When completing a CTR, I know FinCEN and the regulators do not like "unemployed" entered as the occupation when there are no further descriptive words. But we have a situation in which a customer in his thirties has literally never held a job or profession. He lives off the interest/income from a huge family trust. Normally there is very little cash activity, but he recently withdrew >$10k to purchase a classic car. Any suggestions for an occupation in this case? Would we be better off just leaving the field blank? Or would it be sufficient to use "unemployed" and document the reasoning on our paperwork?

I would just put "Trust Fund Baby" in the occupation field.

Rather than "unemployed" you might consider "never employed."

That's probably better than "trust baby" or "coupon clipper."

I don't know. I think telling them that he lives off the trust gives LE information on where the funds came from. Not that one CTR would trigger an investigation, but if it did, they would already have the info instead of having to subpoena the bank to find it out.

Actually, I like Dani's suggestion better (upon further reflection). It has that certain "je ne sais quoi" about it, too, as in "Him? Oh, he's one of those trust fund babies."

My other sarcastic choice might have been "idle rich" with a little rhyme after it.

Do I sound a bit envious?

On the 1890 census one of my ancestor's occupation was listed as "loafer." While the response here might not be memorialized for eternity, I'm thinking "never employed" would be preferable.

Ken - You sure they didn't actually work in the New England shoe factories??

Or a bread bakery?

Thanks to everyone for the feedback. We had a good time too, thinking up creative occupations. I believe we had trust fund baby, lucky sob, even Jack of no trades. I think we'll use "never employed" and see if we can squeeze trust income or something in there too. Thanks!

how about "retired"

Examiners and FinCEN will say they want to see "Retired XXXX," where XXXX is the individual's former work.

As Ken has frequently suggested, law enforcement ought to be more concerned about why a retiree of any ilk is making cash transactions of over $10,000, and less concerned about what the individual used to do for a living.