camt.056 payment cancellation request
A fictional recall request that references an earlier pacs.008.
Illustrative, non-production example. Values are fictional and the message is not validated for any specific network, scheme, or implementation guide.
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!-- Illustrative non-production data --> <Document xmlns="urn:iso:std:iso:20022:tech:xsd:camt.056.001.08"> <FIToFIPmtCxlReq> <Assgnmt> </Assgnmt> <CtrlData><NbOfTxs>1</NbOfTxs></CtrlData> <Undrlyg> <TxInf> <CxlId>DEMO-RECALL-001</CxlId> <OrgnlGrpInf> <OrgnlMsgId>DEMO-PACS008-001</OrgnlMsgId> <OrgnlMsgNmId>pacs.008.001.08</OrgnlMsgNmId> </OrgnlGrpInf> <OrgnlInstrId>DEMO-INSTR-001</OrgnlInstrId> <OrgnlEndToEndId>DEMO-E2E-001</OrgnlEndToEndId> <OrgnlTxId>DEMO-TX-001</OrgnlTxId> <OrgnlIntrBkSttlmAmt Ccy="EUR">1250.00</OrgnlIntrBkSttlmAmt> <OrgnlIntrBkSttlmDt>2026-07-12</OrgnlIntrBkSttlmDt> <CxlRsnInf> <Orgtr><Nm>Demo Trading Ltd</Nm></Orgtr> <Rsn><Cd>DUPL</Cd></Rsn> </CxlRsnInf> </TxInf> </Undrlyg> </FIToFIPmtCxlReq> </Document>
EVERY ANNOTATED FIELD
Assgnmt/IdAssignment identification — mandatoryA unique reference for this assignment of the case from one party to the next.
Each hop of a relayed cancellation request is a new assignment with its own identification — the case travels, the assignment is per leg.
Assgnmt/AssgnrAssigner — mandatoryWho is handing the case over — the party asking for the cancellation on this leg.
Assgnmt/AssgneAssignee — mandatoryWho is being asked to deal with the case on this leg.
⚠ Sending the request to an agent that never saw the original payment produces a 'no original transaction received' answer and wastes the most time-critical hours of a recall.
Assgnmt/CreDtTmAssignment creation date and time — mandatoryWhen this assignment was created — the timestamp that starts the clock on this leg of the case.
Scheme rulebooks define windows for submitting recalls and for answering them; timestamps are the evidence in any dispute about deadlines.
Undrlyg/TxInf/CxlIdCancellation identification — optionalA unique reference for this specific cancellation request, assigned by the requester.
The reference the answering camt.029 echoes back — persist it, or matching answers to requests becomes guesswork.
Undrlyg/TxInf/OrgnlGrpInf/OrgnlMsgIdOriginal message identification — conditionalThe MsgId of the message that carried the payment to be cancelled, together with its message type in the same block.
Undrlyg/TxInf/OrgnlEndToEndIdOriginal end-to-end identification — conditionalThe EndToEndId of the payment the request is about, echoed exactly as it travelled.
Undrlyg/TxInf/OrgnlUETROriginal UETR — conditionalThe unique tracking identifier of the payment to be cancelled.
The UETR is what lets tracking infrastructure route and correlate a cancellation across the whole chain rather than hop by hop — the single most useful identifier in the message.
Undrlyg/TxInf/OrgnlIntrBkSttlmAmtOriginal interbank settlement amount — conditionalThe amount and currency of the original payment — part of proving you are talking about the right transaction.
Undrlyg/TxInf/OrgnlIntrBkSttlmDtOriginal interbank settlement date — conditionalWhen the original payment settled — it also tells the receiving agent whether it is being asked to stop a payment or claw one back.
Undrlyg/TxInf/CxlRsnInf/OrgtrCancellation originator — optionalWho wants the payment cancelled — the customer or the bank itself.
Schemes care about this distinction: which reason codes are available can depend on whether the customer or the PSP originated the request.
Undrlyg/TxInf/CxlRsnInf/Rsn/CdCancellation reason code — conditionalWhy the cancellation is requested, coded from the ISO external cancellation reason set — for example DUPL (duplicate payment), TECH (technical problem), FRAD (fraudulent origin), CUST (requested by the debtor), or AM09 (wrong amount).
The reason changes the handling: a fraud-coded recall triggers a different urgency, and in some schemes a different consent and indemnity path, than a duplicate. The rulebook in force defines which codes are available to whom.
⚠ Coding a customer's ordinary mistake as FRAD to speed things up mislabels the case, can freeze the wrong things, and erodes trust with the counterpart bank.