NovCorrespondent bank fees belong in the amount-to-arrive discussion
Why the amount instructed by the buyer and the amount credited to the seller can differ in a cross-border wire, and how intermediary fees should be handled before the payment deadline.
This article reflects the named expert’s practical perspective. See NovAsia’s editorial policy for how material is prepared and reviewed.
“I sent the full amount” and “the seller received the full amount” sound like the same statement until an international wire passes through more than one institution. A buyer sees the payment order placed with the sending bank. The seller sees the final credit. Between those two views, intermediary or beneficiary-bank charges may affect what reaches the account, depending on the route and the charging arrangement.
For a property transaction, this is not mainly a debate about whether a bank fee is large or small. The contractual problem is the residual balance that may remain if the seller is entitled to receive a specific net amount.
Start with two numbers, not one
I separate the amount instructed from the amount required to arrive. The first belongs to the banking order. The second belongs to the property obligation as defined by the contract, invoice or payment notice.
They may be identical. They may also diverge because fees are charged separately or deducted somewhere in the chain. Bank of America, for example, tells customers that international wires can involve additional amounts charged by a recipient’s financial institution and other fees in the transfer process. Swift payment-practice material also discusses intermediary fees that can be deducted in cross-border payment chains.
Those sources do not tell a buyer what a specific future route will cost. They show why the final credited figure should not be assumed from the payment order alone.
Correspondent banking can add institutions the buyer never directly chose
Cross-border bank payments often rely on correspondent relationships. The buyer may interact only with the sending bank and may only know the seller’s bank from the invoice. The actual settlement route can involve another financial institution between them.
That hidden-from-the-customer complexity is one reason I avoid promising an exact intermediary fee without bank confirmation. A buyer needs the actual bank or provider to explain what it can disclose for the chosen route, currency and recipient. The useful property question is then: if a deduction occurs, does the seller still regard the payment stage as complete?
Fee instructions are part of the conversation, not a magic guarantee
International bank messages can carry charging arrangements that allocate fees in different ways. Buyers sometimes treat a selected code or option as proof that a beneficiary will receive the exact face amount. I would be more careful. The bank should explain what the option means for that route, and the credited amount still needs to be confirmed after settlement.
Imagine a purely hypothetical obligation requiring the seller to receive USD 100,000. The buyer orders a USD 100,000 wire. The seller later reports a credit of USD 99,930. The USD 70 difference in this example is invented; it is not a typical or expected fee. It simply exposes the accounting issue. If the contract requires USD 100,000 to arrive, the buyer may still have a USD 70 shortfall even though the sending-bank receipt correctly says USD 100,000.
That is a small number in relation to the property price and a potentially important number in relation to whether an instalment is fully discharged.
Sending extra “just in case” is not a universal fix
One response is to overfund the transfer slightly. That can create another problem. The seller may not have a defined way to allocate the excess. The banking route may not deduct fees in the way the buyer expected. A refund of an unnecessary surplus can introduce extra paperwork and another cross-border payment.
I prefer an explicit amount-to-arrive discussion. The buyer asks the sending institution what fees and deductions are known, what charging choices exist and what remains uncertain. The seller confirms whether it needs a precise net credit and how a small shortfall or surplus would be treated. This does not eliminate every unknown, but it turns the unknown into a managed condition rather than a surprise after the deadline.
“Received” should include the credited amount
A seller saying that the money has arrived is useful, but for a large property instalment I want the credited amount as well. That figure can then be compared with the contractual balance and the seller’s updated statement.
If the amount is short, the next step is to understand the cause and agree how it should be corrected. If it is over, the excess should also be accounted for. A payment history that reconciles only approximately is a poor foundation for later handover, resale or dispute review.
The relevant fee is the one that affects the obligation
A bank can advertise an attractive outbound wire fee while another part of the route changes the amount the seller receives. Conversely, a visible sending fee can be perfectly predictable while the beneficiary gets the full contractual amount. That is why comparing only the headline bank tariff can miss the property question.
For me, “full payment” is not what the transfer felt like from the buyer’s screen. It is the amount the transaction documents require and the amount the seller can document as credited. Correspondent-bank fees matter because they can sit between those two figures. They belong in the discussion before the wire, when there is still time to agree the route and the accounting treatment.
Sources
- Swift — Interbank payments and correspondent banking; checked 6 October 2026.
- Swift Payments Market Practice Group — Dodd-Frank Section 1073 Cross-Border Remittance Transfers, version 4, November 2024; checked 6 October 2026.
- Bank of America — Online Banking Service Agreement and international wire information; checked 6 October 2026.
- NovAsia Estate — “Payments and banks when buying property in Cambodia”; checked 6 October 2026.