![]() |
||||||
|
| USA PATRIOT ACT MONITOR NEWS RELEASES |
USA PATRIOT Act Monitor News Release: "Frequently" Defined 12/3/2002
7:09:18 AM Eastern Standard Time
"Frequently" Given Some Specificity by FinCEN in Determining if
a Non-listed Business Can Be Exempted From CTR Reporting
FinCEN, in a release posted on the agency's website, at www.fincen.gov/final_definition_of_frequent.pdf.,
attempts to clarify one of the requirements for exempting certain businesses.
The release, Guidance on Interpreting "Frequently" Found In The
Criteria For Exempting A "Non-Listed Business" Under 31 C.F.R. §
103.22(d)(2)(vi)(B), is not likely to have a significant impact on the number
of exemptions sought, but it does indicate that FinCEN understands that the
process as it currently exists is both complex and, on some issues, difficult
to understand.
Under 31 CFR 103.22(2)(d)(vi), a bank need not file a CTR between the bank
and a "non-listed business" that meets certain qualifications, one
of which is that the business "frequently engages in transactions in
currency with the bank in excess of $10,000." A non-listed business is
distinguished from businesses that are automatically exempted, including banks,
governmental agencies and entities that exercise governmental authority, and
companies listed on the New York and American Stock Exchanges and on the Nasdaq
Stock Market (except for Nasdaq Small-Cap Issues). Non-listed businesses can
qualify for exemption if they have maintained a transaction account at the
bank for at least 12 months, they are incorporated or organized under U.S.
or state law, or registered and eligible to conduct business in the U.S. or
in a state, and they meet the "frequently engaging" requirement.
The problem has been that the regulations do not define "frequently."
The adverb was included in 31 U.S.C. 5313(e)(2)(B), added to the Code by section
402 of the Money Laundering Suppression Act, Title IV of the Riegle Community
Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994. The requirement was taken
into the regulations, at 31 CFR 103.22(d)(2)(vi)(B), without elaboration.
The Guidance indicates that many customers of depository institutions conduct
large currency transactions in the ordinary course of their business operations
and thus clearly are doing so frequently. Where the situation is not so clear,
the Guidance continues, the "institution bank should make its decision
on a customer-by-customer basis, taking into account all facts and circumstances
the depository institution has obtained in order to make a good faith determination
regarding the customer's eligibility for exemption." The customer-by-customer
analysis is supposed to consider information on the "nature of the customer's
business operations and the cause of the recurring (or routine) need to engage
in large currency transactions."
Then some specificity is supplied:
"In general, a customer that is being considered for exemption as a non-listed business should be conducting at least 8 large currency transactions throughout the year. In essence, this means the customer conducts a large currency transaction approximately every six weeks. The fact a customer conducts fewer than 8 large currency transactions annually would generally indicate that any large currency transactions conducted do not relate to a recurring or routine need."
It appears that if the nature of the customer's business operations provide
an understandable need for routine and recurring cash transactions, eight
transactions a year are enough to justify an exemption. Fewer will be difficult.
If the business is seasonal, the Guidance indicates, there should be "at
least 8 large currency transactions during the portion of time the business
operates or experiences increased cash flow." Thus, no pro-rating seems
to apply. An example is provided of a business that routinely makes cash deposits
and withdrawals, but only on holiday weekends when sales are sufficiently
high do these transactions exceed $10,000. As long as there are eight reportable
transactions each year, there is enough frequency to justify giving an exemption
to the seasonal business.
The Federal Reserve Bank Secrecy Examination Manual seems, at one point, to
suggest the "regularly and frequently" would require much more activity
than eight large cash transactions each year.
"[T]he bank should review the customer's transaction history, including its cash deposit or withdrawal transactions. This review is necessary to determine whether the customary conduct of a business entity's lawful domestic business involves currency deposits or withdrawals exceeding $10,000 that occur regularly and frequently (e.g., daily or several times per week, or in some cases, weekly or biweekly). If the bank's records do not indicate that that entity has had regular and frequent currency deposits or withdrawals exceeding $10,000, then the bank should not proceed any further with the exemption process, notwithstanding the nature of the customer's business." (BSA Examination Manual § 501, Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act Exemption Handbook, "How to Exempt Customers" (emphasis added). Pagination of materials incorporated in the BSA Manual is sometimes difficult; here, both page numbers 9 and 15 are printed on the page where this quotation is found.)
Any examiners relying on this might take "frequently" as meaning at least once every two weeks, not once every six. Still, it is doubtful that this portion of the BSA Manual, written at least five years ago, reflects current thinking among the regulators.
Observation:
Not many banks will be inclined to study accounts to determine if there have
been eight or more reportable transactions in the last year. A considerably
larger number of transactions is likely to be an easier threshold. Though
the Guidance reminds banks that exempting customers in good faith will protect
them from civil money penalties, it is not likely that this will provide enough
comfort to encourage use of the process in marginal cases, particularly considering
the number of banks that do not use the process in considerably less marginal
instances, as noted in Treasury's recent Report to the Congress: Use of Currency
Transaction Reports (the "366 Report" posted on the FinCEN website
in October 2002).