I would suggest the problem is with the regulators, rather than the banks. The enormity of the fines being handed out over the last three years has created an environment where banks are reluctant to take any business which is not from top grade clients, so cutting out the vast majority of family transfers which are the backbone of the remittance market. My non-profit group continues to attempt to get clear approval for small amounts (maximum $500) to be allowed on a regular basis, even if the only data on the participants is linked to their mobile phone numbers and to electronic gift cards used for the payment flow.Let's face it; there are millions of hard-working people - many of them illegal - who have a single aim of sending money back to support their families. They are unbanked or under-banked and are being forced to use the criminal groups which operate money transfer networks as part of their money laundering activity.Or, in some cases, using one of the few remaining transfer agencies which charge excessive fees, up to 20% in some cases for small amounts. The answer is to allow the small amounts to be transferred,as long as there is reasonable record-keeping in real time, of the transactions, possibly just by non-profit groups or at least with low fees being applied. The G20 and World Bank target of a maximum of 5% can be achieved, but only if the banks know they can be part of the payment process without risking their shareholders' assets from overly aggressive regulation. The rich/ poor divide is causing enough problems in the world - and increasing every day. Helping those at the bottom of the ladder should be more of a priority. There are over 2 billion unbanked people in the world, including hundreds of millions relying on remittances from families; it is surely time to help them, rather than enable others to charge exorbitant fees or finance the 'real' criminal activity with their money. .