For banks that have been examined this year, have you been cited or criticized for occupations stating - unemployed or retired, w/o the specific occupation?

Yes!

No

I suppose you could be "unemployed" if you were fired/laid off/resigned from an occupation.

Yes. We were cited for for not being specific enough in filling out the occupation. One of the instances cited was where we put retired. They wanted what the person was retired from. Considering how picky they were when looking at the field in our exam I would think they would not have liked unemployed either.

BSA exam exit visit yesterday. We were cited for listing unemployed as an occupation. I thought unemployed meant they didn't have an occupation.

So what did they tell you to do? If someone is unemployed, they are simply unemployed! If they were a student, then I could see putting "student," but there are some individuals that have not been employed yet and are not a student. What do we report as their occupation? --- Bum?

The form instructions say do not use "self-employed." I wonder if they got the two confused.

We use unemployed all the time and have had no problems. In fact, I think it is good to use unemployed. It would be a red flag to me if I was reviewing CTRs and saw a $15,000 cash deposit for an unemployed person. I might take a second look at that CTR.

From FinCEN's "Guidance on the New CTR" 9/95

18. Question: Are the terms "homemaker", "retired", or "unemployed" acceptable as descriptions for occupations?

Answer: "Homemaker", "retired", or "unemployed" are acceptable as occupation descriptions, but financial institutions should attempt to get more specific information. As a basic part of "know your customer" programs, financial institutions should pay particular attention to customers with such non-specific occupations who continually make large cash deposits. "Self-employed" is not acceptable without additional information as it is too non-specific.

Opinions of individual examiners notwithstanding, this is the only thing I have ever seen in writing on the subject. Saying that you should include the former occupations is a silly criticism that indicates a lack of comprehension, but it's one that is easily avoided.

As Dolly notes:

Quote:

---

It would be a red flag to me if I was reviewing CTRs and saw a $15,000 cash deposit for an unemployed person. I might take a second look at that CTR.

---

The real issue is not what occupation this person retired from or was last employed in so much as the fact that you should be intensely curious about why a retiree or unemployed person has more than $10,000 in currency.

They didn't actually tell us what to do. The unemployed guy was a copy of a CTR they gave us at the meeting. It was an estate account and the guy cased the distribution check. Maybe that's why he was unemployed - anticipation of getting auntie's or whoever's money.

With unemployed they are looking for the person's normal line of work.
Retired needs to specific also.
Hope this helps you.

This is why specific and consistent guidance is necessary with these BSA exams. Individual preferences from the different examiners/regulatory agencies is exactly what makes compliance with this reg makes one want to "fly the coop"!!!
FinCEN need to give a interpreative ruling regarding the acceptable/unacceptable occupations to list on the form.

The guidance says we should try to get more specific information. There are times when the individual doesn't want to tell you. So examiners should lighten up!

On the other hand, if this is ALL they could find to complain about, I would say you did very well!

What about the SAR -- Is there guidance concerning completion of box 26 Occupation/Type of Business? Has anyone been cited for not using specific terms?

I have come across instances where our BSA Officer will name the business (e.g. - Fred's Store) rather than indicate the Type of Business. Is this acceptable or should Box 26 indicate Shoe Store?

The same logic that works for item 13 on a CTR should be applied when completing item 26 in a SAR. Consider why the field is there. It's there because the government (FinCEN, IRS, law enforcement, whoever) wants to understand the type of business on which the report is filed, or the occupation of the individual on whom the report is filed. This helps establish patterns in the database, and flag anomalies. So, for a hypothetical example, suppose that the established pattern indicates that it's not unusual for a donut shop franchise to deposit $25,000 in cash. CTRs for donut shops in that range might not trigger and flags. But a CTR for $150,000 might.

Or law enforcement might want to look at SARs and CTRs filed by shoe stores. A filing with "Fred's Store" won't be helpful at all.

Whether a bank has been cited for completing these fields incorrectly, I don't know. But if an examiner sees this as a pattern in a bank, you can bet it will get cited at least as a technical violation, and could be used as one item to demonstrate a lack of an adequate BSA/AML program.

Thanks John ---- Another SAR Question. Am I correct in saying that in boxes 28,31,38, 39, and 40, all must be completed with either a Y (Yes) or N (No)?
Boxes left blank are unacceptable, right?

Item 40 doesn't have a "no" box on the printed SAR form, and I don't believe it has one in the SAR software, either. The instruction for that item should probably read, "Indicate if any of the following agencies has been notified."

I believe you are correct on the other items.

We just had a "merit exam" and an audit, and yes, we were criticized for the use of "retired" and "unemployed" designations. It is interesting that "housewife" is considered an acceptable response; what about this modern age in which sometimes the husband is the stay at home parent [BSA is enough to make me wish sometimes that I were just that!]? I suppose the non-gender specific "Homemaker" might work? But that leads to another potential problem...given that a customer does not want to reveal [and/or that a teller does not want to or does not take the time to "probe'] and given the criticisms for the use of "unemployed" and "retired" how likely is it that the preparer of the CTR might just choose "housewife" or "homemaker" for a description, when that is not necessarily accurate, but to attempt to avoid further criticisms from auditors, examiners, etc.? I just wonder to what extent the push for extra detail results in information which may be fabricated, and is therefore, useless? Just a thought...

Human nature being what it is, I suppose such things do happen. However, knowingly filing an incomplete or inaccurate report is a criminal offense.

Business name on the CTR - (example, of course) Maybelline Contracting & Srevices, Inc. w/occupation listed as - contracting service. Should this be specific??? Getting paranoid with the audit of CTRs and BSA exams!!!!!!!

If possible, try to be more specific. What kind of contracting?

That's my initial inquiry as the auditor to ask what type of contracting but want to make "dang" sure that if left as listed, it would draw a criticism from the examiner.

Adding to the confusion [at least to mine, in any case] is the fact that box 13 reads "Occupation, profession OR business." It suggests that you have a choice; and at least one of our tellers seems to think that if she has listed the place of business, that should be sufficient. I have tried to make the point, that with some of our major area employers, the occupation at the place of business could range from janitor to secretary to foreman to president. Also, some of our tellers say that customers appear to be offended when asked retired or unemployed from what? I wouldn't categorize the majority of such people as trying to conceal anything improper, but rather just perturbed at being asked what seems to them to be a useless question that they think is none of our business.

Tellers should not make policy decisions, particularly when it comes to BSA requirements. The terms "occupation" and "profession" are used to describe what you need for an individual. The term "business" is used to describe a business.

Spoecificity is preferred here. Not "retired" but "retired engineer." Unemployed is OK. And even though you know what a "Burger King" is, the computer at the IRS wants you to say "restaurant" or "fast food."