecy Act investigation. Finally, the Department's exclusive authority to impose civil penalties under the Bank Secrecy Act will be specifically stated, as will an assurance that a bank supervisory agency may report specific violations of the Act to the Department at any time.
In order to keep the regulations as current as possible, the amendments to the civil penalty amounts now reflect civil penalties applicable to pre-1984 violations, civil penalties applicable to violations between October 1984 and October 1986 under the Comprehensive Crime Control Act, and civil penalties for violations after October 1986 under the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. A few commenters wished to have Treasury announce a "safe harbor" of allowable civil violations of the regulations prior to assessing penalties. Treasury has been given the authority and responsibility to enforce the Bank Secrecy Act, and intends to do so to the fullest extent possible. There will be no "safe harbor" of allowable violations.
In addition, readers should note that due to the passage of the Government Securities Act, Pub. L. 99-571, October 28,1986, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 has been amended to require government securities brokers and dealers to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission beginning July 25,1987. Those government securities brokers and dealers presently not reqistered with the SEC will be required to do so, and therefore also will be subject to Part 103 Bank Secrecy Act regulations by virtue of the definition of "broker or dealer in securities" in 31 CFR 103.11(b).
Finally, because of the changes in the Bank Secrecy Act regulations that this final rule will effect, financial institutions may recognize some inconsistencies between the provisions of the regulations, as revised, and the instructions on the current version of Form 4789. Although Treasury will need to revise the Form 4789 instructions to take the regulatory changes into account, financial institutions are advised in the interim that in the event of conflict or inconsistency between a provision of the regulations and the Form 4789 instructions, the regulatory provisions shall control.
Executive Order 12291
This final rule is not a major rule for purposes of Executive Order 12291. It is not anticipated to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. It will not result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions. It will not have any significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or foreign markets.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., it is hereby certified that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Most of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements imposed by this final rule concern information already found in routine business records. To the extent an affected financial institution has prudent record retention practices, it will already be retaining a substantial portion of the information identified in this proposed regulation.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The collection of information requirements mandated by this final rule have been reviewed and approved by the Office of Management and Budget under section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act. (OMB Control No. 1505-0063.)
Drafting Information
The principal authors of this document are the Office of the Assistant General Counsel (Enforcement), and the Office of Financial Enforcement, Department of the Treasury.
List of Subjects in 31 CFR Part 103
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Banks and banking, Currency, Foreign banking, Investigations, Law enforcement, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Taxes.
PART 103—[AMENDED]
Amendment
31 CFR Part 103 is amended as set forth below:
Authority: Sec. 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Pub. L. 91-506, Title I, 84 Stat. 1114,1116 (12 U.S.C. 1829b, 1951-9); and the Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act, Pub. L 91-508, Title II, 84 Stat. lllti, as amended (31 U.S.C. 5311-24).
§ 103.11 Meaning of terms.
When used in this part and in forms prescribed under this part, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof, terms shall have the meanings ascribed in this section.
§ 103.22 Reports of currency transactions.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0063)
§103.23 Reports of foreign financial accounts.
Each person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (except a foreign subsidiary of a U.S. person) having a financial interest in, or signature or other authority over, a bank, securities or other financial account in a foreign country shall report such relationship to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue for each year in which such relationship exists, and shall provide such information as shall be specified in a reporting form prescribed by the Secretary to be filed by such persons.
* * *
§ 103.26 Filing of reports.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0063)
§ 103.27 Identification required.
Before concluding any transaction with respect to which a report is required under § 103.22, a financial institution shall verify and record the name and address of the individual presenting a transaction, as well as record the identity, account number, and the social security or taxpayer identification number, if any, of any person or entity for whose or which account such transaction is to be effected. Verification of the identity of an individual who indicates that he or she is an alien or is not a resident of the United States must be made by passport, alien identification card, or other official document evidencing nationality or residence (e.g., a Provincial driver's license with indication of home address). Verification of identity in any other case shall be made by examination of a document, other than a bank signature card, that is normally acceptable within the banking community as a means of identification when cashing checks for nondepositors (e.g., a drivers license or credit card). A bank signature card may be relied upon only if it was issued after documents establishing the identity of the individual were examined and notation of the specific information was made on the signature card. In each instance, the specific identifying information (i.e., the account number of the credit card, the driver's license number, etc.) used in verifying the identity of the customer shall be recorded on the report, and the mere notation of "known customer" or "bank signature care on file" on the report is prohibited.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0063)
§ 103.32 Records to be made and retained by persons having financial interests in foreign financial accounts.
Records of accounts required by § 103.24 to be reported to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue shall be retained by each person having a financial interest in or signature or other authority over any such account. * * *
§ 103.33 Records to be made and retained by financial institutions.
Each financial institution shall retain either the original or a microfilm or other copy or reproduction of each of the following:
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0063)
§ 103.34 Additional records to be made and retained by banks.
* * * * *
§ 103.34 Additional records to be made and retained by banks.
* * * * *
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0063)
§ 103.35 Additional records to be made and retained by brokers or dealers in securities.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0063)
§ 103.36 Additional records to be made and retained by casinos.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0063)
§§ 103.37 and 103.38 [Redesignated as §§ 103.38 and 103.39]
§ 103.37 Additional records to be made and retained by currency dealers or exchangers.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0063)
§ 103.38 Nature of records and retention period.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 1505-0063)
§ 103.46 Enforcement.
* * * * *
* * * * *
§103.47 Civil penalty.
* * * * *
§103.53 Structured transactions.
No person shall for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of § 103.22 with respect to such transaction—
Dated: March 30,1987.
Francis A. Keating, II,
Assistant Secretary (Enforcement).
[FR Doc. 87-7797 Tiled 4-6-S7; 10:17 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-25-M
Help
Corporate Organization
