Yes. Since its inception, we have been an active participant in the CBPR+ ISO 20022 migration project.

During the co-existence period, from March 20, 2023 through November 2025, Swift Supervised Financial Institution and Swift Non-Supervised Entities started the migration to FINPlus ISO 20022 MX messages. At this time, Swift Closed User Groups (CUGs) and Swift Corporate members are not scheduled to migrate by Swift. If you are unsure of your Swift user category or wish to further discuss Swift’s migration plans, please contact Swift directly.

During this co-existence period, J.P. Morgan accepts MT or MX payment messages from our clients whilst our outbound payment messages are in MX format (pacs.008/009), including serial third party credit advices (today set as MT103/202) even where we receive the incoming message in a legacy/MT format.

Institutions that are not MX-enabled by default benefit from Swift’s in-flow translation service, as long as they have completed the mandatory connection to the Swift FINPlus platform in March 2023.

J.P. Morgan ’s MT9xx statement and advice reporting messages will remain on MT until clients opt-in to move to MX equivalent (camt) after November 2025; as the industry continues to focus on payment instructions MX messages adoption with deadline of November 2025.

In light of recent changes, the SWIFT CBPR+ migration is prioritizing payment initiation messages (pacs.008/pacs.009), while other message types have been deprioritized for November 2025. Specifically:

• MT101/pain.001: Based on community consultation and feedback regarding MT101 (interbank), the transition to the ISO 20022 equivalent (pain.001) has been deprioritized for November 2025. This means that MT101 (single instruction FI-to-FI) and MT101 (multiple instruction FI-to-FI) will continue to be supported on the FIN network beyond November 2025.
• MX Reporting: Reporting and statement messages will not be immediately withdrawn from the FIN service in November 2025. Although these message types are deprecated and no longer maintained by SWIFT, disincentives for their use will be introduced at a later date. Financial institutions are strongly encouraged to transition to their ISO 20022 equivalents as soon as possible.

These adjustments reflect a strategic focus on enhancing payment initiation processes while allowing additional time for the transition of other message types.

For the lates Swift updates please refer to ISO 20022 for Financial Institutions – Support Page.

J.pm. Morgan is following industry guidelines: 

1. ISO20022 Payments Migration and Interoperability Considerations for the global Community
2. the PMPG’s Best Practice Guidelines for the Payment Industry Migration to ISO20022
3. CBPR+ Data Integrity Market Practice Guidance (access to Swift resources is for registered users only)

We have provided enhanced information within MT9xx messages since March 2023 and will continue to provide until mutually agreed migration to MX equivalents. The planned rollout for MX reporting is currently post November 2025.

Given that the adoption of camt messages is expected to take place at a later date, where possible, we are adapting our MT9xx messages for credits to append useful information from MX payment transactions; leveraging CBPR+ guidelines (access to Swift resources only for registered users).

• Providing pacs End2End ID Transaction reference as the "Related Reference" (e.g., MT910 field 21, MT940 Field 61 subfield 7) for credit transactions within the MT9xx series messages where provided (excluding business scenarios where we already customize this reference for clients)
  
• Mapping enhanced ISO data fields from the MX messages into the MT9xx series messages where there is enough space to do so (MT910 field 72, MT940 field 86) whilst avoiding impact to existing reference and data mapping features.
• Including "+" at the end of fields where possible, in case data cannot be included in the message due to insufficient space; this may apply to Related Reference, Party and Agent details and Sender to Receiver / Detailed Transaction Information fields (for example, Beneficiary details (T58/T59) within the MT9xx series messages).

These additional features are available for most account locations from 2023.

Clients using the Forced MT103 service (including forced MT202 where provided) in lieu of receiving MT910, can migrate to camt.054. We recognize this will require time to implement, therefore we plan to retain this service (as MT message) until the end of the co-existence period. To help clients receive helpful information during the interim period, where possible, we will attempt to map enhanced data from inbound pacs messages into these messages, leveraging CBPR+ prioritization and including "+" when data cannot be included due to insufficient space. Please be aware after Transaction Manager (TM) enablement back in May 29, 2023 where a payment is MX originated even when J.P. Morgan send a Forced MT103 this may be intercepted by TM and sent to the recipient as a multiformat message, pacs.008 with the Forced MT103 embedded. Conversion to multiformat message will occur for all Forced MT103/202 sent by any bank after November 2025.

For returned payments, we are planning to provide return reason information as well as the most relevant reference information to clients(i.e., their original debit or credit references) to aid reconciliation and onward processing. This applies to:

1. Incoming camt type of returns
2. MT return instructions – clients will observe a change in statements and advices generated for their return instructions after this feature is turned on

For more specific information on this, see the Returns Processing section on our Client Resource page.

J.P. Morgan is planning to align to each financial Market Infrastructure (MI) it directly participates, to send the appropriate message type for that MI. (See the Market infrastructures section on Client Resource Center.)

Since CBPR+ go-live in March there are limited numbers of issues with payments caused by:

• Agents connectivity aborts with Swift FinPlus network
• Agents using translated MT issues
• Poorly formatted MT message without sufficient data to create MX message

Please direct questions to your client service account manager. We are here to support you as you navigate through these changes.

Since go-live date of March 20,2023 we support pacs.008/009 messages in line with CBPR+ and MI requirements.

Since go-live date of March 20, 2023, we are sending pacs.008/009 messages, including serial third party credit advices (legacy MT103/202).

As per recent Swift changes all Swift members involved in CBPR+ migration,  are required to be ready to receive pain.001 v9 bank to bank relay messages after November 2025 (SR2025).

To facilitate the adoption process Swift is organizing a bootstrap of of pain.001 based on the existing MT101 RMA in October 2025

J.P. Morgan is working on adopting the CBPR+ pain.001 v9 bank to bank relay message on a send basis, with excepted delivery date in Q2 2026.  Before that, we will continue to send relay messages in the existing MT format.

Yes, we have been ready since go-live date of March 20, 2023.

Starting in March 20, 2023, J.P. Morgan sends ISO 20022 pacs.004 return messages.

From March 20, 2023, for required MI-related messages and CBPR+-related messages.

From March 20, 2023, for CBPR+ transaction legs, J.P. Morgan will initially issue recalls and rejections and respond to incoming requests (including incoming camt.056 FI to FI Cancellation message) using existing MT message types and practices. We will start sending the camt.056 and camt.029 (Resolution of Enquiry) messages as industry adoption increases.

Similarly, J.P. Morgan will continue to use the MT199 in most instances to reject payment requests for CBPR+ transaction legs and will start sending the pacs.002 negative Customer Status Report as industry adoption increases.

We do not plan to send (or receive) any optional pacs.002 positive or pending status reports from March 2023 or in the future.

J.P. Morgan will continue to send enquiry and investigation MT1xx and MT2xx messages over Swift FIN until an appropriate MX message is agreed and implemented.

J.P. Morgan used to send MT199/MT299 with details of truncated data as described in our eBook “ISO 20022: First 120 days live.” However, as Swift Transaction Manager is fully enabled now, J.P. Morgan has stopped sending additional messages in line with market practice guidelines found here.

Please note that our eBook “ISO 20022: First 120 days live” contains comments current at the time of writing (circa June 2023). This FAQ document is updated on an ongoing basis.

Yes. While J.P. Morgan support the effort to evolve inquiry processing to structured messaging via Swift’s centralized service capability; we anticipate it will take significant time to evolve away from the MTn99 series.

The MT n99 series has been used for many different purposes over the years, and this will complicate 8 | P a g e the evolution toward defined, structured messaging for all flows. Although specific MT messages (MT195, MT196) existed for inquiries, most of the Industry still today relies on n99 messages.

As we move through the ISO implementation these messages are designated to be replaced, particularly for Inquiry processing, where the camt.110 Inquiry and camt.111 Inquiry Response are intended to provide a significant efficiency gain for routing and resolving inquiries. Immediate benefits will include the identification of inquiries distinct from myriad other uses of MTn99 messages, and the ability to straight through process, and engage with Swift’s Transaction Manager for potential automated resolutions.

For other uses of the MTn99 series, Swift will introduce the admi.024 message.

The J.P. Morgan perspective on the evolution of these messages is that timing and sequence of implementation is key to success.

J.P. Morgan suggest Swift users focus on their implementation from the perspective of Payment Execution first, followed by the implementation of Advices and Statements. This will ensure maximum efficiency in the processing of payments and in their reconciliation. After we gain proficiency in exchanging the new MX messages for execution and reconciliation, the next logical step is to improve our exception management, and invest in camt 110 camt 111 and examine Swift’s gCase service.

As of June 2024, Swift suggest that MTn99 messages are ‘deprecated but supported’ after November 2025.

J.P. Morgan suggest that after the Industry is fluent in the exchange of pacs, pain and camt Statements and Advices, the benefit of structured inquiries will become more obvious, and the use of the MTn99s will deliver a diminishing result.

Until then, we plan on continuing to support our clients with the n99 series.

From Q4 2024, we are able to accept ISO 20022 reporting messages (camt.052, camt.053,camt.054) reporting after bilateral agreement and after parallel run or sample testing with our counterparties.

Following the recent announcement from Swift confirming the deadline, of November 2025, for payment instructions only and extending the deadline for reporting messages (currently no deadline), J.P. Morgan will continue to send MT9xx statement and advice reporting messages as default. We will transition clients to the MX equivalent(camt.052/053/054) messages using a risk managed approach and on an opt-in basis planned to start after November 2025.

Yes. Please note we are planning to risk manage the introduction of sending camt messages only after November 2025.

We already have a camt.054 schema on our Swift MyStandards page, to clarify the key formatting features, particularly for elements that are subject to interpretation.

J.P. Morgan will continue to accept Swift MT210 messages in account locations where those messages are accepted today. From March 2023, J.P. Morgan will also accept camt.057 messages instead of MT210 messages in those account locations; however, note only single camt.057 messages will be accepted and not multiple advices within the same message.

Whilst the camt.058 - Notification to Receive Cancellation Advice, replacing the MT292 was introduced by CBPR+ in the November 2023 release JP Morgan started support from November 2024. Until such time we ask that clients continue to send the MT292 when wanting to cancel an ATR / Notice to Receive (MT210 / camt.057). 

The Swift “Cross-Border Payments and Reporting” (CBPR+) program runs from March 20, 2023 through November 2025, during which time Swift will migrate from MT messages to ISO 20022 MX messages.

Swift Closed User Groups (CUG) and Swift Corporate members are not required by Swift to migrate to ISO 20022. If you are a Swift user and unsure of your Swift membership type or wish to further discuss Swift’s migration plans, please contact Swift directly.

The CBPR+ initiative provides financial institutions a globally consistent data model that delivers enriched reporting, compliance, and reconciliation data.

A cross-border settlement is a payment from an account in one country to an account in another country, i.e., the payment crosses borders.

No. Although CBPR+ is a Swift cross-border event, many local market practices are also adopting ISO 20022. (See section 1 for more details.)

Although CBPR+ only affects how financial institutions exchange messages, the ISO data model results in additional data being present in a payment instruction.

Even though corporates are not required to adopt ISO 20022 at this time, benefits include efficient reconciliation, enhanced invoice information at scale, and fewer manual processes. Due to the increased data that ISO 20022 will provide, there may be cases where a cross-border settlement provides more information that can be reported in a corporate’s current banking interface. This may occur infrequently prior to November 2023 due to published market practice guidelines recommending that banks don’t enable the use of enhanced ISO data elements prior to November 2023.

Please note that J.P. Morgan is aligned with the published industry guidance and has not enabled enhanced data elements before November 2023.

Corporates should discuss their reporting and reconciliation needs with their financial partners, to explore how adopting the ISO data model may streamline their processes.

Where possible, J.P. Morgan is adding the ‘+’ symbol as the last character of a field where data has been truncated.

Yes, corporates do not need to migrate from their existing payments or reporting formats.

J.P. Morgan will support the pain.001.001.09 messages to align with CBPR+ and MI requirements. However, we plan to align with the published industry guidance. Clients can continue to send their existing file formats for the foreseeable future.

Yes. During the CBPR+ co-existence period (March 2023 – November 2025), J.P. Morgan will continue to accept SwiftNet FIN MT messages. We will work with our counterparties and Swift to ensure a successful transition to the ISO data model before the end of the co-existence period.

• Swift members registered as an FI/NBFI (general/generic members) can use either Swift FIN MT or Swift FINPlus MX messages
• Swift members registered as a corporate (SCORE member) can use either Swift FIN MT or Swift FileAct.
• Corporate SCORE members cannot use Swift FINPlus

• Swift members registered as an FI/NBFI (general/generic members) will no longer be allowed to use FIN MT Category 1/2/9 and must use Swift FINPlus MX. Note nonpayment service providers should seek guidance from Swift as to what message types to use to initiate payments (i.e., pain instead of pacs messages).
• Options for Corporate (SCORE) Swift members post March 2023 have not been clarified at this time. We will aim to keep our clients informed as industry plans for this are developed. We would also recommend clients also engage directly with their Swift relationship contacts on this topic.

Only a member institution and Swift will know the type of membership (e.g. whether BIC (Bank Identification Code) is registered as a financial institution or as a corporate). Swift does not provide an indicator to counterparties on the type of membership assigned.

Yes, corporate SCORE Swift members can use MT messages, but please note:

• Due to field length limits, data may be truncated in an MT message if the settlement was received as an MX message.
• Local-language (UTF-8) may become permissible after 2025 or may be required by local market-practices. MT messages are limited to the X-Character set.
• When MX data is truncated in an MT message, the industry convention is to add a “+” as the last character at the end of the MT field, conveying that data was dropped.
• As ISO is adopted by local market practices, local regulations may require the use of structured counterparty name and address, which may not be possible to construct in an MT101 using the 50F/59F option.

Starting in November 2026, it will be mandatory for all cross-border to incorporate either structured or hybrid addresses , as unstructured address will be decommissioned by SWIFT CBPR+. Hybrid Address will be implemented by Swift CBPR+ for interbank payments since November 2025, however in J.P. Morgan proprietary channels it is already possible to use structured and hybrid address.

This is the service created by Swift for sending ISO 20022 messages, using InterAct. It is comparable to their FIN service. All financial institution and non-bank financial institution clients that receive Swift payment messages today MUST be connected to this by March 20, 2023.

This is the service provided by Swift, enabling receivers of Swift payment messages to receive an embedded MT version of a payment message, in addition to the original ISO MX message. This resource is an important industry service that enables sending institutions to freely choose when to send ISO messages. (See Swift’s webpage for details.)

• During co-existence it is possible a payment can go through multiple translations between MT and MX, MX and MT
  • The more free format nature of certain party options in MT means that translation is not always clean
  • Where unpublished BICs can be used in the free format options of MT without issue, this is no longer possible in MX so data elements other than BIC have to be used
• J.P. Morgan will output MX to prevent the potential inconsistencies of translation and truncation
• To prevent the issues with processing translated MT messages we would encourage clients to adopt MX at the earliest opportunity

TM is Swift’s new platform deployed in May 30 and Sep,30 2023. It is a part of Swift’s transaction processing for payments that are initiated in MX (pacs) format. TM will enhance data integrity for cross border payments, preserving data quality based on rules defined by the Swift user community.

All payment messages exchanged over Swift contain a unique end-to-end transaction reference (UETR) that is generated by the first customer in the transaction chain when initiating a transaction and all FIN and FINplus customers must use the same UETR in subsequent messages that are part of the same transaction. Recycling of a previous UETR for a different transaction disables tracking and introduces the risk that the UETR could be reconciled with the wrong transaction.

This may lead to the application of data integrity rules to messages not linked to the original transaction which first carried the UETR that has subsequently been recycled This may potentially negatively impact all actors in the transaction chain, including underlying customers.

Please contact your Swift representative or Swift National or Community group lead. Swift.com also has more information you may find helpful. Please also refer to the latest information available at the Swift Knowledge Centre, including Operations Guide, Service Description, Business Processing Rules and FAQ documents.

You can also contact your J.P. Morgan representative for a more detailed discussion about what these changes could mean for your institution.

Please refer to J.P. Morgan CBPR+ Client Testing Guide for a useful reference point for CBPR+ readiness.

Some detailed information about MX message formatting is also available later in this FAQ document.

For sample messages, please reference the CBPR+ Sample Library in the Swift Portal (for Swift registered users only). J.P. Morgan will be following CBPR+ standards, for messages sent from us to our clients.

J.P. Morgan MyStandards on Swift.com can be referenced for pacs.008 and pacs.009. If you do not have access via Swift.com, you can submit a request through Swift MyStandards for access to “MyStandards Community by J.P. Morgan.” You can also contact your client service account manager with the email addresses of users who should be added.

Please refer to CBPR+ schema published by Swift.

Please reach out to your Swift account representative.

For general testing of MX messages, Swift Test Sparring Partner (TSP) is an automated testing facility that will support the community in readiness testing of CBPR+ messages and flows. TSP allows users to simulate flows as a debtor, creditor, or intermediary agent for a set of pre- defined test scenarios.

J.P. Morgan Readiness Portal on Swift MyStandards can be referenced for testing pacs.008 and pacs.009.

General Swift Translation Portal can be useful to clarify doubts about the mapping of current MT messages to their new MX equivalents.

During the Swift coexistence period (since Mar 2023 to Nov 2025), some of our clients are leveraging Swift’s Inflow Translation service; receiving a multiformat message with the original MX sent by J.P. Morgan and an embedded MT (translated by Swift). Our client’s will most likely be using Swift’s products, such as AMH or SAA which have features to extract the embedded MT and can then pass that message on to a client’s back office payments systems.

As our clients being their journey to adopt native ISO 20022 messages, the multiformat message received in production can be a powerful asset for testing their readiness.

• What is a multiformat message: Put simply, it’s a file that starts with the MX message body, enclosed in
  
  <Document>
  
  </Document>
  
  tags which represents the original MX payment. The translated MT is embedded at the end (in green)

In this example we’ve removed the tags / elements from the message body

------------

MXBody: <Document xmlns="urn:iso:std:iso:20022:tech:xsd:pacs.008.001.08">

<FIToFICstmrCdtTrf>

<GrpHdr>

.

..

</Document><!--{Translated MT starts here……etc}} --><!—TranslationRes

• How can our clients leverage this: By “copying and pasting” the MX body (From yellow start/end points) into a new txt file our clients can create representative and production-like payments which can be used for injecting into their test environments (Keeping in mind the need to update any required reference/static data to align with a client’s own test environment set up)
  

Used in conjunction with industry tools such as MyStandards and Swift Sparring Partner, this approach can support ISO 20022 readiness.

We will accept all bilaterally agreed codewords that we accept today.

High-level, we will accept codewords in the following data elements:

• Service Level – Proprietary e.g. "CODEWORD"
• Instruction For Next Agent – Instruction Information e.g. "/CODEWORD/"

Please refer to our pacs.008 and pacs.009 schema for detailed information on where and how they can be captured. Search by the term “JPMC” to see where we have added comments.

There are three distinct methods for instructing J.P. Morgan to process priority payments, and only one option can be used at a time:  

<Settlement Priority>: This element can be used to indicate to J.P. Morgan that a payment should be treated as a priority. The values "URGT" or "HIGH" will both be recognized and processed with the same level of priority.

1. <Service Level> <Proprietary>: This method involves using the codeword "PRIORITY" as an alternative approach. Please note that the codeword here must be used without slashes ('/').
2. <Instruction for the Next Agent>: This method uses the codeword "/PRIORITY/" (with slashes) to indicate that the payment should be prioritized. However, this option is the least recommended, as Swift is considering eliminating the use of free format elements in favour of specifically designed elements in MX messages.

Please ensure that only one of these methods is used for each transaction to prevent any processing conflicts.

In a scenario where Clearing Member ID (example ABA ID) is provided without name & address or BIC, Swift will still accept the message. It would work even if just the BIC is provided in the BICFI data element without Clearing Member ID. The CBPR+ schema published have details of all the rules.

The below provided examples will work fine

<CdtrAgt>

           <FinInstnId>

                   <ClrSysMmbId>

                                     <ClrSysId>                                                  

                                                   <Cd>USABA</Cd>

                                  </ClrSysId>

                                 <MmbId>021000021</MmbId>

                  </ClrSysMmbId>

                 <Nm>JP MORGAN CHASE BANK</Nm>

                 <PstlAdr>

                                 <AdrLine>ABC, CDE, EFG</AdrLine>

               </PstlAdr>

            </FinInstnId>

</CdtrAgt>

OR

<CdtrAgt>

         <FinInstnId>

                         <BICFI>CHASUS33</BICFI>

        </FinInstnId>

</CdtrAgt>

The above example is for creditor agent but format is the same for any agent where this is being supplied.

The Clearing Member ID should be provided without using double slash (//) as double slash was used for MT formatting. Similarly, BIC should never be preceded with double slash.

Where an account provided in tag 53 of the MT (103 or 202) message is the account maintained at JPM, telling us which account we should settle the payment over. In MX (pacs.008 or pacs.009) this is now the Settlement Account.

<pacs:SttlmAcct>

          <pacs:Id>

                  <pacs:Othr>

                           <pacs:Id>GB22XXXX88888888888888</pacs:Id>

                 </pacs:Othr>

         </pacs:Id>

</pacs:SttlmAcct>  

Source: Swift Translation Portal

Yes, there is no change to this existing service. We will advise clients of any changes at the earliest opportunity.

Currently, there are no changes required to existing codes in use. We will advise clients of any updates at the earliest opportunity.

The current mode of communication will remain unchanged. We will continue to contact clients through existing channels, such as email or MT199.

From the perspective of client initiating payment instructions to J.P. Morgan via Swift FIN, between the local MI go-live dates and March 2023, we will continue to accept MT format from clients until March 2023 when we will be able to accept either MT or MX.

In Australia, corporate clients sending payments via Access and/or Host-to-Host channels through the local Market Infrastructure/clearing can see the beneficiary name field extended to 140 characters from the current 70-character limitation. While there is no requirement to amend current payment formats, clients may need to use this new field if their beneficiary account name exceeds the current 70-character limit.

In Australia, corporate clients sending payments via Swift MT101/MT103 through the local Market Infrastructure/clearing can see the beneficiary name field extended to 140 characters from the current 70-character limitation. While there is no requirement to amend current payment formats, clients may need to use this new field if their beneficiary account name exceeds the current 70-character limit.

In Australia, 15 (or more) digits are used to identify individual accounts. The first six digits is the bank code, which is used to identify both the bank and the individual branch. The remaining digits make up the account number and are used to identify your individual account. Account numbers can be 9 to 12 digits and vary from one bank to another. The two numbers give banks the information needed to transfer your funds correctly.

Yes, BSB (Bank State Branch) continues to be mandatory in domestic MX instructions. They are used as identifiers in the population of financial institution elements and debtor and creditor elements in MX messaging for routing and clearing payments.

Australia has established a co-existence approach where J.P. Morgan will still be able to exchange MT messages with clients until 2024. Given the benefits of ISO, we do encourage clients to consider migrating soon. In markets where MIs will be adopting the new ISO standards instantly, J.P. Morgan will leverage the MX format to process clients’ transactions.

In Malaysia, corporate clients sending payments via Access and/or Host-to-Host channels through the local Market Infrastructure/clearing can see the beneficiary name field extended to 140 characters from the current 70-character limitation. While there is no requirement to amend current payment formats, you may need to use this new field if your beneficiary account name exceeds the current 70-character limit. We would also recommend avoiding use of special characters that are not part of the Swift FIN X character set when providing an End-to-End ID in your payment instruction.

Clients sending payments via Swift MT101/MT103 through the local Market Infrastructure/clearing can see the beneficiary name field extended to 140 characters from the current 70-character limitation. While there is no requirement to amend current payment formats, you may need to use this new field if your beneficiary account name exceeds the current 70-character limit.

In Singapore, the MEPS+ Phase 1 migration in August 2022 was focused on moving current payment details onto the ISO 20022 format in a Like-for-Like approach. There are no additional data requirements on top of the current MT messaging standards. However, please avoid use of special characters that are not part of the Swift FIN X character set when providing an End-to-End ID in your payment instruction. As industry updates become available for SCRIPS Phase 2 migration, we will provide further information at the earliest opportunity.

In Thailand, corporate clients sending payments via Access and/or Host-to-Host channels through the local Market Infrastructure/clearing can see the beneficiary name field extended to 140 characters from the current 70-character limitation. While there is no requirement to amend current payment formats, you may need to use this new field if your beneficiary account name exceeds the current 70-character limit. We would also recommend avoiding use of special characters that are not part of the Swift FIN X character set when providing an End-to-End ID in your payment instruction.

Clients sending payments via Swift MT101/MT103 through the local Market Infrastructure/clearing can see the beneficiary name field extended to 140 characters from the current 70-character limitation. While there is no requirement to amend current payment formats, clients may need to use this new field if their beneficiary account name exceeds the current 70-character limit.

In Hong Kong, corporate clients sending payments via Access and/or Host-to-Host channels through the local Market Infrastructure/clearing can see the beneficiary name field extended to 140 characters from the current 70-character limitation. While there is no requirement to amend current payment formats, you may need to use this new field if your beneficiary account name exceeds the current 70-character limit. We would also recommend avoiding use of special characters that are not part of the Swift FIN X character set when providing an End-to-End ID in your payment instruction.

Clients sending payments via Swift MT101/MT103 through the local Market Infrastructure/clearing can see the beneficiary name field extended to 140 characters from the current 70-character limitation. While there is no requirement to amend current payment formats, clients may need to use this new field if their beneficiary account name exceeds the current 70-character limit.

There will be no additional data requirements on top of the current MT messaging standards for New Zealand. As industry updates become available for the subsequent phase, we will provide further information at the earliest opportunity.

New Zealand has established a co-existence approach where J.P. Morgan will still be able to exchange MT messages with clients until 2024. Given the benefits of ISO, we encourage clients to consider migrating soon. In markets where MIs will be adopting the new ISO standards instantly, J.P. Morgan will leverage the MX format to process clients’ transactions.

Corporate clients sending payments via Access and/or Host-to-Host channels through the local Market Infrastructure/clearing can see the beneficiary name field extended to 140 characters from the current 70-character limitation. While there is no requirement to amend current payment formats, you may need to use this new field if your beneficiary account name exceeds the current 70-character limit. We would also recommend avoiding use of special characters that are not part of the Swift FIN X character set when providing an End-to-End ID in your payment instruction.

Clients sending payments via Swift MT101/MT103 through the local Market Infrastructure/clearing can see the beneficiary name field extended to 140 characters from the current 70-character limitation. While there is no requirement to amend current payment formats, you may need to use this new field if your beneficiary account name exceeds the current 70-character limit.

Clients initiating payments in Philippine Peso (PHP) to a beneficiary in the Philippines from offshore are required to comply with a regulatory requirement that the Date of Incorporation of the remitting client and the corresponding industry-specified code word is mandatory when initiating payment instructions.

Canada AML regulator FINTRAC mandates name, account, and complete beneficiary address information, along with complete remitter details including address information where applicable in all wire payments. Per Payments Canada, the best practice is to utilize the structured address components where it will be mandatory to provide the information address in the fields for country, town name and street name in the structured address fields. No PO Boxes are allowed. Beneficiary banks may reject wires where beneficiary name, account and address do not match their records. Some Canadian banks may require the Canadian Clearing code to avoid delays in processing, and some may require that the beneficiary account number be prefixed by a transit code. Check your payees' standard settlement instruction to verify J.P. Morgan will reject wire payments with incomplete beneficiary information and missing remitter information where applicable.

Following migration to ISO 20022, the TARGET2 system is no longer accepting the use of unpublished 11-digit BICs within payment messages. This includes 11-digit BICs of valid 8-digit BICs.

To ensure payment messages sent to J.P. Morgan containing unpublished 11-digit BICs can still be settled through TARGET2, where J.P. Morgan is able to identify such instructions, the associated outbound payment message will be sent to TARGET2 using the corresponding valid 8- digit BIC.

Clients who wish to continue to use unpublished 11-digit BICs within payments settled via TARGET2 should take the necessary steps to publish the BICs with SWIFT.

Effective May 1, 2025, CHAPS payments must include the Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) for payments between financial institutions and the Purpose Code (PoP) for property-related transactions. The mandate is limited to payments instructed via channels in control of the direct participant (e.g. H2H, API JPM Access Online, EBICS). While Swift initiated payment instructions are not currently in scope given the intent of the mandate is to drive adoption of enhanced ISO 20022 data, clients using the ISO 20022 message format are encouraged to provide these elements more broadly in payment instructions.

No, payments will not be immediately rejected if they lack LEI or PoP as of May 1, 2025. However, the Bank of England is expected to tighten its policy in the future (not before November 2027), requiring these elements in all CHAPS payment messages. Clients are encouraged to include these fields as soon as possible to prepare for this change.

Clients should begin incorporating LEI and PoP in their payment instructions to align with the anticipated broader mandate. This proactive approach will ensure smooth payment processing and compliance with future policy changes as the adoption of ISO 20022 messaging standards progresses.

Property Purpose Codes

• HLRP: Property Loan Repayment 
• HLST: Property Loan Settlement 
• PLDS: Property Loan Disbursement 
• PDEP: Property Deposit 
• PCOM: Property Completion Payment 
• PLRF: Property Loan Refinancing