Progress Begets Progress
Will Upcoming Changes Push Your Institution Over the Reg CC Compliance Edge or into a New Era?
By Lori Moore, CRCM, Director of Compliance

In the twenty-four years since Regulation CC began implementing provisions of the Expedited Funds Availability Act (EFA), very little about the regulation has changed. Even the most typical Reg CC compliance violations have been a near constant. The one thing that is vastly different today than in 1987 is the prevalence of electronic checks versus the paper checks of the past. This, of course, was and still is the goal of the Federal Reserve System. Now, anticipated Reg CC changes, some imminent and some still in the planning stages, are on the way to push the system even further toward the Fed’s goal of a wholly electronic interbank check system. The question for financial institutions is whether or not the progress of Reg CC will beget progress in the way you collect and return checks and how you fulfill your Reg CC compliance obligations. 
 




Reg E: Are You in Compliance?

The Electronic Funds Transfer Act, implemented by Regulation E (Reg E), establishes the basic rights, liabilities and responsibilities of consumers who use electronic fund transfer (EFT) services and of the financial institutions that offer such. Without a doubt, it is one of the most complex consumer compliance laws in effect today. As the rapid shift from paper to electronic payments is expected to continue, your institution should anticipate and be prepared for the number of claims subject to Reg E to also increase. In this webinar, we will discuss various aspects of the law with emphasis on the error resolution procedures set forth under section 205.11. We will also look at important terms defined under Reg E and some example scenarios that illustrate common violations you want to avoid. 

Speaker: 

Lori Moore, CRCM
Director of Compliance
ATTUS Technologies

8/18/2011 3:00PM to 4:00PM ET

Question: Are we only required to review individuals who we pay or receive payment from "directly," i.e., we pay an insurance brokerage who has several individual "agents" in that office. We don’t pay them directly, but we pay the main brokerage company....we aren’t responsible for the individual "agents" in the company, correct?

Answer:  
Although you may not be liable for payments made by the brokerage firm that violate OFAC sanctions, you can help reduce your exposure or risk by obtaining a contract in which the brokerage firm agrees that they will not engage in any business or practice that is in violation of U.S. law. This would include OFAC sanctions and any other laws that might be applicable.   

Got a question on a tricky regulation? We want to hear from you.  Submit your question and an expert will answer it in a future issue.



First-Party Fraud a Growing Risk  
Institutions Must Refine Definition, Detection
Tracy Kitten, BankInfoSecurity.com

First-party fraud ranks among the top three fraud events financial institutions face. But most institutions don't accurately quantify and qualify their risks, says Keir Breitenfeld, senior director of fraud for Experian Decision Analytics.

The primary challenge: defining first-party fraud. "Everybody agrees first-party fraud is big," Breitenfeld says. "The problem is that there are so many different definitions, we have a hard time getting our hands around it."