Thread Options
|
#542461 - 05/03/06 03:56 PM
SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 83
|
We are preparing to file a SAR for activity that continues to occur from a previous SAR filed (about 90 days ago). Do we write the SAR as if it was covering the whole 180 days of activity, or do we write a SAR just for the past 90 days and mention that a previous SAR was filed? Any guidance would be helpful. Thanks.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#542463 - 05/03/06 07:40 PM
Re: SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 83
|
Just for all interested. I called Fincen's hotline and asked them this question. He told me that I would just include the information in the narrative for the last 90 days. He told me to write in the narrative that we filed a SAR previously, and the date we filed the first SAR. He also told me for the dates of suspicious activity, we would just put the past 90 days - since we have already filed a SAR for activity before that.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#542465 - 05/03/06 09:30 PM
Re: SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,927
NYC
|
Didn't Pizza Queen just contradict hawkfan?
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#542466 - 05/03/06 10:19 PM
Re: SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
10K Club
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 83,227
Galveston, TX
|
Maybe, I can't really tell. But I can tell you that regardless of the answer Hawksfan received from the FinCEN hotline, boxes 33 and 34 must be for the complete aggregate period of the suspicious activity, regardless of the number of follow-up filings you make.
_________________________
The opinions expressed here should not be construed to be those of my employer: PPDocs.com
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#542468 - 05/04/06 01:20 PM
Re: SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
10K Club
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 83,227
Galveston, TX
|
PQ provided one source for that opinion. Here is another from the SAR Activity Review Vol 4:
SAR Filers using Form TD F 90-22.47
Part III, Item 33 - The SAR must be completed in its entirety and should contain the following information: Date or range of dates of suspicious activity should be included by entering the first known date of suspicious activity (same date as reflected on the initial report) in the "From" field and the last occurrence date in the "To" field.
Part III, Item 34 - Total dollar amount involved in known or suspicious activity must reflect an aggregated total of all transactions for multiple or related suspicious activities by the same individual or organization within the same reporting period (as identified in Item 33). [NOTE: Dollar values should be calculated on the basis of suspicious transactions as opposed to loss to the filing institution.]
_________________________
The opinions expressed here should not be construed to be those of my employer: PPDocs.com
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#542469 - 05/04/06 03:27 PM
Re: SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,927
NYC
|
Just to be clear on this issue, here is a scenario:
SAR filed in November 2005 for structured activity that occurred in October-November. After November no structured activity occurs until April 2006. This is detected in early May and another SAR is filed. Since this is the second SAR it references the previous SAR. Are we saying that this new SAR should show the From Date in Box 33 as October? Should Box 34 include the an aggregate of the old data with the new data? Do we also include all transaction between November and April that were not structured?
Please help me on this. Thanks
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#542470 - 05/04/06 05:01 PM
Re: SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 83
|
I just called our FDIC contact with this question. He said to aggregate the amount in Box 34 (old data amount + new data amount) and to include the previous date range in Box 33. So with your example, it would say October to May. You only include in the narrative the past 90 day suspicious activity, with a sentence referencing the first SAR and the date it was filed.
He said he didn't think either way would be a problem. He said to do it this way from the standpoint of what would be more beneficial to FINCEN.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#542471 - 05/04/06 06:36 PM
Re: SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
Diamond Poster
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,927
NYC
|
Hawkfan, Thanks to your help I will now be filing the correct way, since I never aggregated old data with new data. Just shows that you can teach an old dog new tricks.
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#542472 - 05/04/06 10:24 PM
Re: SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
10K Club
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 83,227
Galveston, TX
|
Well, not to throw a monkey wench into this or contradict FinCEN, but I would have to say that these two appear to be two separate instances and I'm not sure why you would aggregated. IMHO - the only time you aggregate is when the suspicious activity is continuing activity and you were doing the every 90 day follow-up filing. Otherwise - where do you draw the line?
I do four transaction in 2001 that you deem to be structuring and I do it again in 2006 - do you aggregate?????
_________________________
The opinions expressed here should not be construed to be those of my employer: PPDocs.com
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#542473 - 05/05/06 01:50 PM
Re: SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 40,086
Cape Cod
|
"monkey wench"? LOL, Randy!
_________________________
John S. Burnett BankersOnline.com Fighting for Compliance since 1976 Bankers' Threads User #8
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#542474 - 05/05/06 02:25 PM
Re: SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
10K Club
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 83,227
Galveston, TX
|
Ooops - but I think I will leave it as is
_________________________
The opinions expressed here should not be construed to be those of my employer: PPDocs.com
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
#542475 - 05/07/06 08:23 PM
Re: SAR - 90 Day Recurrence
|
10K Club
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 27,748
On the Net
|
Sometimes you should make your SAR wenches and whatever a male counterpart to that would be, look at the BOL SAR Research Center for historical opinions/trends on these issues.
_________________________
AndyZ CRCM My opinions are not necessarily my employers. R+R-R=R+R Rules and Regs minus Relationships equals Resentment and Rebellion. John Maxwell
|
Return to Top
|
|
|
|
|
|