#
Interbank settlement runs through the STR (Reserves Transfer System), a BCB-operated RTGS providing irrevocable, unconditional real-time finality, underpinned by Law 10.214/2001 (settlement finality, multilateral netting, collateral seizure in insolvency). Reserve/settlement accounts at the BCB are mandatory for some institutions and optional for others; the BCB extends fully collateralised free intraday credit to reserve-account holders. Pix settles via the SPI through Instant Payment (IP) accounts, accessed directly or via accredited PSTIs. Cross-border USD legs route through the FX Clearinghouse and US correspondent banks. Payment institutions can access SPI directly (IP account) or indirectly via a direct participant.
On the cross-border side, the USD corridor depends on US correspondent banks for the USD leg over Fedwire, while BRL legs settle via the STR — a bank-PSP-mediated dependency that defines the structural choke point for the BR-US corridor.
Outlook
The trajectory is established. The standing structural question is the settlement-access differential between non-bank PIs with direct IP-account access and those dependent on indirect participation. The USD correspondent dependency remains the key cross-border access constraint, tied to the Resolution 561 rerouting tracked under W5.
Correspondent Banking, Settlement & Access
Two developments this cycle extend correspondent-banking-style counterparty-risk obligations onto sectors that have not traditionally carried them. Decreto 13.033 and Ministério da Fazenda Portaria 1.766 impose joint tax liability, under Complementary Law 224/2025 Article 6, on banks, payment institutions and payment arrangers that continue processing transactions for unauthorised betting operators after formal notification. This is the analytical spine of this module's finding: it extends a due-diligence and counterparty-screening duty, structurally similar to correspondent-banking know-your-customer's-customer obligations, onto payment institutions and payment arrangers, a class of firm that has historically operated under lighter counterparty-risk expectations than bank correspondents.
Separately, BCB Resolution 521/2025 folds certain virtual-asset cross-border operations, including payments, stablecoin transactions and self-hosted-wallet transfers, into Brazil's existing FX-market regulatory perimeter, effective 2 February 2026. From the settlement-and-access lens, this development matters because it brings a previously FX-perimeter-adjacent category of cross-border value transfer inside the same regulatory access framework that governs traditional correspondent FX activity, with direct implications for which institutions can settle these flows and under what screening obligations. This finding carries direct overlap with the crypto monitor's stablecoin-regime coverage of the same resolution; this module's contribution is the settlement-access and counterparty-screening reading rather than the digital-asset classification question.
The bank-versus-non-bank distinction is the analytical throughline across both developments: payment institutions and payment arrangers, non-bank entities, are being brought into counterparty-risk and screening obligations that more closely resemble what has historically applied only to bank correspondents.
Outlook
Watch for whether the joint tax liability regime produces measurable changes in payment institutions' willingness to process for betting-sector counterparties, and for further detail on how BCB Resolution 521's FX-perimeter integration affects settlement access for virtual-asset cross-border flows as the 2 February 2026 effective date is followed through.
Sources and findings (4)
- T1https://www.bcb.gov.br/Pom/Spb/Ing/Introduction.asp?frame=1retrieved
- T1https://www.bcb.gov.br/content/financialstability/spi_annual_reports/SPI_2024.pdfretrieved
- T1https://www.bcb.gov.br/pom/spb/ing/GuideforOpeningReserves.pdfretrieved
- T1https://www.bis.org/cpmi/publ/d97_br.pdf Applies beyond this jurisdiction (Basel Committee)retrieved