Article re M&T Bank Corp & Hudson City Bank Corp Note that M&T's "problems" were identified as a result of the Fed's consideration of the application.

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2014-07-22/federal-inquiries-delay-bancorpsouth-takeovers

One more recent - BanCorp South in MS.

The American Bankers Daily Briefing has an article today on the lastest stepped up enforcement of BSA. Most notable was a quote from a former OCC examiner who said that some examiners assigned to smaller banks can advance their careers by finding "issues", including technical ones at small banks to impress their bosses.

Big banks too...one of the major enforcement actions out west began when the bank didn't do things the way the lead examiner thought they should. They didn't do them wrong, just not the way she wanted.

The fact that examiners can be promoted by finding things is wrong on so many levels. The last group of examiners we had were very unreasonable and difficult to deal with. Nearly every bank this team visits is being put under an enforcement action. Their egos are huge!

I attended a BSA conference in CA back in June. The representative from the FDIC advised the attendees that they should ask to speak to someone at a higher level if they did not agree with an examiner's findings. We all need to do this!

This representative even stated that some examiners are "stupid." Interesting, huh?

We need to speak up for ourselves and our banks. This is the only way that we can demonstrate that the examiners in the field are unreasonable and sometimes outright wrong in their interpretation of the regulations.

Ok. Now, how do I get off this soap box?

We need to speak up for ourselves and our banks. This is the only way that we can demonstrate that the examiners in the field are unreasonable and sometimes outright wrong in their interpretation of the regulations.

LET THE CHURCH SAY AMEN!!!

Ok. Now, how do I get off this soap box?

STAY ON THIS SOAP BOX UNTIL WE WASHED IT AWAY!!!

[i][b]The article also quoted Jennier Shasky Calvery stating - "The last thing we want is for good people doing tough jobs to leave the industry".

TOO LATE---IT'S ALREADY HAPPENING!!!

Unreasonable is getting out of hand too. One bank in the south has been told by the FDIC that they should consider ALL official checks outstanding over 6 months old as suspicious. As a result they are having to go through the THOUSANDS of outstanding checks, older than 6 months old and file a SAR - whether or not the source of the funds is known and legitimate. Would somebody explain that one to me ???

During my recent exam, they issued MRAs for things taken care of while they were IN HOUSE and for things that would normally be considered a "suggested improvement". In addition, the draft of the final document is inaccurate in at least four places when talking about our BSA processes. I do not feel the new examiner took the time to really learn about our BSA Department and it's processes and therefore, Washington has been given a warped and inaccurate view of our bank's BSA program.

Very frustrating....

Can you provide a little more information about why they consider the cashier's checks suspicious?

Customers do strange things. I have seen customers use cashier's checks as a means to save money for children's weddings and vacations. They put them in their safe deposit box so they can't get to them. I'm also aware of customers that use them to control their spending. Staff members tell me that customers use them to keep funds from out of control spouses or spouses that gamble. So now we have to drill every customer with an outstanding cashier's check to find out why they haven't negotiated it?

The BSA employee tried, to no avail, to reason with the examiner and get an answer to that question. I asked for a total outstanding here my my FI just to see how many I would have to weed through if told the same thing - we have over 6,000 outstanding!

In addition, people buy multiple monetary instruments - if your MI system does not keep up with ALL conductors, how do you aggregate those who purchased multiple official checks and not with cash?

It's ridiculous - and YES, you are right. We have tons of customers who buy an official check to "hold" as savings - it takes up less room than cash and if payable to yourself not nearly as easily negotiable :-)

Do you know if this bank was required to file a SAR on any particular customer? If so, what were the red flags identified by the examiners?

An outstanding cashier's check should not be considered suspicious without additional facts to support the conclusion.

As for multiple transactions by the same conductor, most AML software programs can aggregate by TIN. Teller modules in core systems should be able to do this as well.

Perhaps we need to change the initials for FDIC, OCC and FRB to KGB? Seriously....

I'm curious as to why Bank Management allowed the CC issue to stay in the report? I've been OCC regulated for the past 4-5 years and I've always argued for the removal of the BS recommendations and as long as Management backs me up, it's something I usually get done. Banks need to push back, respectfully, on BS recommendations which don't actually have value.

Sometimes it depends on the size of the bank and whether or not there are loan quality issues. If there are other S&S issues at a small bank, management can push back all they want and it won't make a bit of difference because at that point, the regulators are gunning at management.

I look at that situation a bit differently than a bank operating in a S & S manner and some examiner is simply trying to make a name for himself. If management mismanages the bank, the regualtors should be looking to get them removed. I know that's an overly simplistic view of it, but in theory, that's managements job.

From what I gather the OCC up here seems to be more reasonable than other parts of the country.

Please read my post above - they are filing SARs on almost ALL customers who have outstanding official cks over 6 months old - doesn't matter source of funds. Ridiculous !!!

The Real Mobo,

What are they indicating as the suspicious activity? What boxes are they checking?

You seem to have a contact. Can you ask?

All I can say is that their BSA Officer was too passive. If the BSA Officer doesn't understand WHY they are filing a SAR they should not be filing it. Putting a person's name in the database is serious. If these are defensive filings, then the bank will be forced to do continuing SARs. Makes absolutely no sense.

not sure which is worse...following regulators suggestions blindly with no basis or cite, or employees who have "always done it that way" response.

both scare me greatly

So does anyone know what is going on with the Bancorpsouth new lawsuit and AML issues?