Does a bank set a standard or precedent when they file a SAR on a customer who conducts a particular activity that may be a common occurrence at banks from time-to-time?
Example: If the customer wrote 2 checks on an account that was closed 6+ months ago that totaled over $5,000 and we determined to file a SAR for check fraud because we suspected it was intentional based on a statement from one of the payees, would we be criticized or expected to conduct the same research and due diligence on all customers that write checks on accounts that have been closed to determine whether at some point the checks eventually aggregate over $5,000 and then attempt to determine weather intentional fraud was involved or if a simple mistake was made?
(This could become an overwhelming and burdensome task)

Based on the following statement from the BSA/AML Guidance it leads me to conclude that examiners should NOT look at one instance and attempt to apply it to all.
However, during an exam, reality sometimes eludes the examiner.
Please opine…

FFIEC BSA/AML Examination Manual (page 75-76)

The decision to file a SAR is an inherently subjective judgment. Examiners should focus on whether the bank has an effective SAR decision-making process, not individual SAR decisions. Examiners may review individual SAR decisions as a means to test the effectiveness of the SAR monitoring, reporting, and decision-making process. In those instances where the bank has an established SAR decision-making process, has followed existing policies, procedures, and processes, and has determined not to file a SAR, the bank should not be criticized for the failure to file a SAR unless the failure is significant or accompanied by evidence of bad faith.

The question is more of: why would you not file a SAR on anyone that wrote more than $5,000 of checks on a closed account?