Situation: The fraud legal dept is working on a Fraud Case where a Business Acct customer had checks counterfeited and the customers signature forged for a loss over $5,000.00 where the suspect is unknown.

Police reports have been filed and there is an active investigation.

Question: Should a SAR be filed even though the Police have already been contacted and an investigation is underway?

The Police being contacted and an investigation underway is irrelevant to a SAR filing beside indicating as such in the SAR.

I thought on a suspicious activity that the suspect is unknown you are not required to file a SAR unless the amount is $25,000 or more.

Also remember that the SAR filing threshold is not based on the loss to the bank or its customer, but the total amount of attempted transactions. If there are additional checks that were identified as forgeries and returned, those amounts should still be included. If the total amount of fraudulent checks presented for payment exceeds $25,000, a SAR would be required.

I know that filing a police report for check fraud doesn't alleviate our need to file a SAR if we identify the suspect and the amount aggregates over $5,000 or if we don't know the suspect and it is over $25,000.

Since it's not specifially mentioned in the exceptions in 1020.320, we're required to file, correct? This is the first instance we've had that we have met the filing requirement and I may get some pushback on filing. I want to have my documentation in order.

https://www.bankersonline.com/regulations/142713

(c) Exceptions. A bank is not required to file a SAR for a robbery or burglary committed or attempted that is reported to appropriate law enforcement authorities, or for lost, missing, counterfeit, or stolen securities with respect to which the bank files a report pursuant to the reporting requirements of 17 CFR 240.17f–1.

You file.

If anyone in your bank thinks check fraud is the same as robbery or burglary tell him or her that Wal Mart is hiring.

I'm trying to show someone who doesn't know the requirement why we have to file in instances where they may not have filed in the past. I just wanted someone else to confirm I'm correct before I go about my presentation. Thank you for clarifying Ken, and I laughed pretty hard at your second sentence.

I'm trying to show someone who doesn't know the requirement

the bigger question is why does someone who doesn't know the requirement is even asking for an explanation...

the bigger question is why does someone who doesn't know the requirement is even asking for an explanation...

their title carries more weight than mine