Know the answer. Explain the payment.
Genuine questions a payments interviewer can reasonably ask, from foundations to senior-level exceptions. Every answer starts directly, adds operational context, and links back to the teaching or official evidence that supports it.
Shubham Mathure
Senior Business Analyst SME in payments technology, with expertise in SWIFT, ISO 20022, payment operations, and financial messaging. Creator of Payments Signal—making complex payment infrastructure clear and practical for everyone.
Interview-worthy coverage, without filler.
The bank is explicitly curated by domain. New site content does not become a question automatically: it must test a concrete concept, decision, lifecycle, control, or troubleshooting skill and pass the editorial quality checks.
Build your interview set.
30 matches
Showing 1–30 · Page 1 of 1
Operations, reconciliation & investigations
SEPA & instant payments
TRICKYA warning that works: Verification of Payee returns NO MATCHHow would you diagnose and resolve “A warning that works: Verification of Payee returns NO MATCH”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: The VoP check returns NO MATCH — the payee name the payer typed does not match the name on the account behind the IBAN.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: Before any money moves, the payer is warned the name does not match and can decide whether to proceed. Resolution: Mandatory in the euro area from 9 October 2025 under the EU Instant Payments Regulation, VoP verifies the payee before authorisation. A NO MATCH stops a likely misdirected payment before it starts — no money moved, so there is nothing to reverse. Funds: Never left Riya's account — she abandoned before authorising. Settlement: Nothing settled; no interbank movement was ever submitted. Owner: Riya (payer). Next action: Riya confirms Arjun's correct account name and IBAN before retrying.
TRICKYTIPS explicitly expires an instant paymentHow would you diagnose and resolve a TIPS-expired instant payment?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Confirm that TIPS sent an explicit expired outcome and released the originator's DCA reservation before treating the instruction as unsettled.
WHY IT MATTERS
TIPS reserves funds after accepting the payment and holds them until beneficiary acceptance, rejection or expiry. On explicit expiry, TIPS releases the DCA reservation and sends a negative status; Bank Alfa then releases its customer hold. This is stronger evidence than silence at an originator PSP, where a delayed status can still arrive. A controlled retry starts only after matching the expiry to the original identifiers.
TRICKYJust missed the cycle: a STEP2 transfer re-dated to the next batchHow would you diagnose and resolve “Just missed the cycle: a STEP2 transfer re-dated to the next batch”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Bank Alfa submits a standard SEPA transfer into STEP2-T after the processing cycle's cut-off.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: A non-instant transfer does not clear in the expected cycle; it is carried to the next STEP2-T settlement cycle, not rejected. Resolution: A batch ACH carries a cycle/cut-off delay that instant rails avoid. Missing a cut-off re-dates the transfer to the next cycle; the money still moves, just one cycle later. Funds: Debited from Riya at submission; held in-flight until the next cycle settles. Settlement: Settlement is deferred by one STEP2-T cycle, then completes in TARGET2. Owner: Bank Alfa (originator bank). Next action: For time-critical payments Bank Alfa submits before the cut-off or uses an instant rail instead.
TRICKYNo answer in time: an instant payment that timed outHow would you diagnose and resolve “No answer in time: an instant payment that timed out”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
If no confirmation arrives within the SCT Inst ten-second timeline, the originator PSP restores the payer's account and treats the outcome as unconfirmed, not as proof that the payment failed.
WHY IT MATTERS
The operations record must remain linked to the original transaction because a belated positive or negative confirmation can still arrive. Inform the payer that the outcome is unconfirmed, suppress a blind retry, investigate the status, and reconcile any late positive result and resulting exposure. Account restoration protects the payer at the deadline; it does not prove that the receiving side never processed the payment.
TRICKYInsufficient funds: a Core direct debit returnedHow would you diagnose and resolve an SDD Core collection returned for insufficient funds?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Bank Alfa cannot apply the collection on the due date, so it sends a return against the original transaction under the applicable SDD Core timing and reason-code rules.
WHY IT MATTERS
Separate the Core roles carefully: the creditor manages the mandate, while the debtor bank attempts the debit and may return the collection for insufficient funds. If inter-PSP value had already settled, the return causes a separate reverse settlement; the original record remains. Operations must reconcile the collection, return, settlement and customer postings before the creditor decides whether another collection is permitted.
TRICKYNo refund by design: an authorised B2B collection standsHow would you diagnose and resolve “No refund by design: an authorised B2B collection stands”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: After being debited for an authorised B2B collection, the business debtor asks its bank for a refund.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: A corporate customer expects a consumer-style reversal; operations must explain the B2B scheme does not provide one. Resolution: The B2B scheme deliberately trades the consumer refund right for a mandatory pre-debit mandate check. An authorised collection is final; the only remedy is a commercial dispute with the creditor. Funds: Debited from the business debtor and credited to Asha Traders — the money stays where it settled. Settlement: Settlement stands; no scheme reversal applies to an authorised B2B collection. Owner: Business debtor. Next action: The debtor raises a commercial dispute with Asha Traders directly; there is no scheme refund to invoke.
TRICKYNot enough money to send: an SCT rejected at the first gateHow would you diagnose and resolve “Not enough money to send: an SCT rejected at the first gate”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: The debtor's account cannot cover the transfer when Bank Alfa validates the instruction.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: The payment never appears in the outbound clearing file; the customer sees a rejected status in the initiation channel almost immediately. Resolution: The instruction dies at validation. Nothing needs to be unwound because nothing moved: no debit, no clearing, no settlement. The reason code in the pain.002 tells the customer exactly what to fix. Funds: Never left the debtor's account — no debit was ever booked. Settlement: No interbank clearing or settlement occurred; the pacs.008 was never created. Owner: Bank Alfa (debtor agent). Next action: The debtor funds the account and resubmits.
TRICKYPaid twice: recalling a duplicate SCTHow would you diagnose and resolve “Paid twice: recalling a duplicate SCT”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Bank Alfa discovers it sent the same transfer twice — after the beneficiary has already been credited.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: Settlement reconciliation shows two identical settled payments against one customer instruction; the customer may also call about the amount arriving twice. Resolution: The recall is accepted and answered with a pacs.004, so the duplicate amount settles back. Had the beneficiary refused, the answer would have been a camt.029 and Bank Alfa would have needed a route outside the scheme to recover the money. Funds: The customer was debited once; the duplicate was funded from Bank Alfa's own settlement position, so the exposure sat with the bank until the return settled back. Settlement: Both the original and the duplicate settled;
TRICKYTaking it back: an 8-week no-questions-asked SDD refundHow would you diagnose and resolve “Taking it back: an 8-week no-questions-asked SDD refund”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Within 8 weeks of the debit date, Riya asks Bank Alfa to refund a Core direct debit — no reason required.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: Operations sees a refund claim on a collection that already settled and posted; the biller was already credited. Resolution: The Core scheme gives the debtor an unconditional refund for eight weeks after the debit date. The money returns as a separately settled movement; the commercial dispute, if any, is then between biller and customer. Funds: Returned to Riya's account after the refund settled. Settlement: Original collection settled, then reversed by a separately settled refund. Owner: Riya (debtor). Next action: Asha Traders resolves the invoice with Riya directly;
TRICKYThe account is closed: a returned SCTHow would you diagnose and resolve “The account is closed: a returned SCT”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Nordbank finds the beneficiary account closed — after interbank settlement has already completed.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: An inbound pacs.004 referencing yesterday's pacs.008 lands in Bank Alfa's return queue, and money arrives back on the settlement account. Resolution: The return settles like any other payment and the debtor is re-credited. The original transfer and the return are two completed, settled movements in opposite directions — not a cancellation of the first one. Funds: Debited from the debtor on day one; back in the debtor's account once the return settled. Settlement: Original settlement completed, then was reversed economically by a separately settled return — the first settlement itself was never undone. Owner: Nordbank (creditor agent).
TRICKYThe beneficiary bank says no: an instant payment rejected in secondsHow would you diagnose and resolve “The beneficiary bank says no: an instant payment rejected in seconds”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Nordbank answers the instant payment negatively — the beneficiary account turns out to be closed.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: The customer sees an immediate failure message; operations sees a negative pacs.002 arriving seconds after the outbound pacs.008. Resolution: The payment fails before any money moves, so there is nothing to send back. Compare this with the classic SCT closed-account case, where the same AC04 arrives after settlement and needs a settled return. Funds: Reserved during the attempt and released on the reject; the debtor's balance is untouched. Settlement: Never occurred — the reject arrived before settlement became final. Owner: Nordbank (creditor agent). Next action: The debtor verifies the beneficiary's details before retrying;
TRICKYWe want it back, they say no: a refused SCT Inst recallHow would you diagnose and resolve “We want it back, they say no: a refused SCT Inst recall”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: The debtor claims an already-completed instant payment was a mistake, and the beneficiary will not agree to give the money back.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: A camt.029 negative answer lands against Bank Alfa's earlier camt.056; the investigation case cannot be closed as recovered. Resolution: The recall fails cleanly: a camt.029 with a reason code is a final scheme-level answer, not an error. Recovery now moves outside the scheme — direct contact between the parties, and ultimately a legal claim if the amounts justify it. Funds: In the beneficiary's account at Nordbank, where it stays; the debtor was debited and remains debited. Settlement: Settled and final. A recall never reverses settlement by itself — only a consented return would have moved value back.
Clearing & settlement
TRICKYAddress does not resolve: an IMPS transfer that fails instantlyHow would you diagnose and resolve “Address does not resolve: an IMPS transfer that fails instantly”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: The mobile number and MMID do not resolve to a valid account, so the IMPS transfer cannot be applied.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: An instant transfer fails within seconds; the payer is refunded and nothing settles. Resolution: IMPS resolves the beneficiary from the mobile number and MMID before moving money. An unresolved address fails the transfer instantly, all-or-nothing, and the payer is made whole. Funds: Never left Riya's account — the transfer failed before any settlement. Settlement: No settlement; the address never resolved to an account. Owner: Riya. Next action: Riya confirms Arjun's mobile number and MMID (or uses account number and IFSC) and retries.
TRICKYHeld in the queue: a CHAPS payment waiting for liquidityHow would you diagnose and resolve “Held in the queue: a CHAPS payment waiting for liquidity”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Bank Alfa's Bank of England settlement account lacks the liquidity to cover a high-value CHAPS payment when it is checked.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: A submitted CHAPS payment does not settle at once; it sits in the RTGS central queue until the account can cover it. Resolution: The payment is deferred, not lost. Once the settlement account can cover it, CHAPS settles it with finality. Queuing is intraday liquidity management, not an error. Funds: No money moved while queued — Bank Alfa's settlement account was untouched until cover arrived. Settlement: Settlement was deferred until liquidity was available, then completed gross and final. Owner: Bank Alfa (sending bank).
TRICKYHeld, not rejected: a T2 payment queued for liquidityHow would you diagnose and resolve “Held, not rejected: a T2 payment queued for liquidity”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Bank Alfa's RTGS account does not hold enough available liquidity to cover a high-value payment when T2 checks it.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: A submitted high-value payment does not settle immediately; it sits in the T2 queue while the account waits for cover. Resolution: The payment is deferred, not lost. Once the RTGS account can cover it, T2 settles it with finality. Queuing is a liquidity-management outcome, not an error. Funds: No money moved while queued — Bank Alfa's account was untouched until cover arrived. Settlement: Settlement was deferred until liquidity was available, then completed with finality. Owner: Bank Alfa (sending bank). Next action: Bank Alfa manages intraday liquidity with CLM transfers so high-value payments do not sit queued late in the day.
TRICKYMissed the half-hour: a NEFT transfer waits for the next batchHow would you diagnose and resolve “Missed the half-hour: a NEFT transfer waits for the next batch”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Bank Alfa submits a NEFT transfer just after the current half-hourly settlement cut-off.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: A transfer does not clear in the expected half-hourly cycle; it is carried to the next of the 48 daily cycles, not rejected. Resolution: NEFT settles net in half-hourly batches, so a missed cut-off re-dates the transfer to the next cycle. The money still moves, one half-hourly cycle later. Funds: Debited from Riya at submission; held in-flight until the next half-hourly cycle settles. Settlement: Settlement is deferred by one half-hourly cycle, then completes net at the RBI. Owner: Bank Alfa (remitting bank). Next action: For time-critical transfers Bank Alfa uses RTGS or an instant rail instead of waiting for the next NEFT cycle.
TRICKYNo take-backs: an RTP payment can only be asked to be returnedHow would you diagnose and resolve “No take-backs: an RTP payment can only be asked to be returned”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Bank Alfa realises an RTP payment was a mistake and wants it back, but RTP payments are final and irrevocable.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: The sender cannot reverse the payment; the only route is a Request for Return the receiver may refuse. Resolution: RTP grants no recall right. A return, if it happens, is a brand-new push payment back to the sender — not a reversal. The original settlement stands, final and irrevocable. Funds: With Arjun; funds return only if he voluntarily sends them back as a new payment. Settlement: The original settlement is final and irrevocable and stands; nothing was reversed. Owner: Nordbank (receiver bank). Next action: Bank Alfa awaits the recipient decision and, if refused, resolves it directly with its customer.
TRICKYNothing settles: a FedNow payment the receiver cannot applyHow would you diagnose and resolve “Nothing settles: a FedNow payment the receiver cannot apply”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Nordbank cannot apply the payment (for example the account is closed), so it answers negatively before any settlement.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: An instant payment fails cleanly within seconds; the sender is told immediately and no money moved. Resolution: Because the negative answer arrives before settlement, no central-bank money moved and nothing has to be unwound. FedNow settles only on a positive confirmation. Funds: Never left Riya's account — no settlement took place. Settlement: No settlement; the Federal Reserve master accounts were never touched. Owner: Nordbank (receiving bank). Next action: Riya checks Arjun's account details against the reason code and retries.
TRICKYQueued at the RBI: an RTGS transfer waiting for fundsHow would you diagnose and resolve “Queued at the RBI: an RTGS transfer waiting for funds”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Bank Alfa's settlement account at the Reserve Bank of India lacks the balance to cover a high-value RTGS transfer when it is checked.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: A submitted RTGS transfer does not settle at once; it sits in the RTGS queue until the account can cover it. Resolution: The transfer is deferred, not lost. Once the settlement account can cover it, the RBI settles it with finality. Queuing is liquidity management, not an error. Funds: No money moved while queued — Bank Alfa's account was untouched until cover arrived. Settlement: Settlement was deferred until funds were available, then completed gross and final in RBI books. Owner: Bank Alfa (remitting bank). Next action: Bank Alfa manages its intraday balance so high-value RTGS transfers do not sit queued.
TRICKYReturned through the batch: an ACH entry the RDFI cannot applyHow would you diagnose and resolve “Returned through the batch: an ACH entry the RDFI cannot apply”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Nordbank cannot apply the entry — insufficient funds (R01) or account closed (R02) — after the settlement window already completed.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: A payment that appeared to settle comes back later through the ACH network with a return reason code. Resolution: ACH is batch and deferred-net, so a failed entry returns through the same network on a later window. The originator is re-credited and corrects the details. Funds: Returned to the originator after the return settled in a later window — the receiver was never paid. Settlement: Original window settled, then reversed by a separately batched and netted return. Owner: Nordbank (RDFI). Next action: The originator confirms the receiver account details and re-originates the entry.
TRICKYToo big for Faster Payments: rerouted via CHAPSHow would you diagnose and resolve “Too big for Faster Payments: rerouted via CHAPS”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: The payment is above the Faster Payments single-payment limit (£1 million) or the bank's own FPS limit.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: A payment the customer expected to be instant cannot use Faster Payments; the bank must choose a different rail by value. Resolution: Rail choice depends on value and urgency. Faster Payments carries single payments up to £1 million; above that, a high-value payment takes CHAPS, which settles gross and final rather than deferred-net. Funds: The payment is made in full through CHAPS instead of Faster Payments. Settlement: Settled immediately and finally, payment-by-payment (RTGS) — not deferred-net as on FPS. Owner: Bank Alfa (sending bank). Next action: Bank Alfa confirms the CHAPS payment to Riya;
TRICKYUnknown UPI ID: a payment that never leaves the phoneHow would you diagnose and resolve “Unknown UPI ID: a payment that never leaves the phone”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: The Virtual Payment Address (VPA / UPI ID) does not resolve to a valid, active account — a typo or a deregistered handle.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: The payment stops before any debit; the payer is told the UPI ID could not be found. Resolution: UPI resolves the VPA to a real account before anything is authorised. An unresolved handle fails the payment up front, so there is no debit and nothing to settle. Funds: Never left Riya's account — the VPA never resolved, so no debit was made. Settlement: No settlement; the payment failed at address resolution. Owner: Riya. Next action: Riya checks the exact UPI ID with Arjun (or scans his current QR) and retries.
TRICKYUnpaid direct debit: the ARUDD return after settlement dayHow would you diagnose and resolve “Unpaid direct debit: the ARUDD return after settlement day”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: The payer's account has insufficient funds (or the Direct Debit Instruction is cancelled), so the bank cannot pay the collection.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: A collection that appeared to settle on Day 3 comes back unpaid a day or two later, reported through the ARUDD cycle. Resolution: The Automated Return of Unpaid Direct Debits (ARUDD) is a reporting cycle that runs after settlement day, so the collector learns of an unpaid collection a day or two later. The Direct Debit Guarantee also lets the payer reclaim an error immediately from their bank. Funds: Not collected from Riya — the item was returned unpaid, so the money stayed in her account (or was reversed by the return). Settlement: The collection did not stick; the unpaid item is unwound through the ARUDD cycle after entry day.
TRICKYWrong account: a Bacs Direct Credit returned through the cycleHow would you diagnose and resolve “Wrong account: a Bacs Direct Credit returned through the cycle”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: On entry day the payee account details are wrong or the account is closed, so the credit cannot be applied.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: A payroll credit does not reach the employee; the item comes back to the employer through the Bacs cycle, not instantly. Resolution: Because Bacs is a batch cycle, a failed credit returns through the same predictable multi-day rhythm as the original payment. The employer is re-credited and corrects the details for the next cycle. Funds: Returned to Asha Traders after the Automated Return worked back through the cycle — the employee was never credited. Settlement: The original entry settled on Day 3; the return is reversed through a later cycle, not instantly. Owner: Nordbank (payee bank).
ISO 20022 & CBPR+
TRICKYStopped for screening: a sanctions hold at the intermediaryHow would you diagnose and resolve “Stopped for screening: a sanctions hold at the intermediary”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Meridian Bank's transaction screening flags a party name in the pacs.008 as a potential sanctions-list match.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: The payment goes quiet mid-route: tracking shows it reached the intermediary, but no onward leg and no confirmation follow. Resolution: The alert is dispositioned as a false positive and the payment completes late rather than never. A true match would have ended very differently: frozen or rejected funds and a report to the competent authority — not a quiet release. Funds: Debited from the debtor at the start; suspended at the intermediary while the alert was open; with the creditor after release. Settlement: Paused mid-chain: no value moved beyond the intermediary until the hold was released, after which the remaining legs settled normally.
TRICKYThe address that lost its shape: truncated data needs repairHow would you diagnose and resolve “The address that lost its shape: truncated data needs repair”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: An upstream MT-to-MX translation squeezed a long address into the pacs.008 badly — party data arrives truncated and unstructured.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: The payment drops out of straight-through processing into Meridian's repair queue; validation flags malformed beneficiary address data. Resolution: The payment completes after a manual repair that should never have been needed. The durable fix is upstream: capture structured party data at the source instead of translating long unstructured text under field-length pressure. Funds: Debited from the debtor at the start; waiting at the intermediary while in the repair queue; with the creditor after the repaired message completed the chain. Settlement: Settlement beyond the intermediary waited on the repair; once released, the remaining legs settled normally.
TRICKYWhose money is this? A request for information before creditingHow would you diagnose and resolve “Whose money is this? A request for information before crediting”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Cassia Bank cannot confidently apply the credit — the creditor name in the pacs.008 does not match the account holder on record.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: The payment shows as delivered to the creditor agent but never confirms; then an investigation request referencing the transaction arrives at Bank Alfa. Resolution: The credit posts once the ambiguity is resolved — held briefly in suspense rather than bounced back. Had no answer come, Cassia would eventually have had to return the funds instead. Funds: Settled to Cassia early on, but parked in Cassia's suspense account until the information arrived; then credited to the creditor. Settlement: Interbank settlement completed before the investigation began — only the final customer posting waited. Owner: Cassia Bank (creditor agent).
SWIFT & MT
TRICKYThe announcement without the money: a cover that never matchedHow would you diagnose and resolve “The announcement without the money: a cover that never matched”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Cassia Bank holds an MT103 announcing funds, but the matching MT202 COV never arrives — the cover was sent with a mismatched reference.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: Cassia's cover-matching queue shows an aging unmatched MT103; the beneficiary's expected credit does not post and the sender starts getting queries. Resolution: Once the reissued cover lands and matches, the credit posts. The delay is the price of the cover method's split between information and money: the MT103 promises, but only the MT202 COV pays. Funds: Debited from the ordering customer at the start; hung between correspondents while the cover was missing; with the beneficiary after the match. Settlement: The MT103 itself moved no money. Settlement occurred only when the reissued MT202 COV was booked across the correspondent chain.
TRICKYToo late for today: an MT103 that missed the cut-offHow would you diagnose and resolve “Too late for today: an MT103 that missed the cut-off”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: The MT103 reaches Meridian Bank after its USD cut-off, so execution slips to the next business day.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: The expected debit is missing from Bank Alfa's nostro statement the next morning, and the beneficiary is chasing funds that were promised for today. Resolution: The payment completes a day late. The investigation confirms a cut-off miss rather than a loss. Compensation for the lost value date is possible between the banks, but it depends on bilateral practice rather than any scheme rule. Funds: Debited from the customer on day one; sat on Bank Alfa's nostro at Meridian overnight; with the beneficiary the next business day. Settlement: Settlement happened normally but one day later than intended; nothing failed and nothing reversed.
TRICKYWrong account number abroad: a returned MT103How would you diagnose and resolve “Wrong account number abroad: a returned MT103”?
MODEL ANSWERDIRECT ANSWER
Trigger: Cassia Bank cannot apply the credit — the beneficiary account number in the MT103 does not exist on its books.
WHY IT MATTERS
First symptom: Days after the outbound payment, an unexpected inbound MT103 with /RETN/ in field 72 arrives, and the nostro shows the money coming back — sometimes less correspondent charges. Resolution: The money comes back as a fresh, settled payment flagged as a return under the SWIFT reject/return convention. Matching depends on references and the /RETN/ codeword in field 72 — there is no scheme guarantee of speed, and charges may be deducted along the way. Funds: Debited from the customer at the start; in transit across correspondent accounts for the round trip; back with the customer after the return, possibly net of charges.