Banks Step Back from IDF Controversy, Stress Role Is Only Payment Facilitation

The Ghana Association of Banks (GAB) has moved quickly to calm public concerns after allegations surfaced over irregularities in the use of Import Declaration Forms (IDFs). In a firm statement, the Association clarified that banks neither issue nor control these forms, emphasizing their role is limited to processing legitimate trade payments.

The controversy has sparked debate as some importers appear to exploit gaps in the system, but the GAB insists these issues lie outside banking oversight. Meanwhile, regulators and banks are working together to tighten the framework and prevent further abuse.

Banks Emphasize Their Limited Role in IDF Processing

Banks are feeling the heat as IDF-related irregularities make headlines, but GAB insists that commercial banks have no part in issuing or creating the forms. “Banks have no role in the creation or issuance of IDFs. Their role is limited to facilitating legitimate trade payments for importers,” the statement said.

The IDF is a customs instrument, strictly managed by the Ghana Revenue Authority (GRA) through its Integrated Customs Management System (ICUMS). In other words, banks are only conduits for payments and nothing more.

The Association stressed that they operate fully within the regulatory frameworks set by the Bank of Ghana (BoG) and GRA, making sure that only properly documented transactions move through the financial system.

Yet, public anxiety persists. Many citizens confuse the banking role with control over import processes, creating a perception of complicity where none exists.

The GAB also warned that media speculation can amplify these misunderstandings, urging stakeholders to focus on facts rather than assumptions.

Loopholes Exploited by Some Importers

While banks themselves aren’t at fault, some importers have found ways to manipulate the IDF process. According to the GAB, a few traders initiate advance payments using a legitimate IDF but later generate additional forms when the goods arrive, often to under-invoice and evade customs duties.

“These activities occur outside the banking system’s visibility and oversight,” the Association noted. Banks typically detect problems only when discrepancies appear between initial payments and subsequent documentation.

When inconsistencies arise, banks respond by suspending further advance payments to the affected customers until the original documentation is verified.

• Importers with accounts across multiple banks can sometimes continue questionable practices elsewhere.

“This highlights a broader system-wide loophole that extends beyond any single bank,” the GAB acknowledged.

The situation has prompted urgent calls for better cross-institution visibility and closer coordination between banks, customs, and regulators.

Multi-Stakeholder Efforts to Close IDF Gaps

To address these risks, the GAB has launched a consultative process involving member banks, the Bank of Ghana, the GRA, and ICUMS officials. The goal is to review the current IDF framework, identify weak points, and establish coordinated solutions to prevent abuse.

“Each stakeholder was assigned specific responsibilities,” the Association said. “The Bank of Ghana and the banks have substantially completed their tasks, while further engagements with GRA and ICUMS are ongoing to ensure the complete closure of identified loopholes.”

Meetings are reportedly productive, with committees examining both procedural and technical weaknesses in the IDF system. Suggestions range from more stringent verification of documentation to improved communication channels between banks and customs authorities.

Banks are also exploring ways to flag unusual patterns in trade payments proactively, reducing the risk of manipulation before it escalates.

One key takeaway: the system cannot rely solely on banks to police documentation that falls under customs jurisdiction. Cooperation across institutions is crucial.

Explaining the $200,000 Payment Limit

Public confusion also emerged around a supposed $200,000 payment cap for importers. The GAB clarified that this limit only applies to customers who lack full import documentation when requesting payments.

• Customers with complete and verified documentation can process payments exceeding $200,000, including transactions in the millions, in line with regulatory provisions.

This clarification is important, as many media reports misinterpreted the rule, suggesting that all importers face strict limits. The Association stressed that legitimate importers with proper paperwork are unaffected by the restriction.

It’s a reminder that regulations are nuanced, and public perception can be easily skewed without accurate context.

Interestingly, the clarification also sheds light on how banks monitor compliance: they ensure that funds move only when supporting documents meet the required standards. This acts as a safeguard against fraudulent transactions while still enabling legitimate trade.

Looking Ahead: Strengthening Oversight

The GAB’s proactive stance reflects growing recognition that financial institutions cannot operate in isolation. IDF irregularities are not just a banking issue—they intersect with customs, regulatory compliance, and trade integrity.

Banks are now pushing for tighter collaboration with the GRA and ICUMS, aiming to implement systems that can detect suspicious activity early and prevent import fraud.

A table released by a recent GAB briefing highlights key steps being taken:

Experts say these measures, if fully implemented, could close existing gaps and restore public confidence in both banks and import procedures.

Meanwhile, GAB continues to reassure the public that banks’ role remains strictly financial facilitation, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and adherence to regulatory standards.

It’s a delicate balancing act, but the concerted effort between banks and regulators may finally steer the IDF process back on track.