I would like some help with this please.

A customer uses money that was allegedly stolen (illegally obtained) to use to start a legitimate business.

The allegedly illegally received money and the subsequent business were never used "as part of a plan to violate or evade any law or regulation or to avoid any transaction recordkeeping and reporting requirement under federal law."

Nor was the money used for anything else under BSA which would have/could have been violations and the transactions of the account holder and the account itself were not out of the ordinary from the type of activity the customer could have been expected to enage in...

However, after the fact it has been discovered that the intent of the series of transactions was to simply put distnace between the customer and their theft and confuse the location of the funds through tranfers and asset purchases and payoffs. Or in other words, the purpose of the allegedly stolen funds was to use it.

Again not in any violation of federal law other than alleged theft, more like gaming the system.

Is this an OTHER? or is this a Money Laundering filing? Or is this even a SAR worthy event at all?

Sure sounds like Placement and Integration to me. If I found this in my organization, I would file the SAR for money laundering.

I agree with Tater.

OP Here-

I can see it as well, however the part that gets me is that none of this was ever cash. It was never deceptive, it was nefarious and potentially ill gotten but never did money disappear from the system or the radar. So while I would totally agree that it is ML, I just want to guard against going to far with that assumption because the alleged crime was theft and revolves around whether the customer was entitled to the money that they allegedly stole... although looking at it from a viewpoint of a crime the transactions look suspicious, but without the allegations they look ordinary.

Still kind of confused here... I thank you for the responses already and any new ones which may come.

OP Here-

I can see it as well, however the part that gets me is that none of this was ever cash. It was never deceptive, it was nefarious and potentially ill gotten but never did money disappear from the system or the radar. So while I would totally agree that it is ML, I just want to guard against going to far with that assumption because the alleged crime was theft and revolves around whether the customer was entitled to the money that they allegedly stole... although looking at it from a viewpoint of a crime the transactions look suspicious, but without the allegations they look ordinary.

Still kind of confused here... I thank you for the responses already and any new ones which may come.

Don't confuse SAR filing with a conviction, or even an official accusation. The SAR filing is just a "heads-up" to law enforcement that something is off and should probably be looked at. Money laundering doesn't have to be cash, nor does cash have to be involved for a SAR filing.

In this case, if you feel the activity is suspicious, file the SAR. The bank has a safe harbor for any "accusations" made in the SAR. It is up to law enforcement to look at the activity and determine if they want to file charges. Your job is simply to point out that something is not right.

This is incredibly vague. The customer has money (it makes no difference whether or not it was cash). It has been alleged that the money was stolen.

Alleged by who?

OP Here:

Alleged by the people it was allegedly stolen from and confirmed by a grand journey in the form of an indictment.

So, as an example, a year ago lets say a customer deposits a check at the bank for $50,000 from his neighbor (not a strange transaction as he and his neighbor do business together from time to time and have made large deposits before to personal accounts from the other person). The customer then puts the money into his business account using a personal check. He then writes a check on the business account to acquire a new truck or something (again not out of the ordinary) because he is a business owner and small business owners pocket finance stuff all the time (for tax purposes)... and the customer has made similar transactions before. So the transactions on their own are not suspicious or out of the ordinary for the customer. All is above board, no SAR no reporting, no nothing.

Now a year later it is brought to the bank's attention that the $50,000 was allegedly stolen by the customer (the check wasn't stolen, just the funds) and the indictment occurs... A year later mind you... in light of the recent development, you can see that viewed a certain way these transactions quite possibly are suspicious in line with the money being stolen. So while they lack deceptive "layering" there is obvious placement and integration, that is if you believe the money to be stolen in the first place.

Are you obligated to file a SAR after the fact a year later in light of the new knowledge of the indictment?

Ultimately I don't want to be told by a regulator that I should have filed a SAR once the bank had "knowledge" that the funds were "possibly" stolen (although they might not be, because there is a determination of whether the funds were actually stolen or really just due to the your customer, which has yet to be made). I also don't want to just file a SAR defensively.

Thanks for the helpful dialogue already. Looking for more.

I would say that until the court actually finds this person guilty of stealing the funds you should not jump the gun here and file the SAR. Like you said it's alleged that he stole the funds, yes there is an indictment but that does not mean that the person is guilty at this point. If it were me I would wait unitl the court renders their decision and then proceed at that point.

I'm going to agree with Dani on this one. You are doing your due dilligence by filing a SAR to report the information you have.

1. Layering doesn't have to be deceptive in order to be layering. What do you mean, "deceptive?" Invisible? Hidden? Involving fraud or a lie? I'd say buying a truck with illicit proceeds of a crime, then selling that truck, then buying a jet pack then selling it, then putting the funds into a CD may be all "above board" but it can still be layering and money laundering.

2. Unfortunately for filing institutions and their customers, you don't have to "believe" the money to be stolen. The SAR is triggered if you suspect, or what's worse, if you "should suspect" that the money is illicit or derived from illicit activity or related to a crime. In other words, it's not important what you suspect; it's more important what your regulator will think you "should suspect."

3. Where there's smoke there's fire.

4. There is no penalty against the filer for filing a SAR. There may be one for failing to file it.

5. Anytime you have to spend this much time and effort debating it and agonizing over it and pondering it and losing sleep over it, my bet would be that it is SAR-worthy activity. If I'm "just not sure," I file it and let law enforcement sort it out.

I agree, I believe that the OP is overthinking this situation a bit and should file the SAR.