Anybody out there utilizing a SAR Committee to determine whether or not to file a SAR? OR, is the BSA Officer or designated person the only one to make the decisions.....??

We don't have a committee per se, but the BSA Officer does consult with the Security Officer and/or CEO prior to filing a SAR. (We are a $275 million bank.)

We are a $250 million bank and the BSA officer consults the President/Owner prior to filing.

We have a committee: BSA, Risk, Legal, Security, Compliance. We are $3Bn in assets.

We are nearly $1Bn in assets and require a signoff by two of the following BSA Officer, Security Officer, Compliance Officer and CEO for all SAR decisions - to file or not to file.

So, apparently this would not be a violation for allowing "too many people" to have "too much information"? I am just asking because, normally, not even the Board of Directors is privy to the details of information contained in a SAR report - have regulations changed?

We've had some warm debates on how much the board should be told, but there have not been any debates on the issue you raise. SAR filing decisions should be well documented and made by a committee, not by an individual. (If SAR filing was solely my responsibility, I'd be polishing up my resume.)

On a related point, I'll quote a friend who's a Fed Examiner, "Committees are fine, but I don't want the BSA officer outvoted." He was joking. In context, what he was clearly saying is that everyone on the SAR committee had to be well trained, he did not want a well trained BSA officer outvoted by people who did not have a clue.

Would it be a conflict of interest for the Manager of Operations to be on this committee?

I'm the Sr. Ops Officer and I'm also the one dealing with the day to day of BSA. I find situations I deem noteworthy, then discuss them with the named BSA Officer (who doesn't get involved with the day to day stuff). The two of us decide together whether or not to file. I make sure to document the decision either way per an examiner's suggestion.

Anyone else have a comment? Somehow I don't feel comfortable that this will not be a conflict of interest...

We have a SAR committee made up of representatives from different areas of the bank. Legal, Compliance, Security, Bank Operations and Lending. Majority rules. An OTS examiner told me that this was great but if I really feel we should file and the majority is not to file, I must be able to override the decision as the BSA Officer. No matter what others vote I have the final say.

Anyone know how the OCC feels?

The OCC approved of our committee structure - Compliance Officer, BSA Officer, Senior Ops Officers, Branch Administration, and the Manager of the area affected (that person is a floating member depending on the situation).

And would I be safe to say that all of those people on the Committee have appropriate and sufficient experience & training on SAR reporting?

Different Anon, I have a related question. The comment Ken made about the BSA officer being out voted happens at my FI. The structure is; the BSA officer sees somthing suspicious, she telles the CFO, he has a pow wow with the CEO and comes back to her and tells her whether or not to file. Sometimes the veto comes from him alone. The BSA officer finds this frustrating and, as the internal auditor, I also have problems with this. Should I be concerned?

At our last S&S exam, the FDIC suggested that we have SARs reiewed by our senior management before filing.

Every bank will handle this differently. Any person involved in the decision to file a SAR should be WELL TRAINED. And I mean documented training that can be shown to examiners, as they will ask for it.

Secondly, any person that is over protective of the customer may not be appropriate for a SAR committee. I think this is what Starter was eluding to when he/she asked if it was a conflict of interest for someone in the Operations area to be involved.

My point is that the most qualified individuals should be making the decision to file a SAR. CEOs and CFOs may not have sufficient training to be involved in the process.

[quote}Secondly, any person that is over protective of the customer may not be appropriate for a SAR committee. I think this is what Starter was eluding to when he/she asked if it was a conflict of interest for someone in the Operations area to be involved.{/quote}

Dolly is correct. We interview the people who handle the account as part of our investigation to get their understanding of the customer, what they know/feel is happening, etc. They are not part of the decision whether or not to file. If it is a serious enough situation that the customer may have to be asked to leave the bank, there are conversations with the business unit regarding the situation. That is one reason we have legal involved in this process.

Kaybee - Do you have an attorney on staff, or do you pay for this legal advice every time your SAR Committee meets ? I like the concept, but my fear is that, if we implemented this concept, it would slow down the filing process. As it is, some SARs get filed on the 29th day, and by implementing a SAR Committee to review each prospective SAR filing, it would bog down the process. One problem is that the SARs are filed in one location, but some of the SAR Committee members would be based at our corporate headquarters, which is a distance from the city where our BSA activities are administered.

We have an attorney on staff who has become well versed in BSA. It is certainly a benefit when making decisions re account closing in sticky situations.

We are fortunate that the players are all here at corporate headquarters and we meet at least twice a month, more if necessary. We have the process pretty streamlined so that it doesn't slow things down at all. We have a set presentation with necessary information to make a decision.

We are a $1.5B bank. The BSA officer reviews the potential SARs with me (Compliance Officer and General Counsel). I would not overrule her decision if she felt the need to file. She asks for opinions if she is not sure.

We have a BSA Committee that reviews the Suspicious Activity reported. Pres, CFO, Branch Admin, Branch Mgr and the BSA Officer. This is a new committee and meets every two weeks. I agree with everyone that a non-filing decision has to be well documented and not in the gray area.

We are less than $500 million. We have a SAR committee made up of senior management (including President/CEO) and BSA Officer.

Examiners really didn't like the President/CEO being on the committee but we are going to keep it as is. I as BSA officer will document records further by doing minutes to the committee meeting and making notations on my SAR review form to what my recommendation was.

Examiner really wanted the BSA officer to make the sole decision on whether a SAR would or would not be filed but our organization does not agree with this opinion (thank goodness!)

Who is your examiner?