If a customer is demonstrating suspicious activity related to a marijuana business and a non designated MRB bank account, and they also appear to be structuring transactions to be below the CTR reporting threshold, should that be on the same SAR or should the bank file two separate SARs - one for the transactions below CTR threshold and one for Marijuana Limited noting activity that is suspicious and appears to be funds from MRBs being credited to the account.

You have a suspect that is engaged in multiple suspicious activities, you would file one SAR (right after you closed the account).

Thank you for your comment and help.

Marijuana Limited SARs are for MRBs when you don't have any suspicious activity to report and are just reporting that you have an MRB as a customer.

Since you have suspicious activity on an MRB you are either filing a marijuana priority or a marijuana terminated SAR, as applicable.

I don't think I was as clear in my original post. The account at the bank is not an MRB, it's a used car sales business. One of the car salesmen at the auto business has a marijuana processing business and that account is not held at the bank. The owner of the MRB processor makes check deposits into the car sales account to reimburse for AMEX payments that are debited from that car sales account to pay the AMEX bill.

Aside from other suspicious activity, should the SAR narrative include "Marijuana Limited" even though their account is not an MRB, its an auto sales business. It's been my interpretation that if you suspect an account at the bank being involved in some sort of activity with a known or suspected marijuana business (personal or business account) that you file a Marijuana Limited SAR. Unless it's a person working for an MRB and they get their pay/deposits from there or a professional provider that does business with them like a landlord, accountant, etc.

The reason I also mentioned a personal account before is there is another account at the bank (personal account) that the owner has 2 licensed MRBs but those accounts are not at the bank and the customer is making transactions from the MRBs into his personal account. I also feel that an Marijuana Limited SAR should be filed on this personal account even though the ownership/account is not an actual MRB account.

Trying to follow.....Are the check deposits to the car sales account from the MRB account?

Yes, they are.

I think I preferred your original post. All joking aside, you need to sit down with your customer and ask them what's going on. If I understand your second post correctly, and perhaps I do not, you may have a bigger issue than structuring.

A marijuana limited SAR is filed when you're banking an MRB and believe that they are doing everything legally according to state law and in accordance with the cole memo aside, the only reason it's suspicious is because it violates federal law. I think it sounds like there is some collusion between a used car dealership and an MRB owned by one of his employees that would allow them to run either revenue or expenses from the MRB through the car dealership?

I think ACB's answer is exactly right, and I don't think a marijuana limited SAR makes sense in this situation. You don't have the visibility to say that this MRB that is somehow transacting through your bank is operating lawfully.

Seems like (checkbox under Money Laundering) "suspicion concerning source of funds." MRB Limited should only be used as intended.

"The owner of the MRB processor makes check deposits into the car sales account to reimburse for AMEX payments that are debited from that car sales account to pay the AMEX bill."

I would consider this as a major issue MRB or not. It is using the car sale account to circumvent your AML processes

Sorry, but if I had a vote this would be reason enough to close the account.

Yes, it was filed as suspicious activity (aka structuring and money laundering and also checked the other box in money laundering and put medical marijuana. - just wasn't sure if the narrative needed to also have a Marijuana Limited or Priority in it.

The replies I am getting seem to point out that the FinCEN guidance only asks banks to file a Marijuana Limited SAR on an MRB that it banks and knows it is operating lawfully.

If a bank has an account that isn't an MRB but some suspicious funds show up and maybe they smell like marijuana or an internet search shows the customer is getting an MRB going or recently opened one, can the bank file a SAR saying Marijuana Limited or Marijuana Priority because you suspect the marijuana-related funds are in your customer's account that you're providing financial services too? Or can an account receive money from an MRB and as long as it doesn't appear suspicious then don't report or label it as an MRB type? Let's say your bank customer has their personal account at the bank and they have a marijuana business and your research shows it's a registered one. The customer receives and deposits checks payable to him or the MRB, and also checks written on his personal account to pay for the operating expenses of the MRB.

Sorry, this keeps getting more convoluted but in a state where medical marijuana is legal and banks are starting to bank them, it's getting sticky.

We have frequently filed marijuana priority and marijuana termination SARs when we identified someone is conducting marijuana-related activity through an account that isn't in the name of a licensed MRB, including personal accounts and unrelated business accounts. No examiner has ever questioned it.

The MRB processor is using the car dealership's Amex card to make payments and reimbursing the dealership. That sounds like Amex won't issue a card to the MRB process for whatever reason. What is NOT suspicious in this scenario? "Sticky" is one way to describe it. I'd say it stinks. Ditch the lot of them before your regulator gets involved.

Popping this post up as I wanted some clarification as I am exploring the initial stages of implementing an MRB policy/procedures and educating my Board on the risks, etc.

Currently, The MRB Priority/Termination SARs are reserved for MRBs violating Cole Memo priorities/conducting suspicious activity, mainly direct MRBs. Is there an expectation to file Marijuana Limited SARs on Indirect (Tier II) and Incidental (Tier III) entities solely based on having a percentage of their businesses derived from direct MRBs? Is the answer is yes, are you filing a Marijuana Limited SAR every 90 days?

To my knowledge, there's no publicly published answer to this question.

We used to file based on our interpretation of footnote 7 of FIN-2014-G001. Following guidance from other institutions, we reached out to FinCEN with a series of questions about this and were told we don't need to file solely based on a customer's indirect marijuana relationship. Our regulators were surprised by FinCEN's response, but we kept documentation of the correspondence that satisfied them. If you choose not to file, I'd recommend getting and retaining FinCEN's opinion so you don't have to argue it with auditors and examiners.

Received my response this morning, easy enough, the short answer is NO to my question based on guidance given to me. I will save this with all of my documentation. Thanks Colorado.

FinCEN does not expect a financial institution to file Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) in accordance with FIN-2014-G001 on the basis that a customer relationship indirectly involves a state-regulated marijuana-related business, so long as there is not any other suspicious activity that would otherwise warrant the filing of a SAR. .....While a financial institution may file SARs in such circumstances, the activity associated with these indirect relationships is not the focus of the Marijuana Guidance, and such reports may be of limited value with respect to the priorities of FinCEN and its stakeholders. However, to be clear, financial institutions should file SARs in circumstances when there is other suspicious activity that would serve as an independent basis for filing SARs."