Customer is SAR'ed. We schedule a 90 day review. In the mean time, at such a small bank, I am seeing transactions every few days that are structured because I see a daily spreadsheet of transactions over 5k for CTR filing purposes. My question is this:
at what point would you recommend amending the SAR and including the new information? It seems to be ongoing. Should I wait the 90 days and complete my review, include everything filing a continuation SAR, and follow normal exit procedure for my bank or do I have an obligation to amend my SAR each time I notice a structured transaction on a customer I've already filed a SAR.

Essentially the question is wait and file or don't wait and amend each time. I'm a one man show, if I start amending every time I see a questionable follow up transaction that should go into the SAR, I will spend all of my time amending SARs, just curious how everyone handles this situation.

If you (or management) closes the account you will not have to send amending or 90 day review SAR's.

I am aware of that. However, per our policy, a customer must be SAR'ed three times before coming up for closure. So in the mean time, I am curious as to how everyone handles the in between.

I don't think I have ever seen a hard three SAR minimum requirement before. That said, an amendment would be required if you identify something new/that you missed during the time period the prior SAR covered. If the activity occurred after the time period from the prior SAR, this activity would go on your continuing activity SAR.

Perfect. Makes sense. Thank you.

I concur with Adam. When you file your continuing SAR you would include all activity during the review period. You don't have to file for each occurrence.

that sounds like an internal policy that needs changing, and sooner rather than later. i'd really hate to be the person trying to explain to a regulator or judge why i allowed a customer to continue to structure deposits for a long period of time, and my answer was we review SARs every 90 days and can't close their account until 3 have been filed...and if you are seeing "every few days" in that 90-day window that could be 30 instances, give or take a few...thats a lot...

You don't say why the first SAR was filed. If it was for structuring and the structuring continues you are required to file a continuation SAR that covers the next 90 days. You could file on a shorter interval, but it would be a continuation, not an amendment of the first SAR.

If the first SAR was for one activity; e.g. structuring, and the customer begins a new suspicious activity; e.g. kiting, that is a new filing requirement unrelated to the first SAR.

P.S. Reword your policy to say that after the third SAR the account must come up for consideration for closure. It is nonsense to say it cannot be considered earlier.

If you can only close after 3 SAR's the activity could be going on for a year prior to closeout. This taking into account time to id the suspicious activity.

Has anyone talked with the customer to find out why they are conducting transactions in the manner you are observing? In my experience, providing FinCEN's CTR publication cures structuring nearly every time. Customers are very misinformed and if they are up to no good, they know you are watching and will stop or leave the bank.

Aside from that, I agree that your policy needs amending. It is a total waste of time and resources to continue filing SARs. I have zero tolerance for this. Customer gets talked to. Date is noted. If they don't stop they are out the door!!!

How do you talk to them without accusing them of structuring, or inadvertently helping them micro-structure by making the deposits smaller or over longer periods of time? And what conversation do you have when you close the account for "possible structuring?" Honestly asking, for training purposes

If you have provided the FinCEN brochure and asked about any reasons behind their transaction patterns, and follow with a closing of the account if they haven't "mended their ways," you don't have to (and shouldn't) discuss the reason. They will know.

"Burnett's law" on closing accounts for cause -- Never accuse the customer of wrongdoing. Just say you're closing the account, recite any deadlines for action, and follow through.

When talking to a customer simply ASK them why they conduct transactions the way that they do. Then listen. I've heard all kinds of stories. Some make sense, others do not.

But one thing you do have to consider is that they may have a reasonable explanation. If they can show you that the cash is related to daily sales and the daily activities never exceed $10,000 then you have an explanation. Point being that it might look like structuring, but it may just be a coincidence that the daily sales are in a range that makes it appear like structuring.

If deposits are in round dollar amounts ask about that. I had a customer that always deposited $8,000 even. When asked, he told us that 8 was his lucky number and he wanted his business to be successful, so he saved up the cash until he had that amount to deposit. Weird? Yes. Suspicious? No. He stopped immediately after we talked to him and provided the FinCEN brochure.

This is why it is so important to talk to the customer. If however, they remark that they are avoiding CTRs, then you have an opportunity to educate them. Many small business owners are misinformed and try to avoid CTRs for fear of an IRS audit (total myth). In nearly ever case where we had to explain reporting requirements the customer stops structuring. They don't know that they are breaking the law and most thank us for letting them know.

It can be awkward to talk to a customer, but I feel it is necessary.

I completely agree with Trying. Especially if it can avoid a structuring SAR as that is the majority of the reasons we file and we file enough as it is.