Hi I don’t believe we need to include “withdrawal” and “debit” in the command as well.
What are your thoughts on using “force-withdrawal” instead of “withdrawal-force-debit”? Alternatively, we could simply add an additional field to the request, such as “force: true”. This approach would eliminate the need to introduce new API endpoints. What do you think? Regards, Adam > On Feb 6, 2026, at 1:27 PM, Mohammed Saifulhuq <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Hi Anu, > > Thank you for the approval. I fully agree—'Force Debit' is the standard > banking terminology and we should align with that. I will proceed with the > implementation using the naming conventions you provided: > > API: withdrawal-force-debit > > Permissions: WITHDRAW_SAVINGSACCOUNT_FORCE_DEBIT > > Configs: allow-force-debit-on-savings-account & > force-debit-on-savings-account-limit > > Hi Ayush, You are spot on regarding the Command Processing Layer. Checking > limits at the accounting/closing job would be too late and would risk General > Ledger inconsistency. We must validate strictly at the point of transaction. > > Regarding your suggestions on Reason Codes and Notifications: Let's park > those for Phase 2. We need to get the Core Ledger logic and the force-debit > Transaction Processing merged and stable first. Once the core engine is in > develop, we can look at adding the notification layers on top. > > I am creating the JIRA ticket and starting the implementation now. > > Best, Mohammed Saifulhuq > > > On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 5:17 PM AYUSH SINGH <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Hi Mohammed, >> >> That’s a great question regarding the placement of the min-overdraft-limit >> check. >> In my view, handling this at the Command processing layer is the more robust >> choice for a few reasons: >> >> Immediate Feedback: It allows the system to reject a transaction instantly >> if it exceeds the configured limit, providing a better experience for the >> bank staff/API consumer. >> >> Integrity: Checking during the Command layer prevents the General Ledger >> from ever entering an "invalid" state that the closing job would have to fix >> later, which aligns with the goal of GL accuracy. >> >> Complexity: Relying on the Accounting closing job might introduce >> concurrency issues if multiple force-posts happen between cycles. >> Regarding the implementation, I’ve also outlined some functional areas where >> I can contribute to support this transition: >> >> 1. Defined Reason Codes for Negative Balances >> I propose we implement standard Reason Codes to help the system distinguish >> between different "Force Debit" types: >> MAINTENANCE_FEE: For missing minimum balances. >> REGULATORY_LEVY: For mandated government deductions. >> SYSTEM_REVERSAL: To correct erroneous credits. >> INSUFFICIENT_FUNDS_FEE: For failed over-withdrawal penalties. >> >> 2. User-Notification Logic >> To prevent user confusion when these debits occur, I can draft the logic for >> an automated notification trigger. This would alert the user (SMS/Email) as >> soon as a withdrawal-force-debit pushes their balance into the negative. >> >> 3. Documentation & Next Steps >> I am ready to help draft the functional overview for the Fineract Wiki, >> including the new WITHDRAW_SAVINGSACCOUNT_FORCE_DEBIT permissions and API >> conventions Anu mentioned. >> I've already set up GPG signing for my commits as per Adam’s update. Should >> I start by drafting these Reason Codes and notification requirements into a >> formal document for the team to review? >> >> Best regards, >> Ayush Singh >> >> On Fri, Feb 6, 2026, 5:03 PM Anu Omotayo via dev <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Thanks Mohammed, you can go ahead please. >>> >>> In terms of naming convention, I think we should use "force debit" because >>> its a banking terminology: >>> >>> API: withdrawal-force-debit >>> >>> Permissions: WITHDRAW SAVINGSACCOUNT FORCE DEBIT, WITHDRAW SAVINGSACCOUNT >>> FORCE DEBIT CHECKER >>> >>> System configuration: allow-force-debit-on-savings-account, >>> force-debit-on-savings-account-limit OR >>> allow-negative-balance-on-savings-account, >>> negative-balance-on-savings-account-limit >>> >>> Regards >>> Anu Omotayo >>> >>> On Friday, February 6, 2026 at 05:39:58 AM GMT+1, Mohammed Saifulhuq >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi Ayush, >>> >>> Thank you for sharing that real-world scenario. That is exactly the 'silent >>> failure' risk we want to avoid. >>> >>> It seems we are converging on the 'Negative Balance with Limits' approach >>> as the most robust solution because: >>> >>> Accounting: It respects GAAP/IFRS liability recognition immediately >>> (General Ledger accuracy). >>> >>> Transparency: As you noted, it prevents the 'missing money' confusion for >>> the end-user. >>> >>> Safety: The proposed min-overdraft-limit configuration prevents the >>> infinite debt risk I mentioned earlier. >>> >>> @Anu / @Paul — seeing as we have consensus on both the technical and >>> functional sides, are you happy for me to proceed with drafting the >>> implementation plan for the Negative Balance with Configurable Limits model? >>> >>> Best, Mohammed Saifulhuq >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026 at 10:07 PM AYUSH SINGH <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> The discussion regarding "user confusion" vs. "accounting accuracy" is very >>> relevant. I recently saw a real-world case where a user didn't maintain a >>> minimum balance, resulting in a -₹3,000 state due to bank charges. >>> When they eventually deposited funds, the money was "auto-deducted" to >>> cover the debt. Because the system didn't make the negative balance >>> transparent, the user was left confused, thinking their deposit had simply >>> disappeared until they contacted the bank. >>> >>> This supports Mohammad's point about the importance of General Ledger >>> accuracy and transparency. If we use a "shadow" or "pending" balance as >>> Alberto suggested, we might actually increase user support tickets because >>> the debt isn't visible to the customer until their new deposit vanishes. >>> >>> I suggest we prioritize a model that reflects the true liability on the >>> user's dashboard to avoid this "missing money" experience. >>> >>> Best, >>> Ayush Singh >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 5, 2026, 9:37 PM Mohammed Saifulhuq >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Hi Alberto, >>> That is an interesting approach, but I see a few architectural risks with a >>> 'Pending Transaction' model versus a true 'Negative Balance' model for this >>> specific use case: >>> Regulatory Reality: When a 'Force Post' occurs (e.g., a tax levy or >>> regulatory fee), the liability is often immediate. The customer is in debt >>> to the bank at that exact second. Keeping the balance at 0 and hiding the >>> debt in a 'pending' state might misrepresent the actual General Ledger (GL) >>> position of the bank. >>> Interest Calculation: If the account is effectively overdrawn, the bank >>> usually needs to accrue interest on that debt immediately. Fineract's >>> existing interest engine handles negative balances (overdrafts) naturally. >>> If we use a 'pending' queue, we would need to rebuild the interest >>> calculation logic to look at the 'shadow' balance, which adds significant >>> complexity. >>> Complexity on Deposit: Your approach requires a new event listener on every >>> deposit to 'sweep' the pending queue. This introduces concurrency >>> challenges. >>> I believe the 'Negative Balance with Limits' approach stays closer to >>> standard GAAP/IFRS accounting principles where a liability is recognized >>> immediately on the ledger. >>> Thoughts? >>> >>> Best, >>> Mohammed Saifulhuq >>> >>> On Thu, 5 Feb, 2026, 9:27 pm Jose Alberto Hernandez, >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Hello! >>> >>> I would like to propose a more robust method: >>> >>> 1. Keep the Savings Account as is, don't update the allowed overdraft or >>> something else, >>> 2. Generate a new transaction type that will be applied once the account >>> has some balance, this can be added to the Savings Account with a new >>> command >>> 3. Include a new Balance amount, similar as we have now, totalBalance >>> amount and available amount, to include those transactions, this new >>> balance usually will be negative when the Savings Account has these >>> transactions to be applied >>> >>> The idea of this new transaction type is to record the different pending >>> stuff to be applied the next time the account has some deposit >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >>> Thanks and regards >>> Alberto >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 4, 2026 at 8:09 PM Mohammed Saifulhuq >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Hi Anu and Campbell, >>> This is a critical feature for regulatory compliance, especially for >>> institutions handling automated service charges or tax deductions where >>> rejecting the debit is not a legal option. >>> I agree with Anu's architectural approach, particularly separating this >>> into a distinct API command (withdrawal-force-post). Mixing this logic into >>> the standard withdrawal flow could create dangerous loopholes where >>> overdrafts happen accidentally. >>> One additional consideration: >>> If we enable allow-negative-balance, we should also consider if this >>> requires a 'Limit' configuration (e.g., 'Max Overdraft Amount'). Allowing >>> infinite negative balance might pose a risk if a force-post API is abused >>> or looped. >>> I am happy to pick up the implementation of the Global Configuration and >>> the Permission structure if we have consensus on the design. >>> Best, >>> Mohammed Saifulhuq >>> >>> On Thu, 5 Feb, 2026, 6:08 am Anu Omotayo via dev, <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> I had a similar discussion with my colleague on savings account with >>> negative balance about two weeks ago. The ask was to debit customer savings >>> accounts for regulatory reasons even if the account balance is 0. >>> >>> Also, I had a negative balance in my account with a commercial bank days >>> ago due to a bank charge that I wasn't expecting. >>> >>> Below is a suggestion on how I think this feature can be implemented in >>> fineract. >>> >>> 1. An "allow-negative-balance-on-savings-account" can be added to the >>> global configuration to enable/disable this feature. >>> >>> 2. It should be implemented as a separate API due to its sensitive nature >>> e.g (e.g >>> ~/fineract-provider/api/v1/savingsaccounts/14/transactions?command=withdrawal-force-post). >>> The "allow-negative-balance-on-savings-account" setting should be checked >>> before the transaction is posted. >>> >>> 3. New permissions such as WITHDRAW SAVINGSACCOUNT FORCE DEBIT, WITHDRAW >>> SAVINGSACCOUNT FORCE DEBIT CHECKER should be created and used for the new >>> API. >>> >>> Regards >>> Anu Omotayo >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, January 11, 2026 at 01:12:07 AM GMT+1, Campbell Burgess >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Paul.... Very well laid out. Thank you. >>> >>> Bottom line... negative consumer deposit (savings accounts in Fineract) >>> routinely go negative, with and without, formal arrangements and with (but >>> also without) account holder opt-in. >>> >>> If what I am now guessing is correct, that Fineract does not readily >>> support a force-post, what is the best path forward. >>> >>> Again, we are happy to do all the lifting and contribute the work product >>> to the community, of course, expecting independent review and oversight. >>> >>> Campbell >>> >>> >>> >>> On 1/10/2026 10:37 AM, Paul wrote: >>>> Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfers): For one-time debit card and ATM >>>> transactions, banks cannot charge an overdraft fee unless the consumer has >>>> explicitly opted in. However, even without an opt-in, a bank is legally >>>> permitted to pay the transaction (creating a negative balance) as long as >>>> it does not charge a fee. >>> -- >>> Herring BANCORP ® >>> >>> C. Campbell Burgess >>> President/CEO >>> Office: (806) 373-3921 | Direct: (806) 242-3704 >>> >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> Herring Bancorp >>> 2201 Civic Circle, Suite 1000 >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2201+Civic+Circle,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A++++++++++++Amarillo,+TX+79109?entry=gmail&source=g> >>> Amarillo, TX 79109 >>> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/2201+Civic+Circle,+Suite+1000+%0D%0A++++++++++++Amarillo,+TX+79109?entry=gmail&source=g> >>> >>> www.herringbank.com <http://www.herringbank.com/> >>> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail is intended only for the use of the >>> individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information >>> that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under >>> applicable law. If the reader of this e-mail message is not the intended >>> recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of the message >>> to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, >>> distribution or copying of this communication is prohibited. If you have >>> received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by telephone at >>> (303) 565-7001 and also indicate the sender's name. Thank you. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>
