This morning I received a phone call from a Postal Inspector that immediately began requesting information on an account (I am greatly summarizing this). He "only wanted to know....." and we would "hate to have to send a supeona".

I gave the guy my fax number and told him I wanted to see something from him in the form of documentation. I have since pulled out my good ol' Right to Financial Privacy regs and reread them.

I know that postal inspectors are not exempt from any of the requirements of the regulation, but why do they do this? I'm not even sure what a postal inspector does. I am awaiting whatever he is going to fax me, then call him and explain that he's going to have to obtain a supeona anyway. ???? Any thoughts on these?

It's the art of the bluff. Some people are adept and successful, and some are not. Good catch on your part though. I'm not sure some employees here wouldn't have just given out the info. There are disadvantages to small towns, as well as benefits!

It seems they'll try anything to get the info without jumping through the hoops! I usually tell callers like that that we really want to help them with their investigation - but unless we have the proper documentation (subpoena) they can't use the information, and we both get in trouble.

Sometimes I even do a cursory check and tell them if it's worth their time to get a subpoena.

Absent a judicial subpoena, a search warrant, or an administrative summons signed and issued from the court, you do not release anything. Particularly in the post-GLBAct and post-CIP environment, the federal agencies all know this and a legitimate requestor will not intimidate nor jeopardize the reputational risk of your institution nor their agency. In a legitimate request related to a legitimate investigation, a subpoena can and does become readily and easily obtained. Without a subpoena, how can you be sure you didn't just provide someone information about an estranged spouse? Pretext calling is pretext calling, regardless of the caller. I'd await the official authorization next time.

Another trick that attorneys will do from time to time is submit a written cover-letter request to your bank, along with a copy of the administrative summons that they are submitting to the court. The courts almost always deny ordering the release of any information (such as in dovorces), but by that time the unknowing banker has already released information, thinking the unsigned summons was issued by the court.

For what it's worth, Postal Inspectors have access to SARs. That's no excuse for the blind phone call, but if they have a SAR in hand, they are entitled to the supporting documentation without a subpoena.

There has been no SAR filed. But thats good information.

Quote:

---

I'm not even sure what a postal inspector does.

---

Postal Inspectors investigate a variety of crimes. Most of them work simple mail fraud and mail theft cases, but they also work credit card fraud, money laundering, check fraud, etc., independently and as part of task forces. If the perpetrator used the US mails in any way, shape or form in the commission of the crime, the US Postal Inspection Service is probably involved in the investigation. Actually, the majority of them are very good at what they do.

By the way, you do not have to file a SAR with the intent of involving the US Postal Inspection Service. They look at the database like the other law enforcement agencies, and if they see some information on a case they are working, they may take the SAR and request the supporting documentation for their case.

The Postal Inspector in our city hosts a monthly Financial Crimes meeting and bankers, FBI, Secret Service (attended one time), Treasury Department, local police, sheriff's, etc. attend and go over problem individuals, identity theft and other cases we have been faced with.

MackenzieS's handling of this was correct. While nobody is casting aspersions at postal inspectors, the bottom line is that the request does not meet the RTFPA exceptions test. Written certification is required to comply with the applicable provisions of RTFPA.

MackenzieS stated there was no customer authorization involved, nor was the request related to activities excepted under the Tax Reform Act.

An inquiry from a federal law enforcement agency to gain customer financial information must have certification, in writing, and the bank must have a formalized process to record any bank disclosure of customer financial information made in response to authorized government requests.

The postal inspector in this case did not cite an investigation related to a SAR. Moreover, given that there are thousands of SARs that are submitted to Detroit that get virtually no attention -- and given that in most jurisdictions, the prosecutorial threshold for accepting actual criminal referrals for prosecution in cases where there are known suspect(s) is now in excess of $100,000 -- I cannot imagine that a postal inspector would have the time to surf submitted SARs, would call a bank out of the blue without explaining the purpose and first seek proper authorization. Nevertheless, MackenzieS handled this the was that it should be handled.

The only calls I've ever received for customer financial information were from authorized federal agents asking where in the bank and to whom the subpoena should be directed. One deputy U.S. marshal inquired as to who in the bank should receive a court subpoena, but nobody's ever tried to obtain information "under the table".

Quote:

---

Moreover, given that there are thousands of SARs that are submitted to Detroit that get virtually no attention -- and given that in most jurisdictions, the prosecutorial threshold for accepting actual criminal referrals for prosecution in cases where there are known suspect(s) is now in excess of $100,000 -- I cannot imagine that a postal inspector would have the time to surf submitted SARs,

---

Everybody does not live in a major metropolitan area, so believe it or not, postal inspectors and other federal agents do surf the FinCEN for any possible links between any case they are working and any newly filed SARS. That's how the postal inspectors and other federal law enforcement agents build big cases out of seemingly insignificant SARs.