We have an upcoming BSA audit and I already know that the auditor is going to expect us to have been getting beneficial ownership for "triggering events" such as signer changes, high risk reviews or even just a form for all of our high risk customers, increase in SARs/CTRs, addition of cash management services, etc. Personally, I don't really see all of these things as constituting a beneficial ownership form. Am I wrong?

I have been kind of just sticking with NEW accounts requiring a form and if something OBVIOUS arises, such as the customer mentioning a change in ownership, a form in those situations as well. How are others addressing this in their policies and procedures and what wording are you using? I want to make sure we have something sufficient in our policy because I already know what the auditor is expecting before they even arrive and don't want to waste a lot of time disagreeing about it with them. Could use some help with stating things well in the policy...

Thank you.

Previous thread

Any external auditor suggesting my bank should have additional triggering events beyond those required by law would have one less client next year.

Any internal auditor making the same suggestion would get a written response calling his or her judgment into question.

I do think that bankers are going overboard trying to identify these "trigger events." For each candidate for that status, you should be asking yourself "What about this event suggests there may be an ownership change?" If you honestly answer that question each time you are considering whether an event is a "trigger" for BOC (beneficial ownership certification), you should have very few on your final list.

trigger events should be detailed in procedure, not policy.

Agree with HappyGilmore. Policy and procedures are two different things.

Keep it vague and stick to the regulatory language. But be consistent with application.

Reviving this thread please. Recent FDIC Exam Sept 2019 and BSA Audit Feb 2019 both site us for not spelling out triggering events in our Beneficial Ownership (BO) Policy. I am leaning toward putting "triggering event(s)" in the BO Procedures and not the BO Policy. Both the exam and audit list multiple items as triggers: ownership/management change, uptick in CTR filings, SAR filings, law enforcement subpoenas, 314a match, open new account, time deposit change in terms, loan extension/modifications, changes to existing accounts, etc. Since this thread and tagged previous thread are from 2018 have the triggers been expanded or is the only trigger per bo regulation the opening of a new account, my research has been inconclusive? Thanks in advance for your help.

The reg and exam guidance with the final rule require banks to complete ongoing due diligence to include beneficial ownership. The verbiage, like always, is going to be vague and have each bank make a risk based process.

Check out the sub-heading "Ongoing Monitoring of the Customer Relationship" in the CDD Section of the FFIEC. So the rule states - we have to gather at the opening of a new account and identify points throughout the relationship (triggering event) that would require an update/re-certification.

*These opinions are mine and mine alone, they are not those of my employer.