teller processes a transaction whereby the customer presents a $15,000.00 check. The customer wants to purchase a cashier’s check for $2,300.00, with $12,700.00 in cash being returned to him. When processing the transaction, the bank’s system prompts the teller that a CTR needs to be completed. The teller, in a sense panics, and backs out of the respective transaction and processes it such that a CTR would not need to be completed, nor would it be picked up on any internal report for Bank Secrecy Act reporting.

The teller’s discloses later that she was not thinking correctly since the customer stated that he had to split the money three ways. The teller thought that the money was being given to three people, so a CTR was not necessary. The teller indicated that she did not know the procedure on how to fill out a CTR on the system, even though she had completed Bank Secrecy Compliance training two weeks prior. Lastly, the teller stated that it would not matter if she was a new teller, or had been working for 3 years; she would’ve processed the transaction the same way.

Is this ignorance? Should a SAR be filed?

I know that from the Razlaff (sp.) case, ingnorance is not a defense, but I wanted to pose the question for opinion purposes.

Thanks.

My opinion is that a SAR isn't required, but that the teller either needs additional hands-on training or needs to be in a different position.

How did you become aware of this if the transaction wasn't on your internal report?

The teller has been terminated. We became aware of it through the supervisor.

You cannot back out of a CTR on our system. If it it triggered by the system, it must be completed. Period. If it was triggered due to teller error, the teller (or his/her supervisor) must notify the BSA Dept so that it can be removed from the CTR batch. The circumstances can then be reviewed and the teller retrained if needed. This is a critical internal control in the CTR process.

Lady LoisLane, not sure how you have determined that a CTR would not need to be filed in this instance. $12,700 in cash was given to the customer as cash back from the purchase. Even with proof that he was splitting the money between 3 people he was the person conducting the transaction. The termination would have been the way I would have gone as well, especially given the teller's reaction.

I think she said "SAR" - not "CTR". I agree that no SAR needs to be filed unless there was suspicion that the teller intentionally did not file the CTR and was in collusion with the customer in order to avoid reporting.

Sorry - you're right and I would agree that no SAR would be necessary.

ricarey -
The operative word in your statement is "and". We know that the teller intentionally did not file; however, we do not know about the collusion.

Would this still qualify for a SAR?

I would not file a SAR unless the "and" was present.

(j) Civil penalties
(1) Penalty imposed
Any insured depository institution and any director, officer, or employee of an insured depository institution who willfully or through gross negligence violates, or any person who willfully causes such a violation, any regulation prescribed under subsection (b) of this section shall be liable to the United States for a civil penalty of not more than $10,000.

Due to this part of the regulation, we filed a SAR. The teller violated the BSA regulation by willfully avoiding the reporting requirement.

I really appreciate the discussion.