Comment on FR Doc # E9-10864

Document ID: FINCEN-2009-0002-0013
Document Type: Public Submission
Agency: Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Received Date: September 09 2009, at 10:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time
Date Posted: September 11 2009, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Start Date: May 12 2009, at 12:00 AM Eastern Standard Time
Comment Due Date: September 9 2009, at 11:59 PM Eastern Standard Time
Tracking Number: 80a2205c
View Document:  View as format xml

View Comment

Ascella Compliance agrees that an armored car service should not be treated as a money transmitter when they cannot be viewed as participating, or having a stake in the financial transaction conducted on behalf of a BSA regulated institution or private party. Defining “no more than a custodial interest” does not adequately encapsulate a meaningful distinction between a person that merely transports items of monetary value on behalf of another and a person that takes title or ownership. Ownership should be the main criteria as noted in the proposal. “Custodial interest” is certainly descriptive of the role an armored car service, however the description should be amended to “custodial interest without beneficial ownership.” An armored car service may hold, deliver and in some instances deposit funds on behalf of its customers. In every stage of the contracted service, the armored car service has no ownership or beneficial interest in the funds transported. Beneficial Ownership should be defined as gaining the benefits of ownership such as title funds, financial gain, and use of funds. In some cases, the armored carrier service deposits the funds to a central account owned by a bank or a client of the armored car service. During the execution of these services, an armored car service holds no beneficial ownership of the funds. The passage of the funds through a central account is an extension of the transport function provided by the armored car service. The role played by an armored car service is within the letter and spirit of the BSA which states “[g]enerally, the acceptance and transmission of funds as an integral part of the execution and settlement of a transaction other than the funds transmission itself … will not cause a person to be a money transmitter.” An armored car service accepts and transmits funds as an integral service of their business. Therefore armored car services should not be required to register with FinCEN as an MSB. Furthermore, the exclusion should apply to transports initiated by any person, not only to transports initiated by BSA regulated institutions.

Attachments:

Comment on FR Doc # E9-10864

Title:
Comment on FR Doc # E9-10864

View Attachment: View as format pdf

Related Comments

    View All
Total: 22
Comment on FR Doc # E9-10864
Public Submission    Posted: 09/11/2009     ID: FINCEN-2009-0002-0002

Sep 09,2009 11:59 PM ET
Comment on FR Doc # E9-10864
Public Submission    Posted: 09/11/2009     ID: FINCEN-2009-0002-0003

Sep 09,2009 11:59 PM ET
Comment on FR Doc # E9-10864
Public Submission    Posted: 09/11/2009     ID: FINCEN-2009-0002-0006

Sep 09,2009 11:59 PM ET
DEA Comments
Public Submission    Posted: 09/11/2009     ID: FINCEN-2009-0002-0007

Sep 09,2009 11:59 PM ET
Comment on FR Doc # E9-10864
Public Submission    Posted: 09/11/2009     ID: FINCEN-2009-0002-0008

Sep 09,2009 11:59 PM ET