The "running feud" between banks and money services businesses such as remittance firms is nothing new. Remittance firms conduct business in a less scrutinized manner than banks yet they rely on banks to complete their transactions. And being leery of running afoul of regulations to which they are beholden but remittance firms are not, banks might go as far as refusing such firms' business. It's a Catch 22 that often leaves the end customer in a lurch through no fault of his or her own.

Let's be very clear — remittance firms are not inherently bad nor are the customers that they serve. Quite honestly, they cater to a demographic that has historically been underserved by the banking community. While it is understandably difficult for a bank to assess all of the activities conducted by a remittance firm, there are some actions that such firms can take to make both parties more comfortable:

Without having assurances like the above in place, the bank is in effect acting as a pseudo-regulator and is "strong-armed" into policing the operations of the remittance firm. Putting a bank in such a position is unfair, financially burdensome and risky. Although some of the ideas offered here raise the level of work required by these remittance firms, perhaps this is better than the alternative. Remittance firms cannot simply stop serving a specific demographic in order to ensure that they continue to have access to the necessary banking services. And, banks and remittance firms do not want to force these segments of the population to Hawalas. Coming up with a way to monitor the transactions being conducted and work together to uphold the banking regulations in place will be the best solution for everyone concerned.