We have a situation where a husband and wife own a joint account. On one day, the husband went to one of our branches and withdrew $ 3,000 in cash. That very same day, the wife went to two different branches, and withdrew $ 2,000 and $6,000 in cash. I perceive this as suspicious activity and am filing a SAR, but as neither individual received more than $ 10,000, is a CTR filed? And if so, how do you show each individual on the CTR?

It would require a CTR as over $10,001 was conducted on one day within one account by joint account owners. It's been a long time since I filled out or even SAW a CTR, however, you can fill out sections 1? on both people...you could fill out for 50 if need be. Sect 2? is "on who's behalf, if memory serves me right" and it was on the behalf of whom you have already reported in the first section, so that should be able to just be checked indicating such. Someone who works with this more closely will come along I'm sure, but just wanted to answer that yes, you do have a CTR situation and I agree with the SAR situation as well because it appears to be "evasion".

I am sure people that are more practiced at CTR filing can answer, but I believe this is a Multiple Transaction CTR because you have one account where more than $10,000 was withdrawn in a single day, and it is not a payroll account - it was the account owners.

It would appear CTR and SAR and a special note that these folks must not be too bright if they think they were hiding anything.

We see this kind of thing a lot. We do a CTR and an SAR. It amazes me that in this banking climate (politically speaking) they think no one will notice.

I would disagree with those who said a CTR is required unless you have knowledge that they both were beneficiaries of each other's transactions. If they were deposits to the joint account then a CTR would be required with both account holders info in Part 1 Section A (front & back), but when you are talking about withdrawals you have no idea who is benefiting - he may be taking the money to the track and she may be taking a solo vacation.

If you can not explain why the transactions were done at different branches I would agree that a SAR is probably a good idea, but you may want to ask some questions. I had a similar scenario a few months ago and when I called the branch they said that they ran out of large bills and sent her to another branch across town to withdraw the rest of the money. Sure looked like a SAR up till that point!

This is one of those tough ones where our inclination is not to over-respond to conditions we see. But let's consider the facts in view of the current crackdown environment we are operating in.

First, what do you know about these customers and their deposits and withdrawals from this account? Putting your know-your-customer hat on will give you a hint as to whether it appears they are acting in collusion to take the funds out of several branches and evade CTR reporting. Are these simultaneous withdrawals "normal and expected transactions" for this account?

Second, although a CTR must be filed for every deposit, withdrawal, exchange...or transfer by, through, or to a financial institution that involves a transaction or transactions in currency of more than $10,000 when a financial institution knows that the transaction(s) are by or on behalf of any person during any one business day (31 CFR 103.22), it is difficult to state unequivocally that one spouse is benefitting solely for purposes of the over-$10,000 CTR requirement.

But the bottom line is that any reasonable person would conclude that these spouses are engaging in withdrawals aggregating over $10,000 on the same day, and that they are conducting the transactions in this manner as a systematic way to evade the currency reporting rules. Consequently, you definately have a SAR-reportable situation, and at the very least that will keep then on radar; and, more importantly, it will demonstrate to the examiners that you didn't just carelessly brush off the issue and that you're not asleep at the switch.

File the CTR.

Better safe than sorry, I would file (and I'm not one to file anything that is not necessary).

To quote a standard statement in the policies at one of my former employers:

"Anything else common sense and good judgment determines should be disclosed. When in doubt, disclose."

Just substitute report for disclose.

We always erred on the side of caution when sitting on the fence. There is no upside to going the other way.

Prior thread

Personally, I'm in the 'no CTR' camp on this one. But check out the link, which includes some good references to material that is as close to official as you will find on this situation.

My concern with "no CTR", and from the prior thread some with the view of "no SAR", is that in every case like this where our customer(s) gave a reason for what they did the reason was to avoid IRS reporting. In my experience, it is highly unlikely that these folks are not aware of each others transactions and not intentionally attempting to avoid the reporting. We have had some cases where we did hold off filing and it occurred again and the customer voluntarily stated they were and had been structuring.

I would like a sign in our branches that says "don't even think about it".

I think filing the SAR after investigation is an easy, "Yes." I think filing the CTR is a slightly more theoretical decision, but based on the Admin Ruling rlcarey cites in the prior thread, it's also a "Yes."

While I am not Bankermama, let me just add to my comments that, in my opinion, the customer was of the opinion that the transaction was worth structuring, which indicates to me it was to benefit both individuals and they broke it up and traveled to different branches to conduct their business.

The structuring decision leads me to a CTR decision.

Quote:

---

...structuring decision leads me to a CTR decision.

---

Agreed...

If you look at the guidance issued by FINCEN it does not say unless you know they both benefit, do not file, IMO it says unless you have knowledge that only one benefits then presume they both will benefit and file accordingly....
------------------------------------------------

From FINCEN:

"However, if a person makes a withdrawal from a joint account, only his name needs to be listed as the beneficiary of the transaction if: ( 1) he states that the withdrawal is on his own behalf or the financial institution knows that the person making the withdrawal is the only beneficiary, and (2) the financial institution has no reason to believe otherwise"
-----------------------------------------

Did the customer specifically comment on use of the proceeds and did those comments indicate only he/she would benefit, OR does the bank have knowledge of anything that indicates only he/she will benefit, OR knowledge of anything that would lead them to believe they both will not benfit..? If not, I would say it is reportable and file the CTR.

It seems to me the general thought is just the opposite of this guidance...the bank must know they both benefit in order for it to be a reportable transaction or to report both parties...when I see it as...the bank must know only one benefits in order to not have a reportable transaction or report both acct owners.

It's kinda like one of those trick questions on a test that say "which is not the correct answer", I always overlook the word "not". Am I not seeing this statement clearly??

Wow this thread is very confusing. It's like when I ask the examiners a BSA question, I get different answers from each examiner every time I ask. Now it sounds like it should not be filed because Security Guy did not say that they knew where the funds were going or asked the couple.

What "guidance" from FinCEN are you quoting?

Max - The quote is from guidance distributed by FINCEN 1995. If you click on the link above to a prior thread discussion you will find reference to this also.

Ginger-2 - actually, IMO, I am saying that a CTR should be filed because the customer did not specifically say and the bank may not have knowledge otherwise that the funds would be used for only the person in front of the teller. IOW, the lack of information should lead to a presumption that they both will benefit. But, again, this is how I am interpreting the guidance.....