I am looking for ways to be more efficient with marking the cases "Complete" when a SAR or CTR is not reportable.

When your Investigators finish their case and make an informed decision after review and mark "No" for filing, do you have them also mark the case as "Complete" under the "Issue" section? Currently, our Investigators do not have access to "Issue" and conduct their reviews under "Review". Our procedures prohibit the same person to prepare a CTR or SAR and mark it "Complete" for filing purposes. The supervisors in both CTR and SAR individually mark each Non-Filed case "Complete" which is very time consuming when faced with the volume of cases we have each month. Does anyone leave the "Reviewed" status on the "No" decisioned SAR and CTR cases and consider the case closed with the "Reviewed" status on the case?

We also perform a quarterly QA Analysis through our Quarterly Self-Testing Program whereby a BSA Manager tests the accuracy of the "No" filing decisions the Investigators made in the batches by pulling a percentage of the non-filed cases.

If I outline in our procedures exactly how we determine a case has been reviewed and closed and how that is desigated as such in Patriot Officer, will that pass muster with Regulators and Examiners?

If anyone has any insight and thoughts on their own process, please reply.

I've seen banks using Patriot Officer allow their analysts to mark cases as 'complete' but to avoid giving any single analyst too much control, they ensure that the same analyst doesn't work the same customer each month. They rotate cases so that if a customer is marked as "complete - no file" by one analyst, and the next month same result by different analyst, there is some level of independant analysis and a fresh set of eyes. Additionally spot reviews by management ensures that cases marked as "complete - no file" are reviewed to ensure analysts are making sound decisions.