Skip to content
BOL Conferences
Thread Options
#1810964 - 05/03/13 07:26 PM SAR #64
ComplianceGurl, CRCM Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 500
TGIF!!! I have a question that is making me feel really dense. eek For item #64 on a SAR, Branch's role in transaction: Selling Location, Paying Location or Both. Which one would you mark for structuring?
Thank you!!

Return to Top
BSA/AML/CIP/OFAC Forum
#1810974 - 05/03/13 07:37 PM Re: SAR #64 ComplianceGurl, CRCM
John Burnett Offline
10K Club
John Burnett
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
Since the suspect neither bought nor sold anything in the transactions, I'd simply ignore the item.
_________________________
John S. Burnett
BankersOnline.com
Fighting for Compliance since 1976
Bankers' Threads User #8

Return to Top
#1810976 - 05/03/13 07:39 PM Re: SAR #64 ComplianceGurl, CRCM
ComplianceGurl, CRCM Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 500
Ok, that's what I was thinking but apparently trying to read more into the question.
Thank you John!

Return to Top
#1811121 - 05/05/13 09:11 AM Re: SAR #64 ComplianceGurl, CRCM
Elwood P. Dowd Offline
10K Club
Elwood P. Dowd
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 21,939
Next to Harvey
The options were on the MSB SAR where they made some sense. When the forms were combined into the multi-industry SAR no one asked a question about whether the old dialogue worked for the new audience.

Unless an instrument is involved, they make no sense for a bank. As suggested, ignore them in other circumstances.
_________________________
In this world you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant.

Return to Top
#1811254 - 05/06/13 03:32 PM Re: SAR #64 ComplianceGurl, CRCM
ComplianceGurl, CRCM Offline
Platinum Poster
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 500
Since when does anything make sense anymore? ha! Thanks Ken for your input!

Return to Top

Moderator:  Andy_Z