In the last ten years, we have for Real-Time Gross Settlement (RTGS) systems as part of the overall payment and settlement landscape. Since RTGS systems form a part of the core backbone of the national payments in the countries where this type of settlement, it is normal, since a given that the RTGS system itself is risk. However, this only applies in cases in which the BIS, the core-wire for the systematic Important Payment Systems "are fully with. These 100 percent, is rarely the case.
A crucial question in determining how risky a "risk" RTGS system, is the degree and the extent to which a national central bank will either be responsible or liable for any operational errors may occur. The extent to which these notes is true, the real risk of system failures to participants who are not their own making.
First, however, some points of clarification, the terms "payment" and "settlement" "somewhat interchangeably used, often leading to confusion. While "" payment "and" settlement "may be used by the same process that we have these two notions of what happens within the RTGS system. All that is in the RTGS system is a solution - do not forget there is a settlement system! Some settlements are in relation to payments, while other settlements for other payment and / or clearing systems (these are usually multilateral, but also those in which payments shall be made in a bilateral basis).
So, what is the real difference between a payment and a solution? A payment is the client (for example, sending customer, not the bank) transfer of a monetary claim on a party that the beneficiary (the receiving customer). Normally, debt in the form of banknotes or deposit balances at a financial institution or to a central bank (ie in the RTGS settlement account). A payment is the transfer of something of value to the goods or services which are or will be, received. Payment can be made in cash, on credit or by a transfer of ownership of assets.
Settlement on the other hand, the discharge of an obligation between the banks in relation to the payments that they, on behalf of its customers through a transfer of funds, either at the central bank or by a corresponding relationship.
So, what is the actual situation in a RTGS system, responsibility and liability?
We have recently conducted a survey across a range of countries. Countries in this sample, the European Union (in relation to a very specific directive to all members). Some EU countries have additional agreement or regulations (eg Austria, Finland, Denmark, Germany and Luxembourg). We also have in New Zealand and the United States.
Generally, no central bank or operator of an RTGS system will detect any form of responsibility or liability for the operational errors, except in the case of Finland, Germany and New Zealand, the central bank limited liability in case of gross negligence.
In the EU (for Target and for the national RTGS systems), a "Compensation Scheme" is terminated. In view of these arrangements are central to pay limited compensation for losses that are directly in control of the ECB (European Central Bank) or the national central bank. However, this compensation, the applicant waives all other claims, including claims for consequential damages. The maximum amount of compensation is limited to 50 euros per payment order, plus interest at the ruling rate.
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น