A SAR was originally filed by my institution on two customers that are licensed marijuana producers and processors. The two customers have a joint checking account, land loan and a debt consolidation loan. The two customers own a marijuana business that does not bank with us. There has been three SAR's filed on these two customers however there is no marijuana related activity flowing through their personal account or loans during any of these periods. The SAR was originally filed just because they owned a marijuana business. Do I need to keep filing a continuing SAR?

Previous thread with general discussion.

You have two choices:

a)file a continuation SAR or
b)write a memorandum to file explaining why you did not (in essence, your bank made a mistake in filing the first one.)

To cut right to the chase: There is no published guidance answers your question. So, you need to talk to the people who could criticize you (presumably citing only divine guidance) whether you choose a) or b). Call the EIC from your last BSA exam.

It sounds like you're questioning whether you should have ever filed this SAR in the first place.

If the activity that prompted you to file the SAR is no longer happening, then a continuing SAR is not necessary. If new information and/or analysis causes you to conclude that the activity is no longer (to include never-has-been) suspicious, then a continuing SAR is not necessary.

In either case, note in your internal file the reason that the SAR is being discontinued.

Editorial Questions:

1. Is anyone else sick of the twisted red tape that banks have to follow now that Marijuana is legal on a state level but illegal on a federal level?
2. Does anyone truly believe that there is any legitimate anti-money laundering or anti-terrorist funding value that occurs by filing "Marijuana limited" SARS?
3. Is anyone else bothered by the fact that valuable resources are being diverted to this purely technical exercise and that those valuable resources could be better utilized detecting and report ACTUAL money laundering, terrorist financing or perhaps human trafficking suspected activities?

I decided to go back an additional year and found that cash and other checks written from the marijuana business were deposited into the above checking account during 2015. The original SAR filing does not include that information unfortunately, I guess that is one of the reason I was hired :), so there was associated activities at one time flowing through the account but now those have all stopped. Based on this additional review information. I feel that now I am obligated to continue filing?

Any opinions on this?

First, I agree with Ken's comments above.

Read the FinCEN info: https://www.fincen.gov/resources/statute...ated-businesses and fully understand the Cole Memo. From 2014 experience after the FinCEN letter came out, I wouldn't take the risk with our BSA program - we got a fortunate heads up from our EIC.

As for the editorial questions? Yes, it's a bloody nuisance (we're in Colorado), but dealing with an MRA is a much bigger nuisance. One irritates me. The other irritates the Board.

I would take Ken's suggestion as stated in the first reply to your question. If it were me, memo to the file and put this issue to rest.

Your obligation to continue filing would be based on whether or not the current activity continues to meet filing criteria. Several answers above speak to this.

What you are describing here is not about continuing activity. You've uncovered earlier activity that wasn't reported (and though I can't tell from your post, possibly not considered for filing?). If after you've completed your analysis, you determine that this activity should be reported, then report it- but not as a continuing SAR. I'd be inclined to amend the original filing if the activity resides in the same time frame. But you could also call the FinCEN help line for guidance on whether or not to treat this as an amended SAR.