Thread Starter: Anonymous
Title: Re: Suspicious Activity
|
OP Here:
Alleged by the people it was allegedly stolen from and confirmed by a grand journey in the form of an indictment.
So, as an example, a year ago lets say a customer deposits a check at the bank for $50,000 from his neighbor (not a strange transaction as he and his neighbor do business together from time to time and have made large deposits before to personal accounts from the other person). The customer then puts the money into his business account using a personal check. He then writes a check on the business account to acquire a new truck or something (again not out of the ordinary) because he is a business owner and small business owners pocket finance stuff all the time (for tax purposes)... and the customer has made similar transactions before. So the transactions on their own are not suspicious or out of the ordinary for the customer. All is above board, no SAR no reporting, no nothing.
Now a year later it is brought to the bank's attention that the $50,000 was allegedly stolen by the customer (the check wasn't stolen, just the funds) and the indictment occurs... A year later mind you... in light of the recent development, you can see that viewed a certain way these transactions quite possibly are suspicious in line with the money being stolen. So while they lack deceptive "layering" there is obvious placement and integration, that is if you believe the money to be stolen in the first place.
Are you obligated to file a SAR after the fact a year later in light of the new knowledge of the indictment?
Ultimately I don't want to be told by a regulator that I should have filed a SAR once the bank had "knowledge" that the funds were "possibly" stolen (although they might not be, because there is a determination of whether the funds were actually stolen or really just due to the your customer, which has yet to be made). I also don't want to just file a SAR defensively.
Thanks for the helpful dialogue already. Looking for more.
|
|
|
|
