The Mechanics of Cross-Border Payments: Why International Transfers Are Complex

Cross-border payments take 3-5 days and cost 6-10% because they traverse correspondent banking chains where 3-5 intermediary banks each perform compliance checks, operate on different time zones and cutoff times, and settle through pre-funded nostro accounts. A typical international transfer flows through the originating bank, US correspondent, international correspondent, destination country correspondent, and beneficiary bank—with each step adding compliance screening, FX conversion, fees, and processing delays. The system locks $10+ trillion globally in correspondent account pre-funding, with correspondent banking relationships declining 20-25% since 2011 as large banks de-risk by terminating relationships in high-risk jurisdictions.

Introduction

Cross-border payments enable the $7.5 trillion daily foreign exchange market, international trade, remittances supporting families across borders, and global business operations—yet they remain remarkably slow and expensive compared to domestic payments. While a domestic ACH transfer costs $0.20-1.00 and settles in 1-3 days, an international wire transfer costs $25-50 in fees plus 2-3% in foreign exchange markups and takes 3-5 days to settle.

The complexity stems from the correspondent banking architecture that emerged in the pre-digital era and persists today. Banks cannot maintain branches in every country, so they establish correspondent relationships—reciprocal accounts at other banks that enable cross-border payments. When a US bank needs to pay a beneficiary in Brazil, it debits its Brazilian real nostro account at a Brazilian correspondent bank, which credits the beneficiary's account. The payment message travels via SWIFT in seconds, but settlement through multiple correspondent accounts takes days as each bank processes during its business hours, performs compliance checks, and reconciles nostro account balances.

Key Takeaways

• Cross-border payments traverse 3-5 intermediary banks, each adding compliance checks, fees, and processing delays
• Correspondent banking locks $10+ trillion globally in pre-funded nostro accounts that earn minimal returns
• Time zone misalignment and daily cutoff times create artificial delays as banks process only during local business hours
• Compliance screening at each intermediary adds hours to days, with flagged transactions requiring manual review
• Total costs average 6-10% for international transfers, with remittances to Sub-Saharan Africa costing 8.78%
• Correspondent banking relationships have declined 20-25% since 2011 due to de-risking, worst in Melanesia (-62.6%), Polynesia (-54%), Caribbean (-52.1%)

How Correspondent Banking Enables Cross-Border Payments

Correspondent banking forms the infrastructure that enables banks to access foreign financial systems without establishing branches in every country. Understanding nostro/vostro accounts and correspondent relationships reveals why international payments remain slow and expensive.

Nostro and Vostro Accounts

Correspondent banking operates through reciprocal account relationships using specialized terminology. Bank A maintains a nostro account ("our account at your bank") at Bank B, while Bank B views this same account as a vostro account ("your account at our bank"). These pre-funded accounts enable banks to make payments in foreign currencies without establishing branches in every country.

When a US bank needs to pay a beneficiary in Germany, it debits its euro nostro account at a German correspondent bank, which credits the beneficiary's account. The US bank pre-funds this nostro account by periodically transferring euros, maintaining sufficient balance to cover expected payment flows. If the nostro balance runs low, the US bank must transfer additional euros—a process that itself takes time and incurs costs.

Globally, $10+ trillion sits locked in correspondent accounts as pre-funding—capital that earns minimal returns (typically central bank deposit rates of 0-2%) but enables cross-border payments. This represents a massive opportunity cost: banks could deploy this capital in loans earning 5-8% or investments generating returns, but instead it sits idle to facilitate payment flows.

Correspondent Relationship Structures

Banks establish correspondent relationships based on payment flow needs, currency requirements, and geographic coverage. Large global banks like JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, HSBC, and Deutsche Bank maintain extensive correspondent networks covering dozens of currencies and hundreds of countries. Smaller regional banks establish relationships with these global banks to access their networks.

The relationship hierarchy creates a hub-and-spoke structure:

• Tier 1 (Global Banks): Maintain direct relationships in 50+ countries across major currencies
• Tier 2 (Regional Banks): Maintain relationships in 10-20 countries, rely on Tier 1 for others
• Tier 3 (Local Banks): Maintain few direct relationships, rely on Tier 2/Tier 1 for most cross-border payments

A payment from a small US bank to a small Brazilian bank might flow through: Small US Bank → US Regional Bank → JPMorgan Chase → Banco do Brasil → Small Brazilian Bank. Each intermediary adds processing time, compliance checks, and fees.

Due Diligence and Relationship Management

Establishing correspondent relationships requires extensive due diligence. Banks must verify each other's:

• Regulatory compliance and licensing
• Anti-money laundering controls
• Sanctions screening capabilities
• Financial stability and credit worthiness
• Operational capabilities and technology systems
• Reputation and regulatory track record

This due diligence takes months and costs $50,000-500,000 per relationship depending on the correspondent's size and jurisdiction risk. Banks must also monitor relationships continuously, updating due diligence annually and investigating suspicious activity. The compliance burden has driven correspondent banking decline, with relationships falling 20-25% since 2011 as large banks de-risk by terminating relationships in high-risk jurisdictions.

The Step-by-Step Cross-Border Payment Process

Understanding the detailed flow of an international transfer reveals where delays and costs accumulate. A typical cross-border payment follows 5-7 steps involving multiple institutions.

Step 1: Initiation and Customer Verification

The sender provides beneficiary details to their bank: beneficiary name, account number, bank name, SWIFT code (BIC), and payment purpose. The sending bank validates the sender's identity through Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures and verifies sufficient funds in the account.

The bank screens the payment against sanctions lists (OFAC, UN, EU) and anti-money laundering rules. Automated screening takes seconds, but flagged transactions require manual review by compliance officers—adding hours to days. Common flags include:

• Sender or beneficiary name matching sanctioned individuals or entities
• High-risk destination countries (Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba, etc.)
• Large round-number amounts suggesting structuring
• Vague payment purposes or suspicious patterns
• First-time beneficiaries in high-risk jurisdictions

If the payment clears compliance, the bank creates a SWIFT MT103 message containing payment instructions and an MT202 COV message for interbank settlement.

Step 2: SWIFT Message Creation and Transmission

The sending bank creates standardized SWIFT messages:

MT103 (Single Customer Credit Transfer) contains:

• Sender information (name, account, address)
• Beneficiary information (name, account, address, bank details)
• Payment amount and currency
• Sender's bank and beneficiary's bank
• Intermediary banks (if known)
• Payment purpose and reference codes

MT202 COV (Cover Payment) handles settlement between correspondent banks, containing:

• Ordering institution (sending bank)
• Beneficiary institution (receiving bank)
• Settlement amount and currency
• Related reference (linking to MT103)

The SWIFT messages travel through the SWIFT network in seconds, reaching the next bank in the correspondent chain. However, the message arriving quickly does not mean the funds move quickly—settlement through nostro accounts takes time.

Step 3: Correspondent Routing and Processing

The payment routes through 1-4 intermediary correspondent banks depending on whether the sending and receiving banks have direct relationships. Each correspondent:

1. Receives SWIFT message during its operating hours
2. Performs compliance screening against its sanctions lists and AML rules
3. Verifies nostro account balance to ensure sufficient funds
4. Debits nostro account (if receiving funds) or credits vostro account (if sending funds)
5. Forwards payment to the next correspondent or beneficiary bank
6. Sends confirmation back through the chain

Each step takes hours to days depending on:

• Time zones (payment may arrive outside business hours and queue until next day)
• Daily cutoff times (missing cutoff by minutes delays processing 24 hours)
• Compliance flags (manual review adds 1-3 days)
• Nostro account reconciliation (typically end-of-day settlement)

Step 4: Currency Conversion (If Required)

If the payment involves currency conversion, one bank in the correspondent chain executes the foreign exchange transaction. The conversion typically occurs at the correspondent bank in the destination country, which has access to local FX markets.

FX conversion adds costs through bid-ask spreads and bank markups:

• Interbank rate: The "real" exchange rate between banks
• Bank markup: 1-3% added to the interbank rate
• Spread: Difference between buy and sell rates

A $10,000 USD to EUR transfer might execute at:

• Interbank rate: 1.0800 EUR/USD
• Bank rate: 1.0584 EUR/USD (2% markup)
• Customer receives: €10,584 instead of €10,800 at interbank rate
• FX cost: $200 (2%)

Major currency pairs (USD/EUR, USD/GBP, USD/JPY) have tighter spreads (1-2%), while exotic pairs (USD/TRY, USD/ZAR) can have spreads of 3-5% or more.

Step 5: Beneficiary Bank Receipt and Crediting

The final correspondent bank or beneficiary bank receives the payment, performs its own compliance screening, and credits the beneficiary's account. The beneficiary bank may hold the funds for additional screening if:

• The beneficiary is a new customer or first-time recipient
• The amount is unusually large for the beneficiary's typical activity
• The originating country is high-risk
• The payment purpose is vague or suspicious

Holds can add 1-3 days to the process, with the beneficiary seeing "pending" status until the bank releases the funds. Some jurisdictions require beneficiary banks to report large incoming transfers to financial intelligence units, adding administrative steps.

Step 6: Confirmation and Reconciliation

Status messages flow back through the correspondent chain, with each bank sending confirmations to the previous bank. The sending bank receives final confirmation that the beneficiary's account was credited, which it communicates to the sender.

However, this confirmation process is not real-time—it follows the same correspondent chain with the same delays. Senders often don't receive confirmation for 1-2 days after initiating the payment, creating uncertainty about whether the payment succeeded.

Banks reconcile nostro/vostro accounts end-of-day, netting multiple payments into single settlement transfers. This batching reduces transaction costs but adds settlement lag, as individual payments don't settle until the daily reconciliation completes.

Why International Transfers Take 3-5 Days

SWIFT messages travel in seconds, yet international transfers take days to complete. The delay stems from structural inefficiencies in the correspondent banking system, not technology limitations.

Time Zone Misalignment

Banks process payments only during local business hours, typically 9 AM-5 PM local time. A payment initiated at 4 PM EST in New York may not process in Asia until the next business day—multiply this across a 3-4 bank chain spanning multiple time zones.

Example timeline for New York to Sydney payment:

• Friday 4 PM EST: Sender initiates payment at US bank
• Friday 5 PM EST: US bank processes, sends to US correspondent (after cutoff for same-day processing)
• Saturday morning: Payment queued (US correspondent closed for weekend)
• Monday 9 AM EST: US correspondent processes, sends to Australian correspondent
• Monday 11 PM EST / Tuesday 3 PM AEDT: Australian correspondent receives, processes
• Tuesday 9 AM AEDT: Beneficiary bank credits account
• Total time: 4 business days (Friday to Tuesday)

Different holiday calendars compound delays. A Friday afternoon transfer from New York to London might not arrive until Wednesday if Monday is a US holiday (US banks closed) or UK holiday (UK banks closed).

Daily Cutoff Times

Each bank maintains daily processing deadlines, typically 2-5 PM local time. Missing a cutoff by minutes delays processing 24 hours. Banks batch process wire transfers rather than handling each individually, running cutoffs multiple times daily for different currencies and destinations.

Typical cutoff structure at a US bank:

• 10 AM EST: EUR payments (to catch European business hours)
• 12 PM EST: GBP payments (to catch UK business hours)
• 2 PM EST: Asian currency payments (for next-day processing)
• 4 PM EST: USD payments (domestic and international)

The cutoff system reflects operational efficiency—banks net multiple payments into single settlement transfers, reducing nostro account movements. However, this batching creates artificial delays for time-sensitive payments.

Sequential Compliance Checks

Each intermediary bank performs anti-money laundering and sanctions screening before forwarding the payment. Automated screening takes minutes, but flagged transactions require manual review adding 1-3 days per bank.

Compliance screening checks:

• Sender and beneficiary against sanctions lists (OFAC, UN, EU)
• Payment purpose for suspicious patterns
• Originating and destination countries for high-risk jurisdictions
• Amount for structuring patterns (multiple payments just below reporting thresholds)
• Beneficiary's transaction history for unusual activity

False positives plague the system—common names matching sanctioned individuals, legitimate businesses in high-risk countries, and technical formatting issues all trigger manual review. A payment flagged at two intermediaries in a four-bank chain can add 4-6 days to settlement.

The compliance burden has increased dramatically post-9/11 and following major money laundering scandals (Danske Bank, Swedbank, Westpac). Banks face billion-dollar fines for compliance failures, making them extremely conservative in screening—better to delay a legitimate payment than allow a sanctioned transaction.

No Parallel Processing

Each bank completes its work before passing to the next—no concurrent processing. Unlike modern distributed systems that parallelize tasks, correspondent banking chains process sequentially. Bank A must debit its nostro account, send the MT202, and receive confirmation before Bank B begins its processing.

This sequential architecture made sense in the 1970s telex era when communication was slow and systems couldn't coordinate in real-time. Modern technology enables parallel processing, but the correspondent banking system hasn't evolved to take advantage. Each bank operates independently, processing its queue during its business hours without coordination with other banks in the chain.

Settlement Cycles and Nostro Reconciliation

Nostro/vostro account reconciliation typically occurs end-of-day. Cross-border settlements run T+1 or T+2 (trade date plus 1-2 days). Banks don't immediately debit nostro accounts for each payment; instead, they accumulate payments throughout the day, net the positions, and settle once daily.

Daily nostro reconciliation process:

1. Bank accumulates outgoing payments (debits to nostro account)
2. Bank accumulates incoming payments (credits to nostro account)
3. End-of-day: Bank calculates net position
4. Bank sends single settlement transfer for net amount
5. Correspondent confirms receipt and updates vostro account
6. Both banks reconcile balances and investigate discrepancies

This batching reduces transaction costs—instead of 1,000 individual nostro account movements, banks settle the net of 1,000 transactions. However, it adds settlement lag, as individual payments don't settle until the daily reconciliation completes.

Cost Breakdown: Why International Transfers Are Expensive

International transfers cost significantly more than domestic payments due to multiple intermediaries, foreign exchange markups, and compliance overhead. Understanding the cost structure reveals where fees accumulate.

Typical $1,000 International Wire Cost Breakdown

Fee Component — Amount — Percentage

Sending bank fee — $45 — 4.5%

FX markup (2%) — $20 — 2.0%

Correspondent fee — $15 — 1.5%

Receiving bank fee — $15 — 1.5%

Total — $95 — 9.5%

Sending bank fee ($45) covers:

• Compliance screening and KYC verification
• SWIFT message creation and transmission
• Customer service and support
• Nostro account management
• Operational overhead

FX markup ($20) represents the bank's profit on currency conversion, charged as a spread between the interbank rate and the customer rate. Banks typically mark up 1-3% on major currency pairs and 3-5% on exotic pairs.

Correspondent fee ($15) covers the intermediary bank's processing, compliance screening, and nostro account maintenance. Multiple correspondents multiply this cost—a payment through three correspondents incurs $45 in correspondent fees.

Receiving bank fee ($15) covers the beneficiary bank's compliance screening, account crediting, and customer notification.

Remittance Costs by Region

World Bank data shows global average remittance costs of 6.26% (Q4 2024), with significant regional variation:

Region — Average Cost — Highest Corridor

Sub-Saharan Africa — 8.78% — South Africa → Zimbabwe: 15%+

East Asia & Pacific — 5.89% — Australia → Pacific Islands: 10%+

South Asia — 4.96% — UAE → India: 4-5%

Latin America — 5.42% — US → Mexico: 4-6%

Middle East & North Africa — 6.35% — Saudi Arabia → Egypt: 6-8%

Sub-Saharan Africa's high costs reflect limited correspondent banking relationships, low competition, and high compliance costs. The Caribbean and Pacific Islands face similar challenges, with correspondent banking decline of 50%+ leaving few options and enabling monopoly pricing.

The $10+ Trillion Nostro Account Problem

Globally, $10+ trillion sits locked in correspondent accounts as pre-funding—capital that earns minimal returns but enables cross-border payments. This represents a massive opportunity cost: banks could deploy this capital in loans earning 5-8% or investments generating returns, but instead it sits idle to facilitate payment flows.

The nostro account requirement creates a chicken-and-egg problem: banks need large nostro balances to handle payment volume, but maintaining large balances is expensive, so banks limit correspondent relationships, which reduces payment options and increases costs for customers.

Correspondent Banking Decline and De-Risking

Correspondent banking relationships have declined 20-25% since 2011 according to Bank for International Settlements data, with the worst effects in developing countries and small island nations.

De-Risking Drivers

Large banks terminate correspondent relationships with smaller banks in high-risk jurisdictions to avoid:

• AML compliance costs: Monitoring correspondent transactions, investigating suspicious activity, and maintaining due diligence costs $100,000-1,000,000+ annually per relationship
• Regulatory uncertainty: Unclear standards for correspondent bank liability when respondent banks facilitate illicit transactions
• Reputational risk: Association with money laundering or sanctions violations damages bank reputation and stock price
• Enforcement actions: Billion-dollar fines for compliance failures (HSBC $1.9B, Standard Chartered $1.1B, BNP Paribas $8.9B) make banks extremely risk-averse

The compliance burden increased dramatically following major scandals: Danske Bank's €200 billion Estonian money laundering, Swedbank's €135 billion Baltic money laundering, and Westpac's 23 million AML violations. Regulators responded with stricter enforcement, driving banks to terminate high-risk relationships rather than invest in enhanced monitoring.

Geographic Impact

Correspondent banking decline affects regions unequally:

• Melanesia: -62.6% (Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands)
• Polynesia: -54% (Samoa, Tonga, French Polynesia)
• Caribbean: -52.1% (Jamaica, Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago)
• Central Asia: -38% (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan)
• Sub-Saharan Africa: -25% (varies by country)

When correspondent relationships disappear, remaining banks gain monopoly power, raising fees and reducing service quality. Some small island nations face near-total financial isolation as major banks exit. Remittance costs spike as competition disappears—corridors that previously had 3-4 providers now have 1-2, enabling price increases of 50-100%.

Consequences for Financial Inclusion

Correspondent banking decline disproportionately affects:

• Remittance-dependent countries: Where worker remittances represent 10-30% of GDP
• Small banks and credit unions: That lack scale to justify compliance costs
• Money service businesses: That facilitate remittances for unbanked populations
• Developing countries: With limited alternative payment infrastructure

The decline creates a two-tier system where large institutions in major financial centers maintain extensive correspondent networks while smaller players lose access. This concentrates payment flows among global banks, reducing competition and increasing systemic risk.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why can't banks use the same instant payment technology for cross-border transfers that they use domestically?

A: Domestic instant payment systems (FedNow, RTP, UPI, Pix) operate within single regulatory jurisdictions with standardized rules, unified technology platforms, and central bank settlement. Cross-border payments span multiple jurisdictions with different regulations, currencies, time zones, and banking systems—requiring correspondent banking to bridge these gaps. Additionally, cross-border payments require currency conversion and more extensive compliance screening (sanctions, AML across multiple countries) than domestic payments. However, initiatives like Project Nexus aim to link domestic instant payment systems internationally, potentially enabling faster cross-border payments in the future. The technical capability exists, but regulatory, legal, and coordination challenges remain.

Q: What is the difference between correspondent banking and direct relationships?

A: Direct relationships mean two banks maintain accounts at each other (reciprocal nostro/vostro accounts) and can send payments directly without intermediaries. Correspondent banking involves intermediary banks when two banks lack direct relationships—Bank A sends to Bank B through Bank C, which has relationships with both. Direct relationships are faster (fewer intermediaries), cheaper (fewer fees), and more reliable (fewer points of failure), but require significant due diligence and ongoing compliance costs. Large global banks maintain 50-100+ direct relationships, while smaller banks maintain 5-20 and rely on correspondents for other destinations. The trade-off is between relationship maintenance costs (favoring fewer relationships) and payment efficiency (favoring more relationships).

Q: How do digital remittance providers like Wise achieve lower costs than traditional banks?

A: Wise and similar providers use flow-matching to avoid cross-border transfers entirely. When Customer A sends GBP→EUR and Customer B sends EUR→GBP, Wise facilitates domestic transfers in each country—Customer A's GBP goes to Wise's UK account, Wise's EUR account pays Customer B, and vice versa. Money never crosses borders, eliminating correspondent banking fees and reducing FX costs. Wise maintains local bank accounts in 50+ countries, enabling this model. Traditional banks must use correspondent banking because they don't have local accounts everywhere and can't match flows across their customer base. Wise's costs run 0.35-2% versus traditional 6-10%, but the model requires sufficient payment flow in both directions to match—it works well for major corridors (US-UK, US-EU) but less well for thin corridors (US-Mongolia).

Q: Why has correspondent banking declined and what are the alternatives?

A: Correspondent banking has declined 20-25% since 2011 due to de-risking—large banks terminating relationships with smaller banks in high-risk jurisdictions to avoid anti-money laundering compliance costs, regulatory uncertainty, and reputational risk. The decline is worst in Melanesia (-62.6%), Polynesia (-54%), and the Caribbean (-52.1%). Alternatives include: (1) Regional payment systems linking domestic instant payment networks (Project Nexus), (2) Blockchain-based settlement (Ripple, Stellar), (3) Central Bank Digital Currencies enabling direct central bank settlement, (4) Stablecoins for peer-to-peer cross-border transfers, and (5) Fintech aggregators pooling smaller banks to justify correspondent relationships. However, these alternatives face regulatory uncertainty, limited adoption, and technology barriers—traditional correspondent banking remains dominant despite its inefficiencies.

Q: What is Project Nexus and how could it improve cross-border payments?

A: Project Nexus, coordinated by the Bank for International Settlements Innovation Hub, aims to become an "internet protocol for payments" connecting domestic instant payment systems globally. Initial participants include India (UPI), Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand, with the European Central Bank exploring TIPS integration. The goal: payments within 60 seconds across the network reaching 1.7 billion people. Nexus would enable a sender in India to pay a beneficiary in Thailand instantly by linking UPI and PromptPay, eliminating correspondent banking intermediaries. The model extends the successful Singapore-Thailand PayNow-PromptPay linkage (launched April 2021) that reduced costs from 10%+ to approximately $4 and settlement from days to minutes. However, Nexus faces challenges around currency conversion, regulatory harmonization, and fraud/AML coordination across jurisdictions.

Q: How do sanctions affect cross-border payments and what happens when a country is cut off from SWIFT?

A: Sanctions screening at each correspondent bank checks senders, beneficiaries, and destination countries against lists maintained by OFAC (US), UN, EU, and other authorities. Payments involving sanctioned individuals, entities, or countries are blocked and reported to authorities. SWIFT disconnection effectively cuts a country off from the international financial system, as banks cannot send or receive payment instructions. Iran's 2012-2016 and 2018-present disconnection crippled oil exports and international trade, while Russia's 2022 partial disconnection following Ukraine invasion targeted major banks. However, SWIFT disconnection drives countries to develop alternatives—Russia's SPFS, China's CIPS—that could fragment the global financial system. Sanctioned countries also use workarounds: correspondent banks in neutral countries, cryptocurrency, barter trade, and informal value transfer systems like hawala.

Conclusion

Cross-border payments take 3-5 days and cost 6-10% because they traverse correspondent banking chains where 3-5 intermediary banks each perform compliance checks, operate on different time zones and cutoff times, and settle through pre-funded nostro accounts. The system locks $10+ trillion globally in correspondent account pre-funding—capital earning minimal returns but necessary to facilitate payment flows. Time zone misalignment, daily cutoff times, sequential compliance checks, and nostro reconciliation cycles create artificial delays despite SWIFT messages traveling in seconds.

Correspondent banking relationships have declined 20-25% since 2011 as large banks de-risk by terminating relationships in high-risk jurisdictions, with the worst effects in Melanesia (-62.6%), Polynesia (-54%), and the Caribbean (-52.1%). This decline reduces competition, increases costs, and threatens financial inclusion in developing countries and small island nations. World Bank data shows global average remittance costs of 6.26%, with Sub-Saharan Africa highest at 8.78%—costs that disproportionately burden migrant workers sending money home to families.

Alternatives are emerging: digital remittance providers like Wise use flow-matching to avoid correspondent banking entirely, achieving costs of 0.35-2%. Project Nexus aims to link domestic instant payment systems internationally, enabling 60-second cross-border payments. Blockchain-based settlement and Central Bank Digital Currencies promise direct settlement without correspondent intermediaries. However, these alternatives face regulatory uncertainty, limited adoption, and technology barriers—traditional correspondent banking remains dominant despite its inefficiencies, with fundamental reform requiring coordinated action across regulators, central banks, and financial institutions globally.

<!-- SCHEMA MARKUP (JSON-LD)

Article Schema: , "publisher": }, , { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 2, "name": "Databank", "item": "https://nextcurrency.news/knowledge/databank" }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": 3, "name": "The Mechanics of Cross-Border Payments", "item": "https://nextcurrency.news/knowledge/databank/the-mechanics-of-cross-border-payments" } ] } -->