|
|
| Тема |
 Re: наличен и безналичен банков превод - англ.? [re: no_clouds] |
|
| Автор |
Liya () |
|
| Публикувано | 07.02.12 00:21 |
|
|
|
Нямам категоричен отговор на поставения ти въпрос, затова замълчавам по него, макар че попогледнах тук-там и нещо не ми върви wire transfer, защото изглежда, че и наличен превод може да се осъществи чрез него. Гледам някакви credit transfer и някакъв direct debit даже... и те по ми отиват спрямо метода на внасяне от платеца, а не по отношение на начина на придвижване на средствата, както го схванах аз
, а и тук:
, както и това
Relevant
provisions
Articles 3, 4(3) & 10 Question no 417
Date of question 2.11.2010 Date of answer 8.2.2011
Issue
Money remittance vs credit transfer;[/b] intermediary PSP; cross-border service
Question
PSP A is an intermediary payment service provider established in Romania, i.e. it receives funds from
another payment service provider PSP B (the payer payment service provider which is established in
another Member State) and transfers them to PSP C (the PSP of the payee that is a credit institution
established in Romania or in a third country that holds an account for the payee). In fact, PSP B
collects funds from payers and transfers them through its bank to PSP A (by crediting PSP A’s account
held at its credit institution). Then PSP A initiates payment orders at its bank for crediting with a
corresponding amount the accounts of the payees held at their credit institutions (PSP C). Neither PSP
A nor PSP B opens accounts for their clients and PSP A has no liability against the payers or the
payees (the liability against the payment service users is on their PSPs – PSP B and PSP C). For the
execution of this payment transactions, between PSP A and PSP B there is an contractual
arrangement where the payer is charged a fee by PSP B (depending on the amount transferred) whilst
part of the fee is being passed to PSP A by PSP B. Between PSP A and the credit institution of the
payee (PSP C) there is no contractual arrangement. We mention that PSP A also provides classic
money remittance. We would be grateful to receive your answers on the following questions: a) What
payment service is provided by PSP B for its clients (money remittance, credit transfer or other
payment services) taking into consideration that (i) the payment transaction is 'cash to account' and (ii)
the definition of money remittance stipulates that no account is being created in the name of the payer
or the payee. b) Are PSP A’s activities as intermediary within the scope of the PSD and so it would
need to comply with PSD requirements (own funds requirements, safeguarding measures, etc.)? If yes,
what payment service PSP A provides? If PSP A’s activities are out of scope of the PSD under which
para of Article 3 of the PSD would you consider them fit? c) If PSP B is established in a third country
and PSP A and PSP C are established in a Member State would you consider that PSP B is providing
payment services in the Community and so it would need to be authorised according to Article 10 of the
PSD or would you consider that PSP B is providing payment services where its head office is situated
and PSP A and PSP C are providing payments services in the Community?
Answer
Since the question mentions that the entity provides 'classic money remittance', that entity needs to get
an authorisation to carry out the services mentioned in Point 6 of the Annex to the PSD. As for other
transactions between such payment service provider and other payment service providers, it will be up
to the national competent authority to assess whether Article 3(m) applies.
<P <P Редактирано от Liya на 07.02.12 01:05.
| |
| |
| 
|
|
