Law enforcement discourages banks from including any reference to the receipt or existence of a grand jury subpoena in a SAR. What if a SAR is being done for insider abuse that involved a subpoena file? What supporting documentation could be included?

You would list the information that you found in your investigation that led you to file a SAR. A GJS should not be the reason for filing a SAR. It should prompt an investigation, and you would file a SAR on any suspicious activity you find in your bank records.

It sounds like the suspicious activity conducted by the insider related to handling a file on which a subpoena had been received. Is that the case?

Thank you Kathleen B. That is exactly what the situation is.

I would look closely to determine if the subpoena has anything to do with the activity conducted that was suspicious. If it does not, don't mention it. You only discuss what is related to the suspicious activity being reported. If the subpoena is just ancillary information, it is not pertinent.

If the subpoena is related to what the insider did (I can't imagine what that might be), then I would mention it in general but give no specifics on that particular subpoena in the SAR filing on the insider. Much will depend on what your insider did.

Regardless of the circumstances, a GJS should never be mentioned in a SAR.

I agree. That should never be mentioned. If the person being reported did something like trying to hide a grand jury subpoena (I can't imagine that would be the case but you just never know what bank insiders might do), the bank might have to use the word subpoena, but would not say it was a grand jury subpoena.

The situation involves an insider who processes the subpoenas and what was done to the actual subpoena file.

I still think the existance of a subpoena is irrelavant information in a SAR. It is not part of the suspicious activity - it only triggers an investigation. Whether a subpeona exists or not, is not a determining factor on the facts that are or are not uncovered within the bank's investigation.

Jade, you posted while I was responding. If I now understand, then this involves the fact that the bank received a grand jury subpeona and the bank employee processing the subpeona did not fulfill their duty. In this case, the mention that the activity involves a GJS is relevant (without of course exposing the contents of the specific subpeona). Your investigation will only address whether this was intentional and why. Along with the SAR, you should be getting legal counsel involved, as you should be approaching law enforcement that issued the subpeona to come clean on the issue.

I agree that if this suspicious activity involves mishandling of an actual subpoena (which now seems to be the case, which is why I asked my original question as to just what we were talking about here) then the bank has a bigger problem than the SAR...and may already be taking steps on that end.