FINTRAC Policy Interpretations

Third Party Determination

Distinction between opening an account and a large cash transaction

Question:

For the following scenarios, what is the difference in the third party determination when opening an account and in a large cash transaction:

Scenario 1: Person A opens an account in the name of ‘Person B In Trust' and intends to process transactions through that account for Person B only (Person A is a trustee for Person B).

Scenario 2: Person A and Person B are the sponsoring members of an account for an unincorporated association. They intend to use the account for the unincorporated association.

Scenario 3: Trustee A is an authorized signor on the Smith Family Trust. Ms. Smith, who is one of the beneficiaries, received $11,000 in cash from the sale of a car that was owned by the Family Trust. She gave the money to Trustee A and told her to go put the money in the account at the financial institution.

Answer:

Pursuant to subsection 8(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Terrorist Financing) and Money Laundering Regulations (PCMLTFR), every person or entity that is required to keep a large cash transaction record under these Regulations shall take reasonable measures to determine whether the individual who in fact gives the cash in respect of which the record is kept is acting on behalf of a third party.

This obligation differs from the third party determination required for an account opening, outlined at subsection 9(1), which states, “Subject to subsections (4) and (4.1), every person or entity that is required to keep a signature card or an account operating agreement in respect of an account under these Regulations shall, at the time that the account is opened, take reasonable measures to determine whether the account is to be used by or on behalf of a third party.”

FINTRAC's Guideline 6G, Record Keeping and Client Identification for Financial Entities, specifies at section 7.1 that in the context of a large cash transaction “a third party is an individual or entity other than the individual who conducts the transaction”. As a result, the account holder, or those authorized to act on the account may be considered a third party to the transaction if they give instructions to conduct the transaction.

Conversely, when opening an account, Guideline 6G clarifies that “a third party is an individual or entity, other than the account holder or those authorized to give instructions about the account, who directs what happens with the account.”

Therefore, pertaining to scenarios 1 and 2, the account holder or those authorized to act on the account cannot be considered a third party when opening an account. That said, for any subsequent transaction conducted on the account, Person A or Person B may be considered as a third party if they are instructing another person or entity to conduct a transaction on the account.

For scenario 3, because a large cash transaction is conducted by Trustee A at the instruction of Ms. Smith, Ms. Smith is considered the third party regardless of whether she is a beneficiary to the Trust. The point to remember is not about who benefits from the money, but rather who gives instructions in regards to dealing with the money.

Date answered: 2016-04-13

PI Number: PI-6414

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 8(1), 9(1)

Receipt of funds obligation does not trigger a third party determination

Question:

Can you please provide clarification on FINTRAC Guideline 6B: Record Keeping and Client Identification for Real Estate? Subsection 3.4 states that you are not required to determine if a third party is involved in the receipt of funds. However, you do have to make this determination regarding the purchase of sale, as explained in subsection 5.1

We have a situation where the deal in question is in the name of ABC Company, but the deposit cheque is issued from the account of XYZ Company. Can you please confirm if we are required to identify XYZ Company as a third party?

Answer:

Pursuant to section 37 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations (PCMLTFR), every real estate broker or sales representative is subject to the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) when they act as an agent in respect of the purchase or sale of real estate.

Every real estate broker or sales representative, while engaging in an activity described in section 37 of the PCMLTFR, must keep:

a) a large cash transaction record in respect of every amount in cash of $10,000 or more that they receive in the course of a single transaction, unless the cash is received from a financial entity or a public body;
b) a receipt of funds record in respect of every amount that they receive in the course of a single transaction, unless the amount is received from a financial entity or a public body;
c) a client information record in respect of every purchase or sale of real estate; and
d) where the receipt of funds record or the client information record is in respect of a corporation, a copy of the part of official corporate records that contains any provision relating to the power to bind the corporation in respect of transactions with the real estate broker or sales representative.

If a large cash transaction record is required, then the real estate broker or sales representative is not also required to keep a receipt of funds record.

That said, it is only for the large cash transaction record and the client information record that a third party determination is required. In your example, the funds are received in the form of a cheque, so a receipt of funds record is required, and this should reflect from whom the funds were received, but the third party determination is not required.

The point being made in Guideline 6B - Record Keeping and Client Identification for Real Estate is that although the receipt of funds obligation does not trigger a third party determination, the real estate broker or sales representative will have to keep a client information record in relation to the real estate transaction, and this does trigger a third party determination, as outlined in subsection 10(1) of the PCMLTFR. If the client, ABC Company, is making the purchase on behalf of XYZ Company, then this would have to be reflected in a record that sets out:

a) the third party's name, address and date of birth and the nature of the principal business or occupation of the third party, if the third party is an individual;
b) if the third party is an entity, the third party's name and address and the nature of the principal business of the third party, and, if the entity is a corporation, the entity's incorporation number and its place of issue; and
c) the relationship between the third party and the client.

Date answered: 2016-02-18

PI Number: PI-6394

Activity Sector(s): Real estate

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6B

Regulations: 10(1), 37, 39

Determination of the third party for a large cash transaction record

Question:

With regard to a large cash transaction record, is it possible that someone may be considered a third party for his/her own account when the account holder is not the person conducting the transaction? In other words, is an account holder giving instructions to another person (the third party) to make a deposit in his/her account considered a third party by FINTRAC?

Answer:

With regard to third party determination, section 8 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations states:
8 (1) Every person or entity that is required to keep a large cash transaction record under these Regulations shall take reasonable measures to determine whether the individual who in fact gives the cash in respect of which the record is kept is acting on behalf of a third party.

(2) Where the person or entity determines that the individual is acting on behalf of a third party, the person or entity shall keep a record that sets out
(a) the third party's name, address and date of birth and the nature of the principal business or occupation of the third party, if the third party is an individual;
(b) if the third party is an entity, the third party's name and address and the nature of the principal business of the third party, and, if the entity is a corporation, the entity's incorporation number and its place of issue; and
(c) the nature of the relationship between the third party and the individual who gives the cash."

Moreover, in a situation where employees act on behalf of their employer, who owns the account, section 7 of the Regulations states, “For the purposes of these Regulations, a person acting on behalf of their employer is considered to be acting on behalf of a third party except when the person is depositing cash into the employer's business account." For this purpose, when employees act for their employer, they are considered to be acting on behalf of a third party. The only exception is when an employee deposits a large sum in cash into the employer's business account. In such a case, the employee is not considered to be acting on behalf of a third party. This exception only applies when the account in which the employee deposits a large amount of cash is a business account.

The determination of whether the individual who deposits a large sum in cash is acting for a third party is always a question of fact. It is up to each financial entity to make its own determination based on the information available to it. However, FINTRAC has previously indicated that a third party is a person or entity that gives instructions to another person to make transactions in an account. Thus, the appropriate question to ask is not who holds or benefits from the money, but rather who gives instructions to process this money. To determine who the third party is, it is necessary to know whether the person who gives the large sum of cash is acting according to another person's instructions. If this is the case, the other person is a third party. For example, if a father asks his son to deposit a large sum in cash into his account, even if he is the holder of the account in question, the father is the third party in this case because the son is depositing the large amount of cash according to his father's instructions.

In light of these facts, it seems possible that a person may be considered a third party with regard to his/her own account when giving instructions to another person to make a large cash transaction in his or her own account.

Date answered: 2015-08-11

PI Number: PI-6344

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 7, 8

Clarification on who is considered an employee

Question:

Who would be considered an employee when making a deposit into a business account? Specifically, would the owner, an officer, or a director of the business be considered an employee for the purposes of section 7 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Regulations (PCMLTFR)?

Answer:

Section 7 of the PCMLTFR states that “for the purposes of these Regulations, a person acting on behalf of their employer is considered to be acting on behalf of a third party except when the person is depositing cash into the employer's business account.” FINTRAC has previously taken the position that a third party is an individual or entity who gives instructions in regards to an account. As such, it is only when an employee makes a large cash deposit into the employer's business account that this exemption applies, as they are “acting on behalf of a third party.” It is not about who owns the money, but rather about who gives instructions to deal with the money. For this reason, owners, officers, and directors are not typically considered to be employees.

Having said that, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and the PCMLTFR do not define what it is to be an employee of a business. Therefore, it will always be a question of facts. Having signing authority, or the authority to bind or act on an account, does not necessarily make you an employee.

Date answered: 2014-12-19

PI Number: PI-6273

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6B

Regulations: 7

Ongoing Service Agreement between the MSB and the Entity

Question:

I would like to know how to report EFTOs ordered by an employee when there is an ongoing agreement between the MSB and employer. Here are three scenarios:

Scenario 1:
There is an ongoing service agreement between the MSB and the entity. The employee, who is on the list of authorized employees orders an EFTO. I am wondering whether the entity's name should be entered in Part B, and whether Part D should be left blank.

Scenario 2:
There is an ongoing service agreement between the MSB and the entity. The employee, who is not on the list of authorized employees, orders an EFTO. In this case, I would record “the individual name” in Part B and “the entity name” in Part D. Is this correct?

Scenario 3:
There is no ongoing service agreement in place. The employee, who is the owner, director or shareholder of the entity, orders an EFTO.

Answer:

Subsection 10(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Terrorist Financing) and Money Laundering Regulations (PCMLTFR) requires that reporting entities take reasonable measures to determine whether a client is acting on behalf of a third party when they are required to keep a client information record. When a money service business (MSB) enters into an ongoing electronic funds transfer agreement with an entity, it is required to keep a client information record with respect to the entity and a list containing the name, address and date of birth of every employee authorized to order transactions under the agreement (s. 32 PCMLTFR). Additionally, section 7 of the PCMLTFR makes it clear that a person acting on behalf of their employer is considered to be acting on behalf of a third party except when the person is depositing cash into the employer's business account.

When making a third party determination, Guideline G6: Record Keeping and Client Identification, provides further guidance and clarifies that it is not about who "owns" the money, but rather about who gives instructions to deal with the money. To determine who the third party is, the point to remember is whether the individual conducting the transaction is acting on someone else's instructions. If so, that other individual is the third party. As each situation will be different, this determination must always be based on the facts of each specific scenario. Each entity will be responsible for making their own determination based on the information available to them. You have provided the following three scenarios:

Scenario 1
In this situation, the employee is the client as he or she is conducting the transaction and his/ her information should be entered in Part B. The third party would be the entity/employer, as it is instructing the employee to order the EFTO. As such, the entity's information should be recorded in Part D.

Scenario 2
In this scenario, I have assumed that by “individual,” you mean “employee”. If this is the case, the employee would be the client, as he or she is conducting the transaction. As such, his/ her information, including full name and address, should be entered in Part B. As the employee is not on the list of authorized employees, the MSB would be required to ascertain this individual's identity in the event the EFTO being ordered is $1000 or more, pursuant to paragraph 59(1)(b) of the PCMLTFR. Subsection 59(4) of the PCMLTFR provides an exception to this obligation if the employee is authorized to order transactions under an ongoing service agreement. The entity is the third party as it is providing instructions to the employee. As such, the entity's information should be entered in Part D.

Scenario 3
At the outset, it should be noted that the terms owner, director and shareholder may not always be synonymous with each other. To explain further, the shareholder could either be an employee, or the shareholder could be a director, the owner or one of the owners, which would change the way in which an EFTO report must be filled out. For example, if the shareholder is an employee, he or she is acting on the instructions of another individual or the entity so the shareholder will be considered the client (Part B) and the party providing this individual with instructions to order the EFTO will be the third party (Part D). If, on the other hand, the shareholder is the owner, one of the owners or a director of the entity, he or she may be speaking directly for the entity when ordering the EFTO. The entity can only speak by means of a physical person, which may be the Board of Directors (if the company has one) or the owner(s) (if the company is a sole proprietorship and/or the company does not have a Board of Directors). As such, the individual conducting the transaction (be it the owner(s), director(s) or shareholder (who is a director or owner)) would not be a separate body from the entity. Therefore, the entity would be the client and its information should be entered in Part B. Since the director and/ or owner is the voice of the entity, there would be no third party in this scenario. That being said, pursuant to paragraph 59(1)(b) of the PCMLTFR, the MSB must still ascertain the identity of the person who conducts the electronic funds transfer if it is $1,000 or more.

Date answered: 2014-01-28

PI Number: PI-5690

Activity Sector(s): Money services businesses

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6C

Regulations: 7, 10(1), 32, 59(1)(b), 59(4)

Third Party: Board of Directors

Question:

Could you answer whether or not Employee "A" would be acting on behalf of a Third Party in the following example: Employee "A" works for Company 123. The Board of Directors instruct Employee "A" to open a business account for Company 123 where Employee "A" would be the signing officer. Even though he has a resolution from the Board authorizing him to open and operate the account on behalf of Company 123, would Employee "A" be acting on behalf of a Third Party in this scenario?

Answer:

According to section 7 of the PCMLTFR, “a person acting on behalf of their employer is considered to be acting on behalf of a third party except when the person is depositing cash into the employer's business account.”

In the scenario below, Employee “A” is acting on behalf of a third party. Company 123 is the third party.

Date answered: 2013-06-14

PI Number: PI-5568

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 7

Opening an account for a corporation

Question:

Are directors who were present at a meeting where the signing officers for the corporation's bank/credit union account(s) were appointed, but who were not among those appointed signing officers, considered 3rd parties?

Answer:

Subsection 9(1) of the PCMLTFR states that “Subject to subsections (4) and (4.1), every person or entity that is required to keep a signature card or an account operating agreement in respect of an account under these Regulations shall, at the time that the account is opened, take reasonable measures to determine whether the account is to be used by or on behalf of a third party”.

When a reporting entity has the obligation to make a third party determination, it is actually a question of fact, and the questions to ask themselves are: Is there a party giving instructions or not? Is there a person or persons or another entity that gives the instructions in regards to that account? If so then there is a third party because in order to act on behalf of someone, they must instruct you to do so. However, if the third party does not provide instructions then there is no third party.

As per section 7 of the PCMLTFR, in a third party determination, when employees are acting on behalf of their employers, they are considered to be acting on behalf of a third party. The only exception to this is when an employee deposits cash to the employer's account. In that case, the employee is not considered to be acting on behalf of a third party. This is only true if the account in which the employee deposits cash is a business account.

Date answered: 2013-03-06

PI Number: PI-5516

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 7, 9(1)

Exemption for Third Party Determination

Question:

Is 3rd party determination required when RRSP accounts are opened?

Answer:

The requirements to ascertain identify and to record keep do not apply if the account opened is one listed under subsection 62(2) of the PCMLTFR; consequently, 3rd party determination is not required.

Date answered: 2013-03-06

PI Number: PI-5515

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 62(2)

Large Cash Transactions and Third Party Determination

Question:

Is a “non-signing officer” of a corporation (as opposed to an officer or director of a corporation who have signing authority) acting on behalf of a third party (the corporation) when conducting a large cash transaction? As non-employees who are an officer or director who do or do not have signing authority require a different requirement for reporting?

I understand that according to the FINTRAC Guideline referring to employees that it states: In making a third party determination when employees are acting on behalf of their employers, they are considered to be acting on behalf of a third party. The only exception to this is when an employee deposits cash to the employer's account. In that case, the employee is not considered to be acting on behalf of a third party. This is only true if the account in which the employee deposits cash is a business account.

Answer:

Neither the PCMLTFA nor the PCMLTFR defines what it is to be an employee of a business and having authority to bind or act on an account, or to have signing authority is not necessarily what makes you an employee or not. As such, it is a question of fact to determine whether or not a “non-signing officer of a corporation” is an employee. Should it be determined that this individual is not an employee, then the third party determination requirements are triggered. However, if the non-signing officer is determined to be an employee depositing into the employer's business account, then the third party determination requirements are not triggered, as per section 7 of the PCMLTFR.

Date answered: 2012-12-06

PI Number: PI-5474

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 7A, 7B, 6G

Regulations: 7

Blanket statement

Question:

XYZ's policies and procedures does not address the Third Party Determination. However, as a way to meet the Third Party Determination, XYZ's representatives told us during the exam interview that, although they don't ask a specific question to that matter to the client, XYZ has included a provision in their Customer Agreement that read as follow:

“3. Responsibility for Customer Orders/Trades: Customer acknowledges that XYZ does not know whether someone entering orders with Customer's user name/password is Customer. Unless XYZ is notified and agrees, Customer will not allow anyone to access Customer's account. Customer is responsible for the confidentiality and use of Customer's user name/password and agrees to report any theft/loss of such user name/password, or any unauthorized access to Customer's account, immediately by telephone or electronically through the XYZ website. Customer remains responsible for all transactions entered using Customer's user name/password.”

In addition, given that this is an online services, XYZ does not see the added value of asking a third party determination question when anyone can use in fact the username/password.

May you confirm if this blanket statement is acceptable and addresses the requirement to use reasonable measures to determine if there is a third party?

Answer:

As per sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Regulations, the third party determination requirement for reporting entities can come into effect with respect to large cash transaction records, keeping a signature card or an account opening agreement and keeping client information records.

Given their record keeping requirements, as per section 22 and subsection 23(1) of the PCMLTFR, securities dealers are required to consider the third party requirements when:

  • they have to keep a large cash transaction record; and
    Whenever they have to keep a large cash transaction they have to take reasonable measures to determine whether the individual who is giving the cash is acting on the instructions of a third party.
     
  • they have to keep a signature card, an account operating agreement or an account application
    Whenever they open an account and are required to keep a signature card, an account operating agreement or an account application, they have to take reasonable measures to determine whether the account is to be used by or on behalf of a third party.

While online securities dealers would not likely be handling large cash transactions, you may still want to point out that the blanket statement in the Customer Agreement does not at all address a large cash transaction scenario.

If the Customer Agreement is the “signature card, account operating agreement or account application”, then for the blanket statement within the Customer Agreement to be acceptable, it would need to address both the matter of whether the account is to be used by a third party or on behalf of a third party. The clause included in the policy interpretation request appears to cover off only the former situation. By confirming that the username and password will not be shared, the individual signing the Customer Agreement is agreeing that the account will not be used by a third party. The statement does not, however, address the matter of whether the account will be used on behalf of a third party, that is, whether there will be someone, other than the person authorized to give instructions in respect of the account, directing the activity in the account.

Although we cannot dictate the specific language within an agreement, the reporting entity should be informed that, should they wish to proceed with a blanket statement of this sort, the wording must be revised to address the matter of the account being used “ by or on behalf of a third party.”

Date answered: 2012-11-01

PI Number: PI-5463

Activity Sector(s): Securities dealers

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6E

Regulations: 8, 9, 10, 22, 23(1)

EFT and third party determination

Question:

Under which section would a reporting entity be cited for not conducting a third party determination in the case of EFTs?

Under section 40, I would cite if the reporting entity had made a third party determination, had the info on the third party on hand and did not include it in the report. What if a reporting entity systematically fails to do a third party determination for EFTs?

Would that be a citable offense given that there is no specific provision in the Regulations obliging reporting entities to conduct the determination for EFTs?

Answer:

Because there is no regulatory requirement for a reporting entity to carry out a third party determination, there is no associated paragraph in the PCMLTFR to reference, so we cannot cite on not carrying out a third party determination.

There is, however, the requirement (in the sections that reference reporting) that the reporting entity send the report “together with the information set out in Schedule X.” As such, this could be a reporting deficiency whereby you could cite using the paragraph of the PCMLTFR that specifies the need to report an outgoing EFT together with the information set out in Schedule 5. That said, to be able to cite for not having reported the necessary information, you must be able to substantiate the claim that the third party field in the report was applicable, thus making it mandatory.

For example :

(a) if the entity carried out an LCTR for the same transaction, then they would have had to carry out the third party determination at which point they would have the information, and it would be mandatory in the outgoing EFT report.
(b) if the RE's system/process requires them to ask the question and take note that there is a third party (or not), and we see this, but they do not include the third party information in the report, then we could cite for the information having been mandatory when applicable, but not reported.

Date answered: 2012-07-03

PI Number: PI-5423

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 8

Regulations: Schedule 5

Third Party Determination and Related Records

Question:

In this context, a third party is an individual or entity other than the individual who conducts the transaction. When you are determining whether a "third party" is involved, it is not about who "owns" the money, but rather about who gives instructions to deal with the money. To determine who the third party is, the point to remember is whether the individual in front of you is acting on someone else's instructions. If so, that someone else is the third party.

I am a Trustee and I have an account with ABC corp (the Trustee and ABC corp are the only party to an agreement). Electronic fund transfers are coming from ABC Corp to ABC Corp's trust account on a regular basis. Instructions to disburse the funds are always provided by ABC Corp. However, we received yesterday disbursement instructions signed by ABC Corp and XYZ corp. ABC Corp is still instructing us to disburse the funds but there is an additional party. Should XYZ corp. be considered as a Third Party?

Answer:

Based on the information you provided, in order to consider XYZ Corp. a third party, you need to make sure that XYZ Corp. gave instructions to ABC Corp. on how to deal with the money.

Date answered: 2012-03-02

PI Number: PI-5390

Activity Sector(s): Money services businesses

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6C

Are refineries and scrap dealers covered?

Question:

The Regulations and FINTRAC's guidelines seem to only associate third party determination with large cash transactions. The DPMS are obligated to also report to FINTRAC STRs and TPRs. In sections E & F of the STR report - there is a requirement to report 3rd party info (if applicable to the transaction) and in section G of the TPR there is the same requirement. Would I be therefore correct to advise my DPMS client that he must also make a third party determination should he be faced with suspicious or (granted unlikely) terrorist property transactions?

I think I am perhaps complicating things - the Regulations and guidelines say one thing (client ID and record keeping is triggered by 2 things - LCTR and STR) and 3rd party determination is required for LCTR...but then when I examine the reporting forms - 3rd party seem applicable to an STR and TPR transaction - as well, client ID and record keeping seem to also apply to TPR. So I am wondering, why it is only specifically mentioned LCTR?

Answer:

In the regulations, there is a legislative obligation to take reasonable measures to make a 3rd party determination under subsection 8 in the case of a LCT (i.e. for example the RE would need to ask the question), but not in the case of a STR.

In regards to STRs and TPRs, it is on reasonable measure basis only that when filling out the report, the reporting entity at the top of Part B2 of an STR report would indicate whether the individual who conducted or attempted the transaction was doing so on anyone else's behalf. In other words, if the information is available, then the RE must provide it in the report, however, if the information was not available at the time, the RE would leave the field blank. The field itself in the STR is "reasonable efforts only".

As opposed to Schedule 1 of the LCTR that indicates that if it was determined that there is a third party, the reporting entity must fill out the information in Part G (field is mandatory if applicable).

Date answered: 2010-03-15

PI Number: PI-5337

Activity Sector(s): Dealers in precious metals and stones

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6I, 7

Regulations: Schedule 1, 8(1)

Act: Part 1

Third Party determinations process

Question:

The PCMLTFR does not oblige a reporting entity to record keep the 3rd party determination process as per Sub-Sections 8(1) or 9(1) of the PCMLTFR. The PCMLTFR simply state that the reporting entity must make the determination. Some reporting entities have included the question on forms as a reminder to staff.

If the 3rd party determination question is not answered (i.e. not checked off) on the form, can we cite for not having made the determination, knowing full well that there is no legal obligation to have the question recorded in the first place?

Answer:

We have already compiled record keeping modifications, one of them being to document the 3rd party determination (incl. if negative).

As for 3rd party determination boxes - no record keeping obligation if negative, therefore no deficiency.

However, you may want to review the reporting entity's policies and procedures and verify if they do have a policy in place to make that determination and to consign or record in their policy whether it is negative or positive to determine whether they are non-compliant.

Date answered: 2010-02-22

PI Number: PI-5324

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6

Regulations: 8(1) , 9(1)

Power of attorney and third party determination

Question:

In FINTRAC guideline 6G, there is a section regarding third party determination. We have a question about power of attorney. After our discussion with some financial institutions, some of them treat power of attorney as third party from their broad view of explanation.

Could you please advise me of your point of view if power of attorney is third party?

Answer:

The rule of thumb in regards to the third party determination under subsection 8 to 10 of the regulations is the following - when a reporting entity has the obligation to make a third party determination, it is actually a question of fact, and the question to ask ourselves is: Is there a party giving instructions or not? If so then there is a third party because in order to act on behalf of someone, they must instruct you to do so.

Let me explain - An account gives the power of attorney to an individual (friend, family or other) to conduct transactions at the bank on their behalf. The account holder is incapacitated and cannot provide instructions. The reporting entity would still have to make a third party determination as per our legislative requirements, however, there is no third party in this case, as the account holder does not provide instructions.

Another scenario: A person breaks both his legs, and can't get to the bank. He provides a power of attorney to his niece to conduct transactions on his behalf at the bank. The reporting entity makes a third party determination as per our legislative requirements, and in this case, in fact, the uncle (i.e. the third party) is providing instructions to his niece. So the reporting entity would have to record keep the required information re: third party determination.

So, really, whether there is a power of attorney or not, it does not waive the requirement for a reporting entity (that has that obligation mind you) to take reasonable measures to determine if there is a third party - however, if the third party does not provide instructions then there is no third party.

Date answered: 2010-02-01

PI Number: PI-5308

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6

Regulations: 8,9,10

Power of attorney and Identity

Question:

Scenario: A registered real estate agent is selling a condo on behalf of her daughter. (She is the seller in this scenario representing her daughter). The mother has a Power of Attorney from her daughter.
Must she ID herself?

Answer:

In this particular case, the real estate agent is acting both as the agent and the client (because of the power of attorney). Past Policy Interpretation indicates that a person cannot identify herself. Therefore, since the daughter will ultimately be giving the instructions, the daughter should be identified as the owner of the property considering that in this particular case, she is not incapacitated.

Date answered: 2010-01-28

PI Number: PI-5306

Activity Sector(s): Real estate

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6

Regulations: 59.2

Criteria for acceptable wording in terms of the Regulations.

Question:

The Fund does not allow for the opening of a non-RRSP account for a third party. Thus, no power of attorney is accepted.

The member declares that he is opening the account for himself and is not acting on behalf of a third party.

He makes this declaration conscientiously, believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.

If the Fund representative has reasonable grounds to suspect that the non-RRSP account is to be used by or on behalf of a third party, despite the declaration by the member, the representative should state why below.

Grounds on which the Fund representative suspects that the individual is acting on behalf of a third party.

Answer:

Yes the disclaimer is acceptable (in regards to the third party determination).

Date answered: 2009-12-22

PI Number: PI-4754

Activity Sector(s): Securities dealers

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6

Regulations: 9

Third Party Determination

Question:

Must we make the third party determination and do the related record keeping in the case of accounts opened by a conservator (agent) for an incompetent person and accounts opened on behalf of an estate by executors?

Answer:

There is no third party for executors because they do not receive instructions and the deceased cannot be a third party.

Date answered: 2009-05-11

PI Number: PI-4585

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 8, 9, 10

Third party (account openings) and other account related questions

Question:

A daughter has a power of attorney or a court order for her father

  • the daughter opens an account at a CP in her own name
  • the daughter signs the signature card and is identified
  • She deposits into her own account cheques payable to her father. The father did not endorse the cheques because he is not physically capable to. But the daughter shows the CP her power of attorney or court order to effect that she has this power.

If the father is inapt: If the father cannot gives instructions (eg. medical reasons) is father a third party because of the power of attorney or court order that is in effect?

If the father can gives instructions, and does give instructions to the daughter, would the father be a third party?

Answer:

Just a precision - if the daughter opens an account under her own name, the power of attorney is irrelevant, because she is the account holder and can transact within that account as she wishes. However, if she wants to deposit cheques payable to her father in her account, and the cheques are not endorsed by the father, then the POA may be the proof that she is authorized to administer the affairs of her father (and deposits those non endorsed cheques in her account).

No third party in this case, the father is inapt and therefore cannot give instructions.

If the father can give instructions then yes there would be a third party determination.

Date answered: 2009-04-27

PI Number: PI-4420

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 9(1), 14(c), 14(a)

Third party (account openings) and other account related questions

Question:

A daughter has a power of attorney or a court order for her father

  • the daughter opens an account at a CP in the name of the father
  • the daughter signs the signature card and is identified

If the father is inapt: If the father cannot gives instructions (eg. medical reasons) am I right to presume that the father would not be a third party (even though there is a power of attorney or court order in effect) because the father cannot give instructions?

If the father can gives instructions, and does give instructions to the daughter, would the father be a third party?

Answer:

If inapt, then the father usually cannot give instructions and therefore would not be considered as a third party.

If the father gives instructions then he would be a third party.

Date answered: 2009-04-27

PI Number: PI-4419

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 9(1), 14(c), 14(a)

Property management and third Party determination

Question:

A business account is opened for a property management company who collects rental income and pays expenses associated with a rental property. The property management company provides this service for the owner of the rental property.

Is this a Third Party Relationship?

Answer:

In this scenario two questions come to mind:

  1. Is the account opened by the management property company and
  2. Does the owner give instructions to the property management company?

If the account is opened by the management property company, then there is very little probability that the owner will give instructions to the property management company - therefore when the account is opened and the CU makes the 3rd party determination, then more often than not in this scenario it will result in a negative answer (i.e. there will be no third party).

Most of the time the property management company takes care of everything in regards to the rental property (e.g. a mall or an office building) and the owner does not get involved at all, nor does he provide any instructions to the property management company. The new account is therefore not going to be used by or on behalf of a third party.

Date answered: 2009-04-23

PI Number: PI-4417

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 54(1)(a), 9(1)

Real Estate Sector - power of attorney

Question:

In a real estate transaction - does the RED or Realtor need to ID the property owner in addition to the person who has the power of attorney and is conducting the transaction?

Also - I do not consider the Power of Attorney situation to be third party. Can you confirm that.

Answer:

POA should be identified as they are the person conducting the transaction. This would be a third party only if taking instructions from someone right.

However, generally we have said that POA usually are not third party.

Date answered: 2009-04-17

PI Number: PI-4413

Activity Sector(s): Real estate

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6B

Third Party - Information not obtainable

Question:

If the person in front of you does not know the complete address, dob, etc. of the third party – what should the credit union do?
- refuse the transaction?
I am thinking that there may be circumstances where the conductor may not know the required information on the third party … how does FINTRAC recommend they proceed?

Answer:

It has been said in the past that asking the client was considered as reasonable measures. As for the information regarding the 3rd party (e.g. address, DOB etc.) - if the client does not have the information and after the CU verifies if the info exists already (in another file/record), and documenting .. I fail to see how we could cite the CU for being deficient if the information is missing. The RE should flag the account as "high risk".

Date answered: 2009-04-14

PI Number: PI-4565

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 8(2), 9(2)

Obligations of Notaries

Question:

A daughter has a full power of attorney for her father. A notary is handling a transaction that is conducted by the daughter on behalf of her father. The daughter gives the notary a cheque (father's cheque, for the amount of $5000) for the transactions

When conducting the transaction, does the notary have to ID the father or only the daughter?

For the purpose of receipt of funds records, who is the one that the notary is identifying in terms of "from whom the funds are received"? daughter (the cheque handler), father (the owner of the cheque) or both? What happen if it's a $5000 bank draft (from father's account) that the notary is receiving, rather than a personal cheque?

Is there 3rd party in this case?

Answer:

For the receipt of funds record, you would identify:

  1. If cheque is made to daughter from her father - you identify the daughter (as she will be endorsing the cheque);
  2. If cheque is made to notary by the father - identify the father as he is providing the funds;
  3. In the case of the bank draft - identify the daughter, as the draft is treated like cash.

Furthermore if the daughter is acting on behalf of the father and he gives her instructions, then the father is the third party. However, if the daughter does not receive any instructions from her father there is not third party.

Date answered: 2009-04-03

PI Number: PI-4564

Activity Sector(s): British Columbia notaries

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6J

Regulations: 10

Identification Requirements for Consenting Spouse

Question:

Are financial institutions required to obtain identification documents from a "consenting spouse" in a mortgage transaction?

For example, a husband purchases a residential property in his own name from his own funds.

His wife is not and will not be on title.

Normal practice is to have the wife obtain Independent Legal Advice (ILA) and she will sign on the Mortgage Charge as a consenting spouse.

Do we require ID documents on the wife?

Answer:

Our legislation does not require to ID the spouse unless the spouse is an account holder.

As for the 3rd party determination - the financial entity must make that determination, however, in this particular case, there is a 3rd party if the spouse gives instructions.

The financial entity however may be submitted to other legislation(s) (provincial for example) that they must follow in regards to property ownership re: family assets / married couple - and that would be up to the FE to verify that.

Date answered: 2009-03-25

PI Number: PI-4557

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 9

Secondary signer & POA related issue

Question:

In the situation where two signatures are required. Accounting firm A is appointed as one of the signers of the client's account, which requires two signatures (client & the accountant). Therefore, they won't be able to pay the funds without the client's signature.

Can firm A argue that technically the client is the one who pays the funds & gives instruction, not the accountant? Is firm A still subject to the Act?

Answer:

If both the accountant and the client are account holders at the financial institution (i.e. both are authorized to give instructions to the account, and both names are on the signature card) - then the financial institution/bank will have to identify both the client and the accountant.

Having said this, when the accountant firm engages in any of the triggering activities found in subsection 34(1), then the firm is covered under our Act. So if the accounting firm is paying funds (as in signing the cheques), then yes the accountant firm is subject to our Act.

Date answered: 2009-03-06

PI Number: PI-4539

Activity Sector(s): Accountants

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6D

Regulations: 34(1)

PEFP determination for a RRSP account holder

Question:

While a PEFP determination is not required for a RRSP account holder, we would ask for your guidance under the following circumstances:

John Smith opens a self-directed Registered Retirement Savings Plan account with a financial entity.

Among the assets held in the RRSP account is a mortgage on a residential property owned by Bill Jones. The financial entity does not consider Mr. Jones a client of the financial entity but rather a client of the RRS Plan. In such an instance, it would appear that the normal KYC obligations (including Identification, Third Party and PEFP determinations) are not required to be met. Is this correct?

To add a further complication to this matter, at a later date, the RRS Plan arranges to sell the mortgage to a financial entity. As this would entail the opening of a mortgage account by the financial entity, I believe that it would be obligated to meet all of Guideline 6G KYC related requirements prior to the opening of the account. Am I correct?

Answer:

When a client holds a mortgage in his or her Registered account these mortgages are being held as personal liabilities and as such are not underwriter by a Financial Institution (FI). As the registered account holder is not an FI they are not subject to the PCMLTFA.

However when such mortgages are sold to an FI the acquiring FI would be responsible for acquiring the appropriate ID and record keeping obligation including those pertaining to 3rd party and PEFP.

Once the bank buys the loan it is now their client and normal client rules apply.

Date answered: 2009-02-25

PI Number: PI-4531

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Third Party Determination at RRSP account opening

Question:

Subsection 3.1 General Exceptions to Record Keeping of FINTRAC Guideline 6G (Financial Entities) states that:

"You do not have to keep any of the records described in subsections 3.3 to 3.9, or in section 7, when you open any of the following accounts:

For a registered plan, including a locked-in retirement plan, a registered retirement savings plan, a group registered retirement savings plan, a registered education savings plan and any other registered plan."

  • Subsection 3.3 deals with Records to Be Kept When Opening an Account
  • Subsection 3.4 with Credit Card Account Records
  • Subsection 3.5 with Certain Records Created in the Normal Course of Business
  • Subsection 3.6 with Certain Records About the Operation of an Account
  • Subsection 3.7 with Foreign Currency Exchange Transaction Tickets
  • Subsection 3.8 with Certain Transactions of $3,000 or More;
  • Subsection 3.9 with Electronic Funds Transfers; and
  • Subsection 7 with Politically Exposed Foreign Person Determination and Related Records
  • Section 6 deals with 6 Third Party Determination and Related Records.

It is my understanding that when a person opens a registered retirement savings plan account that a financial entity is required to obtain a Third Party Determination as this requirement is not one of the matters specifically exempted. Could you confirm my understanding of the foregoing?

Answer:

Yes there is an exemption for a "registered plan" as outlined in Guideline 6 and no you do not need to obtain a 3rd party or PEFP determination when dealing with such a plan; if no signature card no third party.

Date answered: 2009-02-25

PI Number: PI-4530

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 62(2)(i)

Third Party determination

Question:

I was hoping you could help me understand what third party determination means in the context of a specific business model.

All our clients are non-individual entities with whom we have an ongoing service agreement, so we keep a client information record. We collect the name of the client, information on the beneficial owners, the directors, the persons authorized to initiate transactions, and the persons authorized to enter into the agreement.

Typically the persons listed on the client record as authorized to initiate transactions are an owner and an employee who has a bookkeeping or ‘back-office' type function.

Looking at Guideline 6C section 6, it is my opinion that almost 100% of the transactions we conduct for clients would fall under the definition of a third party transaction. Can this possibly be right?

For example, section 6 specifically says that when employees act on behalf of their employers, they are considered to be acting on behalf of a third party. That pretty well covers every situation where the non-owner employee initiates the transaction, correct? It could even cover owners who initiate the transaction, because they are not the client - their company is our client. Is that correct?

In general, the instructions to initiate any transactions rarely come from the person who actually gives us the trading information. For example, a manager will receive an invoice from a foreign supplier and ask whoever is authorized to give us instructions to ensure the supplier is paid. The person who gives us instructions is usually just a conduit or facilitator of placing the foreign exchange transaction instructions.

Section 6 says that “to determine who the third party is, the point to remember is whether the individual in front of you is acting on someone else's instructions. If so, that someone else is the third party.” Well, the person in front of us is rarely acting on their own initiative. They have received instructions from an operational part of the business to either pay for something, or convert foreign payment into Canadian funds to be used in the business.

If I am correct in my interpretation, then I gather each time some calls us to do a transaction, we must ask, “who told you to call us and do this”?

Answer:

Under subsection 59(4) the MSB does not have the obligation of ascertaining the identity of the person referred to in the service agreement (under subsection 32) who conducts the transaction on behalf of his employer. There is also no client information record requirement in that case (for the employee), and by ricochet under subsection 10 no 3rd party determination (as there is no client information record).

The client information record created is in respect to the entity, and the MSB must also keep a lit of the names, address, date of birth of every employee authorized to order transactions under the agreement. For reporting purposes the "client" would be the employee's name - and in the third party information (reasonable measures) in the report (Part D) would indicate the entity's name if we indicate the entity in Part B then there would not be a third party to capture in Part D.

If there is no ongoing service agreement, the MSB will have to identify the employee, however, in light of subsection 8 and 10 (third party determination section), there is no obligation in that case to make and keep a third party determination record under our regulations - unless the employee makes a large cash transaction (subsection 8).

However, please note that under Schedule 5 when the MSB fills it out for an outgoing EFT of $10,000 or more, the MSB will have to on a reasonable measures basis fill out Part D and capture information on the third party (which in this case would be the employer's information as PART B would be the employee's name and information). Thus explaining why in my earlier statement, I got confused when it came to Schedule 5 and the reporting aspect of that transaction.

Date answered: 2009-02-13

PI Number: PI-4525

Activity Sector(s): Money services businesses

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6C

Regulations: Schedule 5, 8, 10, 6, 59(4)

Client Identification

Question:

Situation 1: An account is opened in the name of the portfolio manager, who is registered with the AMF, on behalf of a client. Is the portfolio manager exempt from identification under section 23 and subsection 57(1) (paragraph 62(2)(l))?

Situation 2: The client opens a brokerage account for which he gives the portfolio manager carte blanche (agreement). Will the client be identified (subsection 57(1)), or will the manager be identified (subsection 57(1))? Is there no applicable exemption? Does the account initiation need to contain the signatures of the client and the manager (subparagraph 23(1)(a)(i))? Does the account initiation need to contain the information on the client (paragraph 23(1)(c)?

Answer:

Situation 1: If exempted for client identification, then there is no record keeping obligations, and no third party determination as well. In other words, if you do not have the obligation to keep a signature card, then you do not have the obligation to make a 3rd party determination.

Situation 2: It is a question of fact, who gives the instructions in regards to the account, the client or the administrator? In Scenario 2, you identify the administrator, and not the client (as it seems that the administrator has "carte blanche" and gives the instructions). The best practice for securities dealers is to ID any new client regardless of the type of account opened. If the client previously opened an RRSP account, the dealer cannot rely on the exemption in 63(1) because RRSP accounts are exempt and they therefore did not identify the client in accordance with s.64.

Date answered: 2008-11-18

PI Number: PI-4403

Activity Sector(s): Securities dealers

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6E

Regulations: 23(1)(a)(i), 23(1)(c), 57(1), 63(1), 64

Act: 6.1

Letters of Credit

Question:

A FI offers a product called a Letter of Credit. This allows our member to provide a ‘Promise to Pay' that is held within their membership. The Letter of Credit account can only be accessed by the beneficiary (usually a city for development purposes or a distribution company like the Liquor Distribution Board for a restaurant).

Would this be considered a third party account?

The funds in the account are being withdrawn by the beneficiary (non-signer). The signer(s) on the account are not allowed access to the Letter of Credit account in any way. The beneficiary information is documented at the time the LC is issued. All withdrawal transactions are processed through written request and an office cheque issued as payment from the Letter of Credit.

In many cases the Letter of Credit is not accessed, it is simply available as payment in situations where the account holder is unable or refuses payment, the beneficiary can access the funds as their ‘Promise to Pay'.

Answer:

The "Letter of Credit" is a promissory note, therefore, it is not considered as an account as per our legislation. So none of the obligations and requirements of our regs in regards to the opening of an account apply (including the 3rd party determination for example).

Date answered: 2008-10-06

PI Number: PI-4373

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Third Party - Deceased member - Estate account

Question:

We have an executor who would like to open an estate account, would this be considered Third Party? If so would the will be the Third Party or the deceased member?

Answer:

The executor is the person opening the account, and the one authorized to give instructions in respect to that account.

The regulations do say that each time you create a client info record you have to do a third party determination.

Having said this, however, the result of the third party determination in the case of an executor, will be that the transaction is not made by or on behalf of a third party, as there is no other person than the executor that can give out instructions in regards to an estate. (a deceased person cannot be a 3rd party).

Date answered: 2008-09-30

PI Number: PI-4365

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 9(1)

Account holders as third party

Question:

In reading FINTRAC's guideline 6G, does the part that says that the account holder is not a third party only apply to account openings (section 9of the PCMLTFR), and therefore, conversely, that it does apply to LCTR (section 8 of the PCMLTFR)?

For LCTs, is the account holder a third party if he/she gives instructions to the conductor?

Answer:

As pointed out in the observation above, in re-reading GL6G, as well as the Interpretation received, I believe an account holder can be a third party for LCTs but not account openings. The statement above found in the GL that the account holder cannot be a third party is written just underneath the account opening section and not the LCT section. Also, it makes sense that an account holder cannot be a third party when they are opening the account, but could be (or not) a third party for an LCT conducted by someone else.

Date answered: 2008-09-15

PI Number: PI-4347

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 8, 9

Power of sale

Question:

Our company sells Power of Sale homes and works on behalf of a mortgage institution. As such the title is never transferred and we sign on their behalf. We were advised to only complete sections 1, 2 & 3 of Part A. (Verification of Corporation), please confirm this is correct.

Answer:

The real estate broker must identify the person conducting the transaction (the individual representing the company with the power of sale). It would then also have to confirm the existence of the corporation (30 days to do so from the date of the transaction), and then would have to also do a third party determination (as the corporation via the power of sale is acting on behalf of a mortgage institution).

Please note that should the real estate broker deal with the same individual and corporation subsequently,

  1. if they recognize the individual - then they would not be required to ascertain the identity again, and
  2. in the case of the corporation the real estate broker would not be required to confirm the information subsequently.

Date answered: 2008-08-22

PI Number: PI-4318

Activity Sector(s): Real estate

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6B

Regulations: 59.2(1), 8(2)(b), 63(1), 63(2)

Third Party determination obligations for financial entities

Question:

If a notary opens an in-trust account for a company which asks him to do so, and the notary is the only signer for the account, would you say that third party determination is required with regard to the company which asked to have the in-trust account opened? In my opinion, subsection 9(1) applies (i.e. determining whether there is a third party), but 9(2) [record keeping] does not apply, pursuant to 9(6).

Answer:

Yes, the financial entity has to take reasonable measures to determine whether the account is to be used by or on behalf of a third party (under section 9 (1)), in this particular case, it would be a question of fact if the notary is taking his instructions from the corporation or not.

Secondly the exemption to section 9(2)to record keeping (found in section 9(6)) applicable when the account is opened by a legal counsel/accountant/or re broker, and when the entity has reasonable grounds to believe that the account is to be used only for clients of the legal counsel.. Again that would be a question of fact.

Date answered: 2008-07-17

PI Number: PI-4274

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 9(1)(2)(6)

Third party in the case of an investor group

Question:

A bank will on occasion have to work to reclaim monies on property for which mortgages have not been paid. To do so, their mortgage recovery officers get involved and work to liquidate the property and once the property is sold the proceeds go back to the mortgaging Financial Institution (Bank, Trust Co. etc.).

The realtor has listing forms which they have sent to an investment group which ask the investment group to provide the applicable corporate docs in order to engage in the sale and disposition of the funds. The investment group's management has interpreted the third party disclosure portion of this form to require disclosure of personal information by their Mortgage Recovery Officer(s) and this Officer is questioning that logic.

I suspect that she is correct in her interpretation as she is not buying or selling the property but instead is acting as an agent of the investment group. Do you agree? Is it not sufficient that the investment group be identified for this purpose? Therefore removing the obligation to personally identify the mortgage officer as a third party?

Answer:

We determined that it would not be sufficient to ID the investment group, and there would be the obligation to make a 3rd party determination, and the bank would be the 3rd party. The investment group is somewhat acting as a collection agency for the bank.

The investment group is acting on behalf of the bank to sell the property.

Date answered: 2008-07-14

PI Number: PI-4261

Activity Sector(s): Financial entities

Obligation(s): Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6G

Regulations: 6(2)

Third Party vs Beneficial Ownership

Question:

Can someone please clarify third party vs beneficial ownership? I thought Power of Attorney, Power of Sale were third parties - but have been told that it's beneficial ownership.

Answer:

For the Real Estate sector - there is no obligation to determine the beneficial ownership.

For POA - 3rd party determination.

As for the Power of sale (when the mortgage company forecloses on a property for non-payment) - no need to do a 3rd party determination, as the mortgage company owns the property (so the broker's client is the mortgage company).

Date answered: 2008-07-03

PI Number: PI-4252

Activity Sector(s): Real estate

Obligation(s): Beneficial Ownership, Third Party Determination

Guidance: 6B

Regulations: 10(1), 11.1

Date Modified: