Transaction Review Sample Clauses

Transaction Review. We may review your withdrawal transaction to mitigate any risks and/or to prevent money laundering and to ascertain whether any Restricted Activity (as set out in section 9) is taking place (“Redemption Risk”). Where a Redemption Risk is identified by us, we reserve the right to restrict your Payment Instrument and/or refuse your Payment Order. When you instruct us to perform a redemption, we may treat this as a future dated Payment Order which we will execute within the timeframes set out in section 4.1 once we determine the Redemption Risk has passed. If we release the restriction and/or proceed to process your withdrawal, you agree that the date of your Payment Order will start on the Business Day the restriction was lifted.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (9)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Transaction Review. I understand that certain transactions may be subject to review and must be in good order before approved by U.S. Bancorp Investments and processed; such reviews could cause a delay in processing. In addition, transactions not in good order can potentially cause delays. I acknowledge and agree to accept any risks arising from such delay. 1 Customer Agreement (Continued from page 3)
Sample 1Sample 2
Transaction Review a. Student-athletes are on notice that transactions related to their NIL activities are subject to review by Western Connecticut State University, the Little East/MASCAC Conference, the NCAA and/or a designated independent third party.
Sample 1
Transaction Review. Gold Farm reserves the right to review certain potentially high-risk transactions. If a transaction is being reviewed, Gold Farm may place a hold on the transaction and provide notice to the recipient. Gold Farm will then conduct a review and either clear or cancel the payment. If the transaction is cleared, Gold Farm will provide notice to the recipient. Otherwise, Gold Farm will cancel the transaction and the precious metals will be returned to the owner.
Sample 1
Transaction Review. Within 120 days of this Agreement, the Bank shall complete a forensic review of cash transactions, sales of monetary instruments, and funds transfer activities from June 2001 through the date of this Agreement (the “Review”) to determine whether known or suspected violations of law and suspicious activities involving accounts or transactions at, by, or through the Bank were properly identified and reported by the Bank in accordance with applicable suspicious activity reporting regulations.
Sample 1
Transaction Review. Within 30 days of this Agreement, the Bank shall submit to the Reserve Bank an acceptable plan that shall establish the (i) types of accounts and transactions, (ii) methodology, and (iii) sampling procedures to be used in a forensic review of account records from January 31, 2002 through the date of this Agreement (the "Transaction Review") to determine whether suspicious activity involving accounts or transactions at, by, or through the Bank was properly identified and reported by the Bank in accordance with applicable suspicious activity reporting regulations.
Sample 1
Transaction Review. Within 60 days of the effective date of this Agreement, the Bank shall engage an independent third party acceptable to the Reserve Bank (the “Transaction Review Consultant”) to conduct a review of the Bank’s transaction monitoring activity from March 1, 2023, to August 31, 2023, to determine whether suspicious activity involving high risk customer or transactions at, by, or through the Bank was properly identified and reported in accordance with applicable suspicious activity reporting regulations (the “Transaction Review”) and to prepare a written report detailing the findings (the “Transaction Review Report”).
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Transaction Review

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.

  • Independent Review Contractor shall provide the Secretary of ADS/CIO an independent expert review of any Agency recommendation for any information technology activity when its total cost is $1,000,000.00 or greater or when CIO requires one. The State has identified two sub-categories for Independent Reviews, Standard and Complex. The State will identify in the SOW RFP the sub-category they are seeking. State shall not consider bids greater than the maximum value indicated below for this category. Standard Independent Review $25,000 Maximum Complex Independent Review $50,000 Maximum Per Vermont statute 3 V.S.A. 2222, The Secretary of Administration shall obtain independent expert review of any recommendation for any information technology initiated after July 1, 1996, as information technology activity is defined by subdivision (a) (10), when its total cost is $1,000,000 or greater or when required by the State Chief Information Officer. Documentation of this independent review shall be included when plans are submitted for review pursuant to subdivisions (a)(9) and (10) of this section. The independent review shall include: • An acquisition cost assessment • A technology architecture review • An implementation plan assessment • A cost analysis and model for benefit analysis • A procurement negotiation advisory services contract • An impact analysis on net operating costs for the agency carrying out the activity In addition, from time to time special reviews of the advisability and feasibility of certain types of IT strategies may be required. Following are Requirements and Capabilities for this Service: • Identify acquisition and lifecycle costs; • Assess wide area network (WAN) and/or local area network (LAN) impact; • Assess risks and/or review technical risk assessments of an IT project including security, data classification(s), subsystem designs, architectures, and computer systems in terms of their impact on costs, benefits, schedule and technical performance; • Assess, evaluate and critically review implementation plans, e.g.: • Adequacy of support for conversion and implementation activities • Adequacy of department and partner staff to provide Project Management • Adequacy of planned testing procedures • Acceptance/readiness of staff • Schedule soundness • Adequacy of training pre and post project • Assess proposed technical architecture to validate conformance to the State’s “strategic direction.” • Insure system use toolsets and strategies are consistent with State Chief Information Officer (CIO) policies, including security and digital records management; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to security and systems integration with other applications within the Department, and within the Agency, and existing or planned Enterprise Applications; • Perform cost and schedule risk assessments to support various alternatives to meet mission need, recommend alternative courses of action when one or more interdependent segment(s) or phase(s) experience a delay, and recommend opportunities for new technology insertions; • Assess the architecture of the proposed hardware and software with regard to the state of the art in this technology. • Assess a project’s backup/recovery strategy and the project’s disaster recovery plans for adequacy and conformance to State policy. • Evaluate the ability of a proposed solution to meet the needs for which the solution has been proposed, define the ability of the operational and user staff to integrate this solution into their work.

  • Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Subscribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services un- der the plan. Blue Shield has completed documen- tation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required under Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review pro- cess, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.

  • Classification Review (A) Reclassification Request (a) An employee who has good reason to believe that they are improperly classified may apply, in writing by electronic mail, to their immediate out-of-scope Manager to have their classification reviewed. This may occur when there has been a substantive change in the job functions, when there has been a change in organizational structure that significantly impacts roles, or when a classification specification has been amended in a manner that alters the basis on which classification levels are differentiated. The employee making the request will indicate the reason(s) why they believe their position is inappropriately classified, including the changes that have occurred to the position, organization or classification specifications. In some circumstances, a classification review may be initiated in response to a long standing perceived inequity in how a position is classified. However, where a review has been previously conducted, employees should not request a subsequent classification review unless there has been a substantive change as described above. Submissions must include an approved job description, in the event that a current job description is not available an employee can initiate their written request so as to establish a potential effective date as per article 40.04(a). The manager shall send a copy of the employee’s request to Human Resources without delay, and shall confirm in writing to the employee and the Union that the employee’s request has been received. The manager shall advise the employee of the results of the classification review within ninety (90) calendar days of receiving the request. The notification shall be in writing and include rationale for the decision, specifically addressing the reasons for the review provided by the employee. (b) When reviewing a request for reclassification, the Employer shall follow the guidelines included in the Classification Specification User Manual. Requests are reviewed by the Employer. The evaluation of the role may include an audit of the role, including interviews with the Employee and the Employee’s Manager as needed. (c) Should the employee feel that they have not received proper consideration in regard to a classification review, they may request that the matter be referred to the Internal Appeal Process.

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.

  • Transition Review Period In accordance with Article 35, Layoff and Recall, the Employer may require an employee to complete a transition review period.

  • Post Review With respect to each contract not governed by paragraph 2 of this Part, the procedures set forth in paragraph 4 of Appendix 1 to the Guidelines shall apply.

  • Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be whether Good Shepherd was in material breach of this CIA and, if so, whether: a. Good Shepherd cured such breach within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice of Material Breach; or b. the alleged material breach could not have been cured within the 30-day period, but that, during the 30-day period following Good Shepherd’s receipt of the Notice of Material Breach: (i) Good Shepherd had begun to take action to cure the material breach; (ii) Good Shepherd pursued such action with due diligence; and (iii) Good Shepherd provided to OIG a reasonable timetable for curing the material breach. For purposes of the exclusion herein, exclusion shall take effect only after an ALJ decision favorable to OIG, or, if the ALJ rules for Good Shepherd, only after a DAB decision in favor of OIG. Good Shepherd’s election of its contractual right to appeal to the DAB shall not abrogate OIG’s authority to exclude Good Shepherd upon the issuance of an ALJ’s decision in favor of OIG. If the ALJ sustains the determination of OIG and determines that exclusion is authorized, such exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the ALJ issues such a decision, notwithstanding that Good Shepherd may request review of the ALJ decision by the DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of OIG after an ALJ decision adverse to OIG, the exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the DAB decision. Good Shepherd shall waive its right to any notice of such an exclusion if a decision upholding the exclusion is rendered by the ALJ or DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of Good Shepherd, Good Shepherd shall be reinstated effective on the date of the original exclusion.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!