I thought that I heard in one of the training classes that I went to that if you are filing a SAR every 90 days on a customer and then later find out that the activity that they are doing is legitimate then you should then file something explaining the activity. I other words, let them know that whatever you once thought was suspicious-now that you better know the facts-is no longer suspicious. Did I dream this?

It's entirely possible that you may have heard it. Certainly, it might help law enforcement to get an explanation of the anomalous behavior. However, I am not aware of any FinCEN dictate that requests a "never mind" SAR. Based on discussions in Bankers' Threads, however, it does appear that a "best practice" would include documenting a no-SAR filing decision and retaining that information with the ongoing SAR file for the requisite five year period. That information will help keep your examiners and auditors from challenging the decision not to keep filing updates.

As a matter of practice, we file amended SARs in situations like this. We feel that since we reported the customer for suspicious activity that turned out to be legitimate, we owe it to the customer to set the record straight. Unfortunately, this happens sometimes when you are under the gun to get the SAR filed before you can develop all of the facts. Filing amended SARs in these situations has also satified our examiners. In a way, the amended SAR is the equivalent of a "no SAR" decision. They explain why there are no more SARs, and why we have elected to keep the affected customers' accounts open.