Time is of the essence here for your responses to this question. I need responses by mid-morning tomorrow. I have an opportunity to channel some information to a congressman who can make a difference for a hearing coming up on BSA/AML effectiveness and burden. What is your number one thing you'd say could be done to improve the compliance environment regarding BSA/AML and/or enhance the effectiveness?

My first thought is that the $10,000 threshold for currency reporting could easily be raised to $20,000 without significant loss of effectiveness but reducing the CTR workload substantially.

Other thoughts?

Place the burden of Beneficial Ownership on whatever state body (i.e. Sec of State Business Registration) is associated with the registration of a business; rather than require banks to scramble to come up with it after the fact without any sort of a reference tool.

I would agree with PrimeTime. Due to FATF I do not see anything over $10,000 happening (although personally I agree with you).

Have regulators follow FinCen for SAR guidance. (lose the defensive SAR's)

BSA/AML should be risk based as per FFIEC not shotgun as most are seeing.

Also loosen 314b/make it clear to FI's that it's okay to talk under 314b in order to foster more open communication; I find that far too often other banks are scared they're going to say the wrong thing or get in trouble, so instead they clam up when we both are well aware of the fact that something is wrong, and the lack of communication can potentially assist the criminal at the end of the day which is the opposite of the goal.

If the federal government had to pay for each CTR we send them they would probably consider increasing the threshold.

I've also been a proponent of having the states bear the burden of beneficial ownership when the entity is registered. If they won't go for that I am all for raising the CTR limit to 20k.

If I had wanted to go into law enforcement, I would have studied criminal justice when I was in college instead of economics, but as a pragmatist I have to do what the Bank needs me to do. As a Libertarian the whole idea that the government uses banks to report on how we use our cash sickens me - even if I understand the purpose.

That feels better.

I'm content with the CTR threshold. It's 2017 the CPI may have made $10,000 different, but electronic payments have made cash that much more suspicious so I consider it a wash.

I'd like to see rules enforcement limited to what is actually in regulation. I'm also tired of doing SARs just because I'm afraid of being criticized for not doing them in this situation: John Doe brings $30,000 check in today. He's a conspiracy guy and doesn't want "the government" to have "that form" on him so he gets $9,000 cash and deposits $21,000 cash. He comes back tomorrow and gets $9,000, then the day after to get $9,000, and finally the last day to get $3,000. I know the source of funds. It was legitimate, but the customer couldn't be convinced that the government didn't care if he got $30,000 in cash so now I have to do a structuring SAR. He's not a criminal, he's just.....a customer who doesn't think it's the government's business.

I'm with Wild Rampage. Give us a path out of filing defensive structuring SARS when the source of funds is not suspicious and we are not suspicious of the activity.

Ack! I'm too late - but here goes anyways....

ELIMINATE the CTR and REPLACE it with a monthly reporting, similar to how we report to credit bureaus. The report will be made on any deposit account that had either a CUMULATIVE deposit of cash above a predetermined threshold, or a CUMULATIVE withdrawal of cash above a predetermined threshold (or both) with a margin of error +/- $100. The report will include the account number, the accountholder name, address, and TIN. The report feeds directly to FinCEN where the data can be analyzed across the country for concentrations/duplications of name, address, TIN.

Banks no longer have to file CTRs, or even SARS for structuring UNLESS they detect a pattern of accounts designed to circumvent the cumulative trigger. Then AML monitoring can focus on truly suspicious activity..

Princess, that could possibly even be tied at the CIF level instead of account level so that the multiple accounts thing becomes a non-issue!

Late to the party, but totally agree that this beneficial ownership requirement should really be managed by the states. All states should be required to know who the beneficial owners are for every registrant. And the records should be accessible to banks. Some states make the information available - others do not.

Levin tried to pass that role to the states when he was in Congress and it never gained any real traction. While it's appropriate, it's a pipe dream due to the adamant opposition at the state level.

Those were the points we should have collectively been made when the rulemaking was proposed several years ago. Instead, we basically ignored it.

I'm still liking my REPEAL and REPLACE CTRs concept.

After proposing "require the states to do it" legislation in every session of Congress since 2008, FinCEN realized it was a non starter. Their current concept is "require the IRS to do it" by mandating that EIN applicants name their beneficial owners on the application then include up to date information on their annual income tax returns.

That's not exactly what FATF is asking for, but it is a heck of a lot closer than "require the banks to do it."

If you're interested (or have insomnia or something), here's a link to the Congressional subcommittee hearing yesterday where this was discussed:
http://bit.ly/2tnU2Qr