Can we still say "we never accept cash" in our risk assessment if a client deposits cash directly into our trust account at the bank?
Yes, the cash-acceptance onus sits with the bank that receives the deposit, not your firm.
Yes. The onus for accepting that cash sits with the bank, not with your firm. If your office policy is genuinely not to accept cash - meaning your staff don't physically receive cash from clients, and clients are instructed to use EFT or direct deposit instead - you can confidently state this in your Risk Assessment.
Why this distinction matters under AUSTRAC's framework:
- The bank that receives the cash deposit is a financial institution (FI) with its own AML obligations - including Threshold Transaction Reporting (TTR) for cash deposits of $10,000+. Their CDD obligation activates with the deposit.
- Your firm as the recipient of the funds (via your trust account) isn't accepting cash directly - you're receiving cleared funds from the bank, the same as any EFT.
- The Risk Assessment question is about what your firm directly handles, not about how funds reach your account upstream.
What you should still consider in your Risk Assessment:
- Source of funds enquiry - if a client's pattern of large cash deposits into your trust account looks unusual, that's a Suspicious Matter Report (SMR) consideration regardless of who handled the cash physically.
- Customer risk rating - a customer who routinely funds matters via cash deposits (vs. EFT from a traceable account) may warrant a higher risk rating.
- Office policy clarity - your "no cash" position should be documented (engagement terms, customer communications) so it's clear what the policy actually is.
The "no cash" statement is a useful risk reducer in the RA - it removes one channel where customers could obscure source-of-funds. The platform's Risk Assessment wizard accommodates this position cleanly.