Should the bank cover money lost due to an unsuccessful transfer?
Since the transaction was not your bank's mistake (but a decision by the Indian government) why should your bank bear the cost of the unsuccessful transaction? Your bank charged a fee for a service that you were willing to pay for. You might be able to negotiate a full or partial refund, and I have done the same with my own bank for fees that I didn't feel were appropriate.  Your bank will agree or not based on how much they value your business. If you are an otherwise profitable customer, they may agree to refund the fee.
"I'm sorry, i should have said I was saying that sarcastically, but those are the arguments which I suspect are being made.  &gt;*""You did not answer my question: Where's my advocate in the negotiations?""*  Its doubtful that they would be among the hundreds (thousands?) of lobbyists. Unless you are a corporation and you have one.  &gt;*""Why should I believe the negotiators have my best interests at heart?""*  I don't think the negotiators have your or the country's best interests at heart. I think they barely even play lip service to it any more.   &gt;*""What's the point of negotiating a treaty that doesn't have the people's interests at heart?""*     Well, look at all the things that are in TTIP, for example, here in the US, by underfunding government agencies tasked with enforcement of existing laws and recommending new ones, the chemical industry has succeeded for the last 25 years or so at preventing a lot of needed regulation of a lot of demonstrably dangerous substances. Particularly a class of chemicals called [endocrine disruptors](http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/tag/Endocrine-Disruptors/).   Meanwhile, Europe has put into place much more stringent regulations based on the Precautionary Principle, which requires that chemical industry prove some chemicals are safe to get them approved, while the US the key issue is overcoming lobbyists and even chemicals which are clearly dangerous have to go through a lot of hoops before they are regulated, and even when its shown to be extremely likely they are dangerous, it is very difficult when lobbyists are there often regulators are political appointees from the industries they are supposed to regulate. There is no denying that having different regulations is complicated, but what they are promoting as a solution is not a good approach.   They are pushing for what they call regulatory coherence- which is basically the forcing of all environmental and chemical laws in a bunch of countries [into the same mold](http://www.ciel.org/Publications/ToxicPartnership_Mar2014.pdf). It would overrule a lot of state laws involving things like fracking..and food safety -   Instead of raising our standards to the European level, they want to bring theirs down, and get rid of the (IMO, quite prudent) Precautionary Principle, which I think is incredibly stupid. But, people are not aware of this.  There- I think has clearly been a high level decision - some kind of gentlemans agreement between the 5 media corporations that control virtually all US media, to never cover some issues.  To not cover those issues at all. But in Europe they have a similar problem, just not quite as bad. But there people make more of an effort to find out whats really happening. Also there are fewer astroturfers.  (the US is known for massive levels of astroturfing in its online world)  For example, in the UK, there is a lot of protesting because of the implicit goal of the FTAs is to privatize public services, although they deny it, its right there [in agreements like GATS](http://www.iatp.org/files/GATS_and_Public_Service_Systems.htm), framing public services as bad, some kind of theft from companies, and ratcheting any small privatization into a permanent entitlement for that company to that market so its permanent, even if its unsuccessful. Thats been [disastrous to their NHS](https://www.opendemocracy.net/ournhs/john-hilary/on-ttip-and-nhs-they-are-trying-to-bamboozle-us).  How did it get this way? In part its due to the failure of Americans to seek out facts, something people really have to do because there are forces spending a lot of effort into hiding them and trying to exploit positions of trust to create a dangerous false security..  Its a direct result of so much money in politics. The so called ""stakeholders"" spend a lot of money and energy into getting candidates into office. So then they expect something in return.   This is related: http://www.chemsec.org/what-we-do/influencing-public-policy/news-updates/1321-letter-to-the-ttip-negotiators-signed-by-178-groups" "ACH transfers are the evolution of paper check clearing houses. Transactions are conducted in bulk and do not immediately settle -- the drawer and drawee still retain liability for a period of days or weeks after the transaction date. (I'd suggest looking to the legal definition of a check or draft to understand this better.) A for-fee wire transfer still goes through an intermediary, but settle immediately and irrevocably. Wire transfers are analogous to handing cash to someone.  In the US, the various Federal Reserve banks are involved because they are the central banks of the the United States.  In the past, bank panics were started or exacerbated when banks would refuse to honor drafts drawn on other banks of questionable stability. Imagine what would happen today if your electric company refused to accept Bank of America or Citibank's check/ACH transactions? Wouldn't you get withdraw every penny you could from BoA? During the 1907 banking panic, many solvent banks collapsed when the system of bank ""subscriptions"" (ie. arrangements where small town banks would ""subscribe"" to large commercial banks for check clearing, etc) broke down. Farmers, small business people and individuals lost everything, all because the larger banks would not (or could not) risk holding drafts/checks from the smaller banks." "Bad plan. This seems like a recipe for having your money taken away from you by CBP.  Let me explain the biases which make it so.  US banking is reliable enough for the common citizen, that everyone simply uses banks.  To elaborate, Americans who are unbanked either can't produce simple identity paperwork; or they got an account but then got blacklisted for overdrawing it. These are problems of the poor, not millionaires.  Outside of determined ""off the grid"" folks with political reasons to not be in the banking and credit systsm, anyone with money uses the banking system.  Who's not a criminal, anyway.  We also have strong laws against money laundering: turning cash (of questionable origin) into ""sanitized"" cash on deposit in a bank.  The most obvious trick is deposit $5000/day for 200 days. Nope, that's Structuring: yeah, we have a word for that.  A guy with $1 million cash, it is presumed he has no choice: he can't convert it into a bank deposit, as in this problem - note where she says she can't launder it.  If it's normal for people in your country to haul around cash, due to a defective banking system, you're not the only one with that problem, and nearby there'll be a country with a good banking system who understands your situation.  Deposit it there.  Then retain a US lawyer who specializes in this, and follow his advice about moving the money to the US via funds transfer. Even then, you may have some explaining to do; but far less than with cash.  (And keep in mind for those politically motivated off-the-financial-grid types, they're a bit crazy but definitely not stupid, live a cash life everyday, and know the law better than anybody. They would definitely consider using banks and funds transfers for the border crossing proper, because of Customs.  Then they'll turn it into cash domestically and close the accounts.)" I have not opened any NRE/NRO account before coming to Finland.  This is in violation of Foreign Exchange Management Act. Please get this regularized ASAP. All your savings account need to be converted to NRO. Shall I transfer funds from abroad to both NRE and NRO account or I can transfer only to NRE account in India? You can transfer to NRE or NRO. It is advisable to transfer into NRE as funds from here can be repatriated out of India without any paperwork. Funds from NRO account need paperwork to move out of India. I am a regular tax payer in abroad. The Funds which i'll transfer in future will attract any additional tax in India? As your status is Non Resident and the income is during that period, there is no tax applicable in India on this. Few Mutual Fund SIPs (monthly basis) are linked with my existing saving account in india. Do these SIPs will stop when the savings account will turn into NRO account? Shall I need to submit any documents for KYC compliance? If yes, to whom I should submit these? is there any possibility to submit it Online? Check your Bank / Mutual Fund company. Couple of FDs are also opened online and linked with this existing saving account. Do the maturity amount(s) subject to TDS or any tax implication such as 30.9% as this account will be turned into NRO account till that time and NRO account attracts this higher tax percentage. These are subject to taxes in India. This will be as per standard tax brackets. Which account (NRE/NRO) is better for paying EMIs for Home Loan, SIPs of Mutual Funds, utility bills in India, transfer money to relative's account etc Home Loan would be better from NRE account as if you sell the house, the EMI paid can be credited into NRE account and you can transfer this out of India without much paperwork. Same for SIP's. For other it doesn't really matter as it is an expense. Is there any charge to transfer fund from NRE to NRO account if both account maintain in same Bank same branch. Generally No. Check with your bank. Which Bank account's (NRE/NRO) debit/ATM card should be used in Abroad in case of emergency. Check with your bank. NRE funds are more easy. NRO there will be limits and reporting. Do my other savings accounts, maintained in different Banks, also need to be converted into NRO account? If yes, how can it be done from Abroad? Yes. ASAP. Quite a few leading banks allow you to do this if you are not present. Check you bank for guidance. "I have to disagree with Scott's point about bank's ability to reimburse you for money withdrawn by people who stole your debit-card - that is only limited to transactions taken place after you reported the lost of the card (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre04.shtm).  In the event that someone got into your banking account and conduct transactions without your knowledge, you are pretty screwed unless you can prove it wasn't you who did the transaction.  The same goes for people whose debit card was ""copied"" (e.g. by swiping through those hacked ATM) - the bank's insurance policy doesn't kick in until you report loss. Mint.com is very nice website and too bad it doesn't work for Canadians.  I instead opt'd for Yodlee (moneycenter.yodlee.com) which is the engine behind Mint but works for Canadians (but without all the social network aspects/features).  These sites are good for aggregating your various personal financial info online, but none of them are good enough (yet) for me to ditch my Microsoft Money - oh wait, MS has decided to discontinue the product and I need to look another one... Chris" "You have received some good answers, but since your concern is proper protocol, keep everything in writing (emails, not phone calls).  Also, you'll get a quick response by contacting the University ""Accounts Payable"" department, confirm the situation with a summary as you posted here and ask for the ABA routing number for the transfer.  The routing number, email, and you bank statement is all the records you need to cover your but." Once, back when I had a bank account, I tried to pay a large emergency dental bill with my debit card. It rejected it as it turned out the bill was less than a dollar over what I had in the account. I thought there was enough money so I tried again, 3 times. They charged me an overdraft for each attempt even though the debit never went through. This was without overdraft protection, as overdraft protection would have allowed the debit and charged me one overdraft. I don't know the details but federal regulations have changed how they do this.  To me overdraft protection rejects any debit that attempts to overdraft my account and doesn't charge me with an overdraft that didn't actually occur as a result of the charge being rejected, but that's not how it works. JohnFx is right: banks hate visits and attention from the regulator (both positive and negative). I would not threaten to file, just file away and let them get in contact with you. The local branch is stalling you. Do not play their game. Since you already went through the first level of support (local branch, phone support), get the bank ombudsman contact and file a complain. It is a major bank, most of the time getting a high level complain will be routed from the upside down through their structure, and hit them. Remember I said they are stalling you? Probably something went wrong, and they are buying time to try and fix it. Also it is worth noting that the ombudsman is usually a line of support above the phone customer support. If going through the ombudsman does not work and/or if you are not willing to wait anymore, file a complain with the government central bank, or similiar institution (trying to be broad here, even if you tagged USA - JohnFx has the link in his answer for the USA's regulator). You can even file a small claims lawsuit, though I do not know the cost of doing it in the USA (in my country small claims court is free for private citizens). Do not report your money as stolen; banks are bureaucratic institutions by nature, and they can silver tongue out of this claim.