The Central Bank of Jordan mainly regulates receiving-end charges by requiring them to be fixed in advance, written into the customer agreement, announced clearly and kept separate from the transfer amount. Bylaw No. 111 of 2017 gives the Central Bank the right to issue orders setting minimum and maximum limits on average commissions, which is a reserved power rather than a standing ceiling. A general ceiling exists only on the banking side, under Instructions No. 56/2012.
Capping a charge and requiring it to be disclosed are two different regulatory acts, and Jordan uses mostly the second. The Central Bank of Jordan requires a provider to fix its commissions in advance, write them into the customer agreement, announce them and keep them separate from the transferred amount. A ceiling exists in only one place. The practical effect is that the charge is knowable before the money moves, and a dispute about it has a named route.
Key Takeaways
- Bylaw No. 111 of 2017 gives the Central Bank of Jordan the right to issue orders setting minimum and maximum limits on average commissions, which is a reserved power rather than a published ceiling.
- The same bylaw requires all commissions to be explicitly stipulated in the customer agreement, including the conditions for increasing them.
- It also requires the provider to segregate the whole payment amount from commissions, so a charge cannot be folded invisibly into one net figure.
- The Central Bank states that Instructions No. 56/2012 set maximum limits for commissions and fees on accounts and banking services for retail customers.
- The October 2020 cross-border remittance framework sets no ceiling at all; it sets determination, announcement and disclosure duties.
Which instruments govern a charge on money sent to Jordan from Australia
Three instruments do, and each of them does a different job.
The first is the Bylaw of Electronic Payment and Money Transfer, Bylaw No. (111) for 2017, enacted under Articles 21 and 22 of the Electronic Transactions Law No. (15) for 2015 and published in the Official Gazette. It is the general instrument for anyone licensed to move money electronically in Jordan, and its Article 34 is the commissions article.
The second is the regulatory framework for providing cross-border remittance service electronically, issued by the Central Bank of Jordan in October 2020. It applies to licensed exchange companies and to electronic payment and money transfer companies working together to move inward and outward transfers through electronic wallets and the exchange companies' own electronic channels.
The third is the set of consumer instructions the Central Bank applies to banks. On its own financial consumer pages the Central Bank states that the Instructions for Dealing with Customers Fairly and Transparently No. (56/2012), dated 31 October 2012, set out the maximum limits for commissions and fees on accounts and banking services for retail customers.
Underneath all three sits the licensing question. Exchange companies in Jordan are licensed by the Central Bank under the Money Exchange Business Law, so the counterparty at the Jordanian end is a supervised entity rather than an informal one.
Where a charge is capped, and where it is only required to be disclosed
This is the distinction that decides the whole question, and the instruments fall on both sides of it. Article 34(a) of the bylaw gives the Central Bank the right to issue orders. Those orders identify the minimum and maximum limit of average commissions a company receives for the activities and services it provides to customers. That is a power, not a limit. A ceiling exists on a service where the Central Bank has issued an order for it. The bylaw itself publishes no figure.
Article 34(b) and (c) are unconditional. They are disclosure duties rather than price limits. All commissions received by payment service providers must be explicitly stipulated in the agreements concluded with customers. That includes the conditions to be fulfilled if the provider increases them. The provider must also segregate the whole payment amount from commissions, so a charge is handled as its own value rather than absorbed into one net figure. That last duty is what makes the first one enforceable.
| Instrument | What it does about charges | Capped or disclosed | Who it binds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bylaw No. 111 of 2017, Article 34(a) | Right to issue orders setting minimum and maximum limits of average commissions | Capped, where an order exists | Licensed electronic payment and money transfer companies |
| Bylaw No. 111 of 2017, Article 34(b) and (c) | Commissions stipulated in the customer agreement; amount segregated from commissions | Disclosed | The same companies |
| Cross-border remittance framework, October 2020 | Commissions determined, agreed and announced clearly to customers | Disclosed | Licensed exchange companies and payment service providers |
| Instructions No. 56/2012 | Maximum limits for commissions and fees on accounts and banking services | Capped | Banks, for retail customers |
What the cross-border framework requires a provider to fix and announce
Its basic requirements are written as things a company must do before it may offer the service at all. A company must determine all commissions to be collected in exchange for the service, agree them with the related parties, and announce them to customers clearly and explicitly when or during use of the service. The same clause extends that to commissions on exchanging the Jordanian dinar against foreign currencies and back, and requires adherence to the foreign exchange rates announcement issued by the Central Bank. That matters because a conversion cost carried inside the rate is an exchange-rate margin rather than a stated commission, and the clause pulls it into the same announcement duty. The Australian dollar to Jordanian dinar page carries the live reference figures.
The framework also requires the service to carry clear characteristics and conditions that let customers understand its nature and cost, transparent disclosure of any modification to the commissions, and mechanisms letting customers review the terms and conditions. None of that names a maximum. Its approach to price is that the price must be settled in advance, published, and not changed silently.
Who the charge falls on, where the framework says
The framework is explicit on the outward leg and quieter on the inward one, and the difference shows in the accounting entries it prescribes. On an outward transfer sent from Jordan, the payment service provider executes a debit entry for the value of the transfer request and the commissions associated with it on the sender's electronic wallet account. If that transfer is later rejected, both the transfer value and the related commissions are reversed back to the sender.
On an inward transfer arriving in Jordan, the entry pair the framework describes moves the value of the transfer request between the exchange company's wallet account and the beneficiary's. The commission does not appear in that entry. It appears instead as a required field on the instruction that reaches the Jordanian institution: the amount of the transfer and the commission value, agreed according to the type of transfer, the intermediary company and the source of the transfer, and calculated after any exchange rate commissions.
One further allocation must be settled in advance. Where a transfer is issued and then returned, the company must have a policy for determining the exchange rate used to recalculate its value and for determining the party that will bear the difference produced by that recalculation. The framework does not name that party; it requires the provider to have named it.
What a beneficiary is entitled to be told before collecting
A beneficiary is told less than a sender is, and the asymmetry is written into the instrument rather than left to practice.
The commission value travels with the instruction. It is therefore a declared number at the Jordanian end rather than one produced afterwards. Article 34(b) of the bylaw, which requires commissions to be stipulated in the customer agreement, and the framework's duty to announce them clearly, are both written for customers generally, and a person receiving money is a customer.
What a beneficiary does not get is the choice. Where a payment service provider deals with more than one licensed exchange company, the framework requires it to display the list so the customer can choose. It must also leave open the choice of receiving party abroad and of payment system, expressly so the options can be compared by cost and speed of execution. That clause sits in the outward procedures. A beneficiary in Jordan has no equivalent selection step, because the route was chosen where the transfer began.
Where a disputed charge goes
It goes to the provider first, and to the Central Bank after that.
The Central Bank's published consumer route starts with a complaint to the financial or banking service provider that took the charge. If there is no response within the period the instructions allow, up to 30 days, or the response does not satisfy the customer, the complaint may then go to the Central Bank's Financial Consumer Protection Department. That is the reason the disclosure duties matter in practice: a charge that had to be fixed, agreed and announced in advance is a charge a beneficiary can hold a named provider to.
Where to look next
Understanding transfer fees covers the separate question of how a transfer's cost is carried in the rate rather than in a stated fee. Sending money to the Philippines from Australia works through what drives cost on a high-volume corridor. For the live reference figures on this one, see the Australian dollar to Jordanian dinar page.
Sources
- Central Bank of Jordan, Bylaw of Electronic Payment and Money Transfer, Bylaw No. (111) for 2017 - its enactment under the Electronic Transactions Law No. (15) for 2015, and Article 34: the right to issue orders identifying minimum and maximum limits of average commissions, the requirement that commissions be stipulated in customer agreements with the conditions for increases, and the duty to segregate the payment amount from commissions
- Central Bank of Jordan, the regulatory framework for providing cross-border remittance service electronically, October 2020 - the duty to determine and announce all commissions including those on dinar conversion, adherence to the Central Bank's announced exchange rates, the outward debit of transfer value plus commissions and its reversal on rejection, the inward entry of transfer value with the commission carried as a declared field, and the comparison mechanism in the outward procedures
- Central Bank of Jordan, Frequently Asked Financial Consumer Questions - the statement that Instructions No. (56/2012) of 31 October 2012 set out the maximum limits for commissions and fees on accounts and banking services for retail customers, and the complaints route
- Central Bank of Jordan, Instructions for Licensing Limited Liability Money Exchange Companies - the licensing of money exchange companies under the Money Exchange Business Law
General information about sending money to Jordan and about the instruments governing charges there. Not financial advice, and not a recommendation of any product or institution. Reviewed by the Tradergy editorial team, September 2026.
Common questions
Does the Central Bank of Jordan cap what a provider can charge on an incoming transfer?
Not by a standing rule in the cross-border instrument. Bylaw No. 111 of 2017 gives the Central Bank the right to issue orders identifying the minimum and maximum limit of average commissions a company receives for the activities and services it provides to customers, so a ceiling exists where such an order has been issued. The bylaw itself sets none, and the October 2020 cross-border remittance framework sets none either.
Which charges are actually capped in Jordan?
The general ceiling sits on the banking side. The Central Bank states that the Instructions for Dealing with Customers Fairly and Transparently No. 56/2012, dated 31 October 2012, set out the maximum limits for commissions and fees on accounts and banking services for retail customers. That reaches a transfer where the money lands in a Jordanian bank account, rather than governing the exchange-company route.
What must a provider in Jordan disclose about its commissions?
The cross-border framework requires a company to determine all commissions to be collected for the service, agree them with the related parties, and announce them to customers clearly and explicitly when or during use of the service, including commissions on converting the Jordanian dinar against foreign currencies. Bylaw No. 111 of 2017 requires all commissions to be explicitly stipulated in the customer agreement, including the conditions that must be met if the provider increases them.
Can a commission be taken quietly out of the transferred amount?
The bylaw addresses that directly. It requires the payment service provider to segregate the whole payment amount from commissions, so the two are handled as separate values rather than one net figure.
Who bears the charge on an inbound transfer under the framework?
The framework describes the inbound accounting entries as moving the value of the transfer request, while carrying the commission value as a declared field on the instruction alongside the amount, the type of transfer, the intermediary and the source. On the outbound leg it is explicit that the sender is debited for the transfer value and the associated commissions together.