I'm sure this question has more than likely been raised on this forum previously, so if that's the case I'm just looking for someone to point me in the right direction, and if not then I'm looking for some guidance!

Here's the situation:

Non-Customer A comes in and cashes multiple checks drawn on Company B, aggregating over $10,000. The checks are all made payable to "Cash", and Non-Customer A is not a signer on the account (although I don't believe it would make a difference).

CTR filing guidance has stated that if multiple employees cash payroll checks, and no single person is the beneficiary, therefore a CTR is not required. However, in this situation, a single conductor is cashing more than $10,000 and we have knowledge of it as it's done at one time, so guidance says we have to file.

My question is in this situation, who is the beneficiary on the transaction? It was explicitly stated that the purpose of these checks is to pay employees, so as far as we're concerned there won't be a single individual benefitting from the transaction. In addition, we don't know the employees and can't list their information. Is it acceptable to only list the conductor of the transaction, and not list a beneficiary?

To me that seems wrong, however and the only way I believe the transaction should be filed is to list the "Same" as the conductor is also walking out with the $$, and whatever he does with it is at his discretion regardless of what he tells us it's for.

I found a few recent ones...

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbth...rue#Post1661440

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1703648

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=813791

Primetime, every CTR MUST include a beneficiary. Since "it was explicitly stated that the purpose of these checks is to pay employees", your beneficiary is Company B. If you didn't have that information, then Non-customer A would be the beneficiary (conducted on own behalf). You may decide to call Company B just to verify cash really was for payroll purposes before completing the CTR. If you get a different response from the company, you'll also want to consider a possible SAR filing.

I figured I would share as my situation was different from the threads listed above. In those scenarios the employees were signing the checks over to a single conductor cashing the checks, however in my situation, there was only 1 check made payable to cash.

As a result of some mixed information I was getting, I went ahead and called FinCEN on this one for some guidance. The representative stated that the individual that physically has the cash leaving the building would be the one that the CTR is filed on, due to the fact that although the business is paying its employees, it does not actually benefit from the transaction. It would be the employees that are the beneficiaries, and since we don't have any information on them, we have to file on the individual that is actually leaving with cash in hand, which is the conductor. And not to worry, I made sure to document the whole conversation to ensure that I don't have any problems during my next exam about this!

That is really poor "from the hip" advice from FinCEN, so you are wise to have documented it. There is no reason to say the conductor of the transaction was doing it on his own behalf if the purpose of cashing the checks is to pay other employees of the business. Since it is the business's responsibility to pay its employees, and the transaction is being conducted to facilitate the business's payment of those employees, the transaction, IMHO, should be recorded as being done on behalf of the business.

But I don't work for FinCEN. I just hope an examiner doesn't fall down laughing when he or she reads the FinCEN employee's advice.

Good job on documenting the conversation. Rely on what you were told and go on to what's next.

Regardless, critique the logic you were offered. The business does benefit from the transaction. The business was the ultimate recipient of the cash and it has to pay its employees the same way it has to pay its utility bills. The employee does not benefit from the transaction, period.

The checks are all made payable to "Cash".

Those checks are bearer instruments. Regardless of what the non-customer might tell you while they are standing in front of you, it is their money. If a business want to pay their employees in cash, they should make other arrangements, like a withdrawal from their account delivered by armored car. I would really question the legitimacy of this whole deal.

I agree that it does sound like something may be up (which we're absolutely taking a second, third, and fourth look at), however without getting overly specific, these transactions are coming up as the result of the recent weather in the New England area. The withdrawals are being made to pay the plow employees who are working on a day-to-day basis as needed. In addition, without having access to tax returns and employer filing information it would be far more difficult to say that these employees are off the books, as much as it certainly appears to be that way.

Strangely enough there was the same exact situation going on with ANOTHER business that we also questioned and as it turned out there was far more to the story once we started digging and 12-14 pages later we had ourselves a nice little filing.