Consumer complaint received 2019-09-17
Product: Checking or savings account — Checking account
Issue: Opening an account — Unable to open an account
Company: WELLS FARGO & COMPANY

Complaint:
On XX/XX/XXXX I went to Wells Fargo at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX NM XXXX, to request open a Checking Account for an MSB ( Money Service Business ) and was referred to the business banker XXXX XXXX, who kindly took my information to begin the process. He got our XXXX docs articles of organization, EIN, personal info ITIN number, identificacion number, etc. And then, he contacted to his corporate or his Wells Fargo MSB center to request more information to start the process. They got the preliminary information and they asked him to transfer the call to me, so they told me about 90 days process starting at that point to get a resolution. Also, they toldme that I would receive a package of information requested in 7 days thru XXXX, a checks list, and some forms to fill out. 
On XX/XX/XXXX since we did not received the package I went again to the local branch to ask about the process, then the business banker called to the MSB center of Wells Fargo and they said the something. So I had to keep waiting. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, finally I got the package with the forms and the check list. The case was asigned to the Wells Fargo EDDC at XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX, NC XXXX, to the Wells Fargo analyst Mr. XXXX XXXX XXXX, with the case number : XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX I sent the full requested info thru USPS Certified and return receipt signature. 
On XX/XX/XXXX the package I sent was delivered by XXXX XXXX, and we got the returned receipt signed. 
On XX/XX/XXXX I sent the same information in digital format to the local Wells Fargo Business Banker XXXX XXXX, to make sure both sides have the full information requested, and the help him to follow up the case. 
On XX/XX/XXXX I sent the same digital copies to XXXX XXXX to his email XXXX to make easier his process, but he never answer the email. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, I wrote a new email asking for the status to XXXX XXXX, business banker ; XXXX XXXX, director of branch, and XXXX XXXX Analyst of the case, and expresing the big concern of the other financial institution with who we bank currently and the big fees we are paying for cash withdrawals, an average of {$1200.00} per month, and I did not receive any answer. Mr. XXXX XXXX just ignored my email. No answer was received. 
On XX/XX/XXXX finally Mr. XXXX XXXX made contact with me over the phone and in a rude and desperate rush way he started refusing to considerate our internal AML program and asking me to sign an adoption of the XXXX XXXX manual. I asked him why since we are required to have our internal AML program under Federal Law ( BSA ) and we are authorized delegate of 5 money transmiters not only XXXX XXXX ; so, our AML Program includes more directions to monitor more than one money transmiter. He did not want to provide a reasonable explanation. He just ignored our internal AML program and he was not willing the discuss the reasons. This was really disturbing, even when they trust in XXXX XXXX policies, that is not justifiable. However we did it and we sent the adoption letter Mr. XXXX requested. In addition he request us to fix some numbers on the page 4 of the application and we did it immediately. At the end of the call Mr. XXXX asked me if there is an special license in XXXX   XXXX we have to obtain to cash checks. I explained him with detail that the XXXX XXXX " Uniform Money Service Act '' under the Article 3 just request that license for persons who are NOT authorized delegates of a Money Transmitters under the Article 2. Therefore, under the Article 3, paragraph A, section ( 4 ) of that Law, Money service Business have an exception to get an State License to Cash Checks as long they are Authorized Delegate of a Money Transmitter authorized under the Article 2, since they are cashing checks under the license of the Money Transmitters they represent in the State. In this cases, the City License or County License its good enough. Mr. XXXX asked me to send him copy of that Law and marking that section. Therefore, I sent copy of the Law and the specific page where that provision appear. In addition I sent our ID of each Money transmitter ( 5 in total [ XXXX by XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX, XXXX, XXXX XXXX ). in XXXX XXXX where we are authorized delegate, and we attached also our Cashing Service County License current and valid number # XXXX valid until XX/XX/XXXX showing we are in compliance. Everything was sent the same day on XX/XX/XXXX. 
On XX/XX/XXXX since we got no more information requested and passing a week, I wrote another email asking about the status and when can we open the account. No response was received. 
On XX/XX/XXXX, Mr. XXXX called me requesting again the XXXX  XXXX State License to Cash Checks, and I explained him again with detail why we are not required to have that license and I told him that the information was sent to him a week ago as he requested, and did not want to look for that, and started in rude way asking to " re-send '' every thing again. Again in rude and desperate way he asked me to show him the page of the Law the paragraph and the explicit line explaining that. I did it again, he read it very clear and he was NOT able to to proof nothing against that provision for who are " authorized delegate of a license person under the Article 2 ''. In addition, I sent him a copy of the XXXX XXXX agreement for Money Transfers and  Checks Cash under their license what is fully in compliance with the State Law, and Mr. XXXX did not have arguments against that. Also, Mr. XXXX was asking about how we cash checks and each time we refer him to our AML Program that includes the section Checks Cashed, Mr. XXXX got mad and rude. He did not wanted nothing about our Internal Policies nothing that implies going and read carefully to our AML Program. So, this was really hard to work with Mr. XXXX. He was so in rush that he did not want to get enough familiar with our internal proceedings. He had a rally bad attitude. Finally, despite of all the evidence he refused to approve to open a checking account unless we get the State License to Cash Checks. 
On XX/XX/XXXX We requested him in writing thru email to answer in writing specifically what part of the State Law require us to get that State License since we met the requirements for the exception pursuant 58-32-301 A ( 4 ). Mr. XXXX never answered. 
On XX/XX/XXXX Mr XXXX sent us a certified letter declining the process WITHOUT responding our specific questions and with AMBIGUITY asserting that we did not met their risk requirements. 

SUMMARY : Wells Fargo did not proof we are not in compliance with BSA.

T h e r e f o r e, For potential MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS of : 1 ) BSA CFR 31 103.125 ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) : " MSB 's shall develop a AML writing program '', with " internal controls [ ... ] [ Note : Wells Fargo will NOT force to any MSB to sign in adoption " exclusively '' just one of their money transmitters manual. Particularly if the MSB represent more than one money transmitter and the MSB own manual covers ALL the AML proceedings, the use of their own software for internal controls and Monitoring for ALL the transactions with all the money transmitters that represent and the checks cashed. Of course, we sign to comply with all the money transmitters AML programs individually ( each manual ) and we have the commitment to follow the compliance of each Money Transmiter we represent ; but we have a " superior internal AML program '' that cover all the companies in a global way in order to fully comply with the BSA. Wells Fargo do not have the legal authority to dismiss the internal AML program with all its " internal controls with sofwares '' to monitor " sends '' and " Checks Cashed '' that are ALL connected with its internal Global AML program.

2 ) NM Uniform Money Service Act 58-32-301 A ( 4 ) : " A person shall not engage in check cashing [ ... ] unless the person : ( 4 ) is an authorized delegate of a person licensed pursuant the Article 2 of the Uniform Money Service Act. '' [ Note : We are " Authorized Delegate '' of 5 Money Transmitters in XXXX   XXXX, Vigo by XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX ( with specific agreement that allow us to cash checks under their license ), XXXX, XXXX   XXXX, XXXX XXXX. ] Once again,  despite of the " check cashed '' system the Money Transmitter provide to their " authorized delegate '' process checks, the MSB have ALL the legal right to " record '' internally with its own software ( such as our software " XXXX '' ) all the checks cashed, checks images, history of the checks cashed per customer, Ofac verification, and multiple reports, to fully comply with the Federal Law such as the BSA, US Patriot Act, etc., and for the proper AML monitoring and -in many times- with " superior standards ''. Wells Fargo do not have the legal right to OBJECT to that ; and in addition if particularly the Money Transmitter under the license the Authorized Delegate is  cashing checks, do not have any inconvenient to do it since the compliance for both parts result stronger and the risk management gets more reduced. Therefore, the objection of Wells Fargo to this provision of the State Law above mentioned it could be considered not only a potential violation but trying to go " above the law '' requiring more than the Law. 
3 ) Fincen Advisory dated on April 26, 2005, that strongly provides in the page 1 paragraph 2 as follows : " [ ... ] the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network ( FinCEN ) and the Federal Banking Agencies1 issued a joint statement recognizing the importance of ensuring that money services businesses that comply with the law have reasonable access to banking services. The statement also confirmed that banking organizations should apply the Bank Secrecy Act requirements to money services businesses, as they do with all accountholders, on a risk-assessed basis '' ( Note : " the importance of ensuring MSB 's that comply with the law ( such as the BSA ) have REASONABLE ACCESS to banking services. ) ..

4 ) .- Juridic Cases holding : " No one is Above the Law '' : Note : Wells Fargo will not be " Above the Law ''. Wells Fargo shall recognize the exception of the Law for the Check Cashed State License for who are " Authorized Delegates '' of a person licensed under the Article 2 of the NM Uniform Money Service Act. No personal opinions or additional rules for this Law or different criteria will be accepted. 58-32-301 A ( 4 ). Otherwise, Wells Fargo would be acting " Above the Law ''. Our MSB fully meets with this Law, and only can be required for the City Permit which is in file current and valid. And in addition enforced with the XXXX Agreement to Cash Checks.

In accordance with the above : Hereby we respectfully request to the intervention of the FDIC and Fincen to Fix this illegal analysis and determination. 

Respectfully XXXX and XXXX of XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX  XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX NM XXXX XXXX

Company public response: Company has responded to the consumer and the CFPB and chooses not to provide a public response
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation