Our BSA officer has a CTR situation he is unsure of:

Situation: Husband and wife with joint account. Husband cashes multiple checks made out to only him. On same day (different branch) wife makes cash withdrawal from joint account. Both transactions aggregate to more than $10,000. Is a CTR required?

If anyone could offer insight it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

From a 1995 FDIC FIL with FinCEN Q&A attached.

14. Question: Do all holders of the account, even if they do not come to the bank, need to be put on the revised CTR as "Person(s) on Whose Behalf Transactions(s) Is Conducted"?

Answer: For deposits, all those who are known to benefit from the transaction must be identified on the CTR. 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.

I would aggregate these transactions and file a CTR, showing each person in both Section A and Section B.

If you aggregate the transactions and file the CTR, you only need complete section A entries. Check "conducted on own behalf" in Section B on the front of the form. You should not list the same individuals in Section B.

Be sure to check "multiple persons" and "multiple transactions" in item 1 on the front of the form.

I would probably not file a CTR since one person did not transact over $10,000, but I would look at the activity to see if a SAR is warranted.

Yes, a CTR must be filed because the account aggregated to over $10,000 in Cash Out regardless of who took the money. However, the amount of info you collect for CTR purposes depends. If the teller knew that the 2nd transaction made the daily Cash Out amount aggregate over $10,000, then the teller MUST get complete Section B info on the 2nd person because the teller knew this happened. BUT if the teller had no idea and you found it the next day on a report then all you do it mark "Multiple Transaction" and "Conducted On Own Behalf" on Section B and submit it.

The only time you would need both account holder's info is if they both came in to withdraw and it totaled or aggregated throughout the day to over $10,000...Regardless of how many account holders made the deposit. Even if the account had 4 account holders and only one person made the deposit, then you would need Section A info for all 4 since they could all 4 benefit from the funds at any point.

Actually, you don't aggregate cash by account. You should aggregate based on the beneficiary of the funds. So yes, for a deposit, both (all) account holders would be reported on a CTR because both (all) have benefited from the deposit(s) of over $10m.

However on cash outs, unless you have knowledge that someone else is benefiting from the transaction(s), then only the person conducting the transaction is reportable. ie, a company issues pay checks to employees, each check is under $2m. Employees cash the checks and the total is in excess of $10m - You would not file a CTR because one person did not benefit from the cash outs in excess of the reportable amount.

I would not file a CTR. Each person did not leave the bank with more than $10,000. The bank does not know for sure that both the husband and wife will benefit from each others transactions. One or the other could have them oney without the other knowing. Even though they are related by the account, the transactions are separate. I would monitor for a SAR though, just as big-dog said.

A year ago, I would have agreed with this analysis. But since then, I re-read the FinCEN document referenced by the now inanctive 1995 FDIC FIL mentioned earlier in the thread. Click on the link in the previous sentence, then scroll to question #14. It suggests that, absent information to the contrary, you assume that all joint owners benefit from withdrawals, too. That's tempered by the special ruling on payroll checks, but we're not addressing payroll payments in this thread.

If the bank is aware of the multiple withdrawals on the same business day, it should file the CTR. If it has info on one or both of the conductors when filing the CTR, it should supply it.

I see where you are coming from, but I tend to not trust any guidance that is 12 years old. These regulators change their interpretations every other day!

I always use the transactor on withdrawals from joint accounts, unless we know both are present or benefiting, and so far have not been told by our regulators that it is wrong. I just went through an exam, so I will keep doing what I have been doing until told otherwise.

My feelings are crushed over the lack of trust in any guidance over 12 years old. I'm 62 years old and have 41 years of banking/regulating under my belt, and now I find out my guidance cannot be trusted. Oh well, can't win them all.

Retread, take heart, I still rely on things I remember that you said 17 or 18 years ago. I rely on them simply because I heard you say them. However, I think the tenuous advice given in that 1995 Treasury pronouncement is one step removed from the current situation; i.e. I don't think it applies.

The Guidance discussed form completion on what was clearly an otherwise reportable transaction. Here, the issue is whether the form should be filed, not how it should be completed.

In this instance, one transaction was carried out by one person, the second by another. They may be married and they may have a joint account, but that does not imply (to me) that both benefited from the separate transactions.

While I don't think a CTR is required, I acknowledge that I would probably file it rather than spend the same amount of time discussing it.

Ken, Thanks for the vote of confidence. I agree with you. If there is one piece of advice that I remember from my many years of experience of dealing with CTRs and SARs, it is "If in doubt, fill it out". That works every time. Another piece of advice I remember well is "Never underestimate the power of FinCEN (or the regulators) to interpret rules and regulations to suit their current initiatives."