https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...f-possibly-corrupt-us-financial-activity

The SAR disclosure issue has been big new in the foreign press and seems to be somewhat neglected in the US media.

I have read several articles that were from some of my LinkedIn connections from abroad. None have mentioned the damage that may occur if the preparer of the SAR is known to the subject.

Let us keep politics and alleged subjects out of the discussion and focus on the leak here.

Thanks

just wow if they ever find the person(s) responsible for releasing...

Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, a senior advisor for the Treasury Department's FinCEN, was charged in 2018 with leaking information about suspicious financial activity

The reporter who led the investigation, Jason Leopold of BuzzFeed News, has not revealed the source of the information.
But in January a FinCEN official, Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards, pleaded guilty to leaking information to a reporter identifiable as Leopold about suspicious financial transactions.

https://www.businessinsider.nl/an-e...er-reports-say-she-is-a-trump-supporter/

From what I read she admitted to disclosing information in regards to Russia only. So who knows other than Jason Leopold ?

My concern i(other than the leak of course) s why is the US media shying away form this story,

If not for the illegal disclosure of a SAR (leak) there would be no story.....so maybe they have some understanding and respect for the law after all.....but maybe not.

Maybe some of the US media members are a little scared? FinCEN's home page: https://www.fincen.gov/

It's possible that some U.S. media companies are digging internally to ensure they aren't somehow involved in the breach.

Many of the initial reports revolve around the narrative that SARs are proof that banks turn a blind eye to, facilitate, and profit from money laundering as opposed to what seems (to me) like the obvious conclusion that banks report potential money laundering to law enforcement for investigation and ultimate prosecution of it's truly illegal. That's a much less interesting story, and maybe why some outlets aren't as interested in pursuing it.

Also, there have been hundreds of scandals over the past few years that would have dominated headlines in any other times. Maybe this just isn't something that can find purchase in the run up to an election during the largest recession and global pandemic in living memory.

Here is some of the fallout

https://nypost.com/2020/09/21/bank-...tail-2-trillion-in-sketchy-transactions/

Prosecutors and law enforcement are asleep at the wheel and they blame the banks. Makes you really wonder if the whole SAR process is worth it.

"We learnt from our mistakes..." but we didn't learn how to spell or proofread.

I have a rant on this topic but out of respect to the forum rules, anyone who wants to hear it should send me a PM.

"but they went ahead with most of these transactions anyway, collecting fees in the process, BuzzFeed reported."

Spoken by someone who does not know the process of how transactions are determined to be suspicious.

It may be region specific? In my area, I've seen an uptick from federal law enforcement in requests for SAR supporting documentation, and for some, on subsequent SAR's too, more so than I've ever experienced in 25 years in BSA.

I was thinking the exact same thing!

That's because it is ALWAYS the banks' fault, even when it isn't.

What I fault a bank for doing is going ahead with ongoing suspect transactions after filing a SAR. When there's no request from law enforcement to keep the account open, allowing continuing money laundering to gather more fee income seems less than innocent.

I agree with that 100%

Someone gets it. A story out of London

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/22/blame-the-system-for-fincen-files-not-the-banks-experts-urge.html