We have lots of repeat structurers and I have always referenced the prior SAR filings in my narratives even when there was a break in the activity. I have recently been advised by our SAR Committee to no longer do this if there has been a break and we are considering a new filing. I recently had to delete the reference from a narrative and it just didn't feel right to me. Im curious how others handle this.

If I were a law enforcement type, I'd appreciate references to prior filings that might paint the full picture. If you have a DCN or similar filing number, it could really be a help.

I agree, I would always recommend referencing any previous filings whether the activity is continuous or not.

We also make reference to previous SAR filings even though the activity may not be continuous. As stated above I think law enforcement appreciate that piece of information.

That is what I have always done. Do you know if there would be criticism for NOT doing so? I would naturally have to prove it was "required" to sway the committee in the other direction...
Sigh!

"I have recently been advised by our SAR Committee to no longer do this if there has been a break and we are considering a new filing."

Did they tell you why? I think leaving out that information would be a big mistake. I agree with the others, except that I think examiners will expect to see those references where there is suspicious activity that ceases and then resumes.

So, who is the committee trying to protect. The narrative of a SAR is suppose to tell a complete story for law enforcement. If previous SARs have been filed on this customer, do they think that law enforcement would not be interested or do they expect law enforcement to make sure that they do a search to find out. Specific guidance - maybe buried someone in one the SAR review publications regarding tips on completion, but I think that it is just a given. Criticized on it, maybe for not telling the complete story.

This is from SAR Review #8:
For situations where the nature of the activity reported changes after the original Suspicious Activity Report filing, the suspicious activity is no longer considered “ongoing”--e.g., the customer in the above example begins sending or receiving funds in addition to making structured withdrawals. In such cases, the institution should consider the changed activity a new transaction and should file a new Suspicious Activity Report within the normal filing deadlines, rather than updating a previous filing after 90 days. Because the
activity is related, however, it may be appropriate to cross-reference any previously filed Suspicious Activity Reports in the narrative.

Not exactly the same situation, but very similar.

This really isn't something on which reasonable people could differ...the information should be included.

There was some discussion that since we were considering the activity "New" and not a continuation(no activity in 90+ days) then the arguement is that the prior activity is not related to what we are reporting now and should not be included. I might mention that there are at least two legal professionals on the committee.

If you you don't think your pair has already been trumped here, call the Helpline and get their opinion. The issue is whether the law enforcement officer reading this SAR would like at least an oblique reference to the prior SARs even though they did not regard the same fact situation.

Thank you all. I think I will call the Helpline so I can provide that to the committee.

And its finally Friday, I'm off for a week of motorcycle riding down Galveston & Corpus Christi way for some much needed wind therapy... gotta decompress before exam time which is VERY soon.

I'll waive at you on the Seawall

I'll be watching for you!!!!!

I'm almost out of here........................

I always mention prior SAR's in the narrative and I list them with my list of supporting documents at the end of the narrative.

We assume law enforcement will do a search and find it but why not give them a hand - most of the LEO's I know are over-worked and under paid so why not do what I can to help? We both want the bad guys out of business, don't we?