As a BSA requirement, SAR's have to be reported to the Board of Directors. Can the suspect name be disclosed to them, or is that a no no?

I believe you can disclose that but you may want to remind them that it is confidential information. I used to provide the subject's name but now, in my written summary to the Board, I just describe the circumstances that led to the filing. I made that change to aid in keeping the confidentiality of the information. I figure the less times the subject of the SAR's name is in print, the less likely it will be unlawfully disclosed.

My bank does the same as Brad describes for those same reasons. The less times the suspects' names are disseminated, the easier it is to maintain confidentiality. Plus, if you normally disclose the names to the Board and you have to remove one because of insider abuse, it may cause suspicion and rumors among the board members.

We also do not disclose names, only scenarios.

We also do not disclose names (unless something major that was going to be public came up, of course.) The OCC questioned us about that. We explained our reasoning and they agreed it makes sense to keep the names confidential until necessary to disclose.

We don't report names or scenerios. Reason being that it could be filed on a board member and he/she would recognize the scenerio. Our report states the number of SARs that were filed during the previous month only. We also had an examiner question it and when we explained, they felt it was a good practice.

Lot's of good prior discussions. Here's one with differing opinions.

If you are a FDIC regulated bank - you might want to look at what the FDIC says about this issue in their examination policy manual. The bottom line appears to be the regulators fully expect that the Board of Directors be fully briefed on the filing of SARs and that this secrecy with disclosing too much information with the Board of Directors is most likely a little misguided.


Notification to Board of Directors of SAR Filings

Section 353.3 of the FDIC’s Rules and Regulations requires the financial institution’s board of directors, or designated committee, be promptly notified of any SAR filed. However, if the subject of the SAR is a senior officer or member of the board of directors of the financial institution, notification to the board of directors should be handled differently in order to avoid violating Federal laws that prohibit notifying a suspect or person involved in the suspicious transaction that forms the basis of the SAR. In these situations, it is recommended that appropriate senior personnel not involved in the suspicious activity be advised of the SAR filing and this process be documented.

In cases of financial institutions that file a large volume of SARs, it is not necessary that the board of directors, or designated committee thereof, review each and every SAR document. It is acceptable for the BSA officer to prepare an internal tracking report that briefly discusses all of the SARs filed for a particular month. As long as this tracking report is meaningful in content, then the institution will still be meeting the requirements of Part 353 of the FDIC’s Rules and Regulations. Such a report would identify the following information for each SAR filed:

• Customer’s name and any additional suspects;
• Social Security Number or TIN;
• Account number (if a customer);
• The date range of suspicious activity;
• The dollar amount of suspicious activity;
• Very brief synopsis of reported activity (for example, “cash deposit structuring” or “wire transfer activity inconsistent with business/occupation”); and
• Indication of whether it is a first-time filing or repeat filing on the customer/suspects.

Such a tracking report promotes efficiency in review of multiple SAR filings. Nevertheless, there are still some SARs that the board of directors, or designated committee thereof, should review individually. Such “significant SARs” would include those that involve insiders (notwithstanding the guidance above regarding the handling of SARs involving board members and senior management), suspicious activity above an internally determined dollar threshold, those involving significant check kiting activity, etc. Financial institutions are encouraged to develop their own parameters for defining “significant SARs” necessitating full reviews; such guidance needs to be written and formalized within board approved BSA policies and procedures.