A plan fiduciary who did not know is shielded on three conditions
What the document says“``(aa) The responsible plan fiduciary did not know that the covered service provider failed or would fail to make required remittances and reasonably believed that the covered service provider remitted such required amounts.”
Section 6702 adds a new subclause providing that subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 406(a)(1) do not apply to a responsible plan fiduciary despite a failure to remit, where the fiduciary did not know of the failure and reasonably believed the amounts were remitted, where on discovering it the fiduciary asked in writing for the money, and where, if the provider does not comply within 90 days, the fiduciary notifies the Secretary. The section adds that this does not relieve the fiduciary of the duty to monitor the provider's practices.
What the document actually says“``(aa) The responsible plan fiduciary did not know that the covered service provider failed or would fail to make required remittances and reasonably believed that the covered service provider remitted such required amounts.”
The plan officer did not know the money was being held back. That officer had good reason to think it had been sent on.
A plan officer can be held to account for a bad deal. This shields one who was kept in the dark. The officer must still ask for the money and tell the agency.
No action is recorded against this proposal. That is not evidence that none has been taken, and nobody has yet read it against the record. See what the tracker does not yet cover.