CTR - Individual won't give us his social

We had a local private college bring in over $10,000 in cash from an annual fundraiser. After the deposit was made, the teller tried completing the CTR, but didn't have all the information she needed. She contacted the individual who brought in the cash and he would not give us his social (and he is not a customer of ours). He is adamant about not giving it to us. How do I circumvent inputting his social security number and go ahead and file the CTR. We will file a SAR after I get all of this straightened out...

Thanks!

Fill it out the best you can and write a note filed with the CTR explaining why you don't have it and what happened.

I don't think a SAR is warranted. What criminal act has this person conducted? Refusing to cooperate is not a crime. The teller should have requested the SSN at the time of deposit. This could have been handled much better then.

Call your best college contact (high up as you can get) and explain it is required by Federal regulation and there are significant penalties for noncompliance. Do they really want you to call the IRS to find out what other alternatives you have because he won't provide the required info (bluffs sometimes work).

I suggest contacting someone higher up at the school, explain what information is needed and why, and ask for their assistance. If the courier is an employee of theirs, this approach typically works.

I'd also recommend following up with your frontline staff and training them to collect the information before processing the transaction. That way, if the person refuses to provide the information, you can refuse the transaction.

David D. - You're right, refusing to cooperate is not a crime. However, it is suspicous, which I believe warrants a Suspicious Activity Report.

Yes, the teller should have requested the SSN at the time of the deposit...however, they didn't.

Also, I e-file and am unaware of a way to "write a note" with my CTR.

BrendaC - Tried to bluff the higher ups...to no avail. They pretty much just said that they can't force this guy to give up his social.

They can't force him to give up his social- but you can force them to give up their account.

Or would that be a bluff, too?

You can submit a single CTR on paper, along with the cover letter.

For whatever it's worth, take a look at section 103.63:



Do you suppose that a missing SSN in Section B is considered "material"?

A SAR is necessary...

I do agree with Ken. Refusing to provide the SSN falls under attempting to evade reporting.

FWIW, I agree. I equate refusal to provide the SSN with changing a transaction at the teller window once learning of the reporting requirement. Both are direct attempts to evade reporting. And if the college couldn't convince him to cooperate (or make me believe they gave it their best effort), I would exit that relationship. It just can't be tolerated.

might the school have this person's SSN that they would be able to provide it to you? If he is an employee or a student, then they should have it. If he's neither an employee nor a student, that makes me wonder why he was ferrying the deposit in the first place.

I don't think you have a reason to close the relationship, although clearly that's your bank's call. It was your teller that created this problem by not getting the needed info up front.

Exactly! And had the teller asked for it at the proper time, the customer would have provided the SSN or management would have had a talk with the customer and this wouldn't have been as issue. Therefore, (according to the logic of most responders in this thread) teller error leads to suspicious activity by customer? I think this is a FAR reach.

Did you inform the customer you are completing a CTR? If not, how does he know he's evading. Put yourself in his shoes. You said he's not a customer. He completes the transaction and every thing's fine. Then he gets a call from a bank (not his) that informs him they need his SSN. Why? The transaction is done (his thinking). Everyone's paranoid about giving out the SSN these days (rightfully so). So now he's conducting a criminal act?

You can file the SAR, but be sure to state that the teller didn't request this info at the time of the transactions. I'm sure FinCEN won't give a hill of beans about it.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Could not agree more with you David, SAR seems far reaching in this circumstance. Teller training would be a better course of action.

According to statistics published this morning, there were 730,000 SARs filed in 2008.

In none of those filings was the issue of whether law enforcement cared about the specific fact situation relevant to whether filing was required.

I'm not sure I follow what the point of your comment is Ken, do you feel a SAR should be filed or no?

I definitely agree it is going to be a tough sell on the bank to get a SSN later ... but what if you explain the CTR & that it is a criminal act to not provide all the required information & he still refuses? Even provide the brochure ...

I say - once you explain the law & they still refuse ... you file a SAR.

That is my line of thinking as well. Did the teller drop the ball? Absolutely. Should additional training be conducted? Absolutely. But to me the issue is not how the problem occurred rather there has been a deliberate attempt to prevent accurate CTR filing. I understand completely his reluctance to provide the information before the law is explained. I even understand his wanting to confirm it himself. But if the refusal continues after that point, he is knowingly and willingly contributing to the bank's inability to file a complete and accurate CTR.

Miss America - You will note further up the thread that Ken indicated a SAR is necessary.

I agree Ken. That wasn't my point.

Bee has never said they explained to this person a CTR was required. How can be evading if he doesn't even know why they want the CTR. He has no relationship with this bank yet they call him after that fact and ask him for his SSN. How is that evading?


I don't disagree IF the bank tells the customer why the need it. There's a BIG "IF" here that has not been understood. Only assumed.

Wow, all the experts disagreeing; Don't see that very often. If I were in your shoes at this moment, I'd send my trusty BSA examiner an email and just ask his opinion. Unfortunately,come exam time, that's really all that will matter anyway...

Agreed, David. My thoughts were definitely based on some assumptions of routine disclosures and best practices. I certainly wouldn't provide my SSN to a stranger over the phone!

This is the way I see it.

The rules are:

No person shall for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of Sec. 103.22 with respect to such transaction:
(a) Cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to fail to file a report required under Sec. 103.22;

(b) Cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to file a report required under Sec. 103.22 that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; or

(c) Structure (as that term is defined in Sec. 103.11(n) of this part) or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.

A report required under Sec. 103.22 is a complete and accurate report. If you have no SSN, the report is neither complete nor accurate. It makes no difference whose fault it is. We all know that sometimes multiple transactions slip through before we discover the CTR threshold has been reached and the CTR is needed. If you blame every one of those on the teller, there is a lot of blame to go around, but that does not solve the problem of getting the accurate CTR filed. The bank's job is to attempt to obtain the information, even if it is after the fact. If the person bringing the money does not cooperate, then they have caused the bank not to file an accurate CTR, not the bank. In that case, a SAR is clearly indicated naming the person bringing the money as the suspect.

I stand by my point, this person did not evade a CTR. They brought in >$10,000. They didn't structure the transaction to avoid reporting.

FinCEN has said over and over not to file SAR's defensively. This scenario is exactly that, in my mind: frivolous reporting.

I agree ... but they "(b) Cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to file a report required under Sec. 103.22 that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact; "


I agree - the whole thing is really a bank error - I agree it's frivolous ... but until they change the law ... I just don't see how we could get around it??? IF we notify the customer of the regulation & consequences & they still don't supply the Material information, then they are violating Sec. 103.22 (b).

Another key phrase is that it has to be done "for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of Sec. 103.22". Is the purpose to evade reporting or is it just a general unwillingness to give out an SSN?

are sections a, b, & c considered an AND, not an OR in legal speak? cuz then I'd be more inclined to not file a SAR

A, B and C have an "or" but the requirement that it be "for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of Sec. 103.22" applies to all three.

Been following this for days with fascination.

IMO, the customer did not Cause or attempt to cause a domestic financial institution to file a report required under Sec. 103.22 that contains a material omission or misstatement of fact. The only person guilty of that is the teller. Maybe you should file a SAR on her?

I am joking of course but this is just too much. A SAR is overreaching to say the least. I think our law enforcement officials have more important things to worry about.

Structuring is not an issue here. If it was structuring, we would not be having this discussion because structuring definitely requires a SAR. In this case, a "defensive" SAR would be appropriate because the bank is going to have to defend itself if they do not obtain the SSN and no SAR is filed.

You CAN file the CTR. Explain why you're missing the info. Done.

Expired equine?

Agree on not filing. This young man dropped off a deposit now the bank wants to put him in the SAR data base. Whether he is right or wrong about refusing to give his SSN over the phone I don't know. File the CTR with the information you have, document why you don't have some information. I bet the kid doesn't offer to stop by the bank again on his next beer run.

While I agree that the teller messed up, if I was that non-customer and the bank kept hounding me for my SSN, I'd be pretty ticked off. The customer did nothing wrong. The horse is out of the barn. Document what happened, file what's appropriate and see what can be learned from this. Just my opinion.

I hate to resurrect the "dead horse" but assume it is a non-customer and they are cashing a >10,000 check. They refuse to give their SSN when it is requested. Can we refuse to negotiate the instrument? Is it helping them structure to refuse to give them cash but negotiate it for an Official Check instead? I would definitely file a SAR in this case though.

Yes.

While your bank may set its own identification requirements for cashing a smaller check, I think it's fair to say the government has its own identification requirements here. Of course, since your ability to verify a name/TIN combination at the window is limited, all the payee has to do is lie and provide you with a fictitious SSN. That happens a lot.

If I could listen to the exact conversation I might be able to pick the specific point where the dispute over receiving the SSN turned into the substitution of an official check as an offer in compromise. If the offer came from your employee, then I would suggest it was "assisting in structuring." If the request came from the payee, I would suggest it was just plain old "structuring."

Good scenario for a compliance school exam.

I don't pretend to be an expert in these matters, but where in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 31, Part 103, does it say that a person conducting a transaction on behalf of another must provide a social security number when a CTR is required? It is required for the person on whose behalf the transaction is being conducted, but I don't see it required for the person conducting the transaction.

Section 103.28 doesn't seem to require it for a person who is depositing on another's behalf:

§ 103.28 Identification required.

Before concluding any transaction with respect to which a report is required under §103.22, a financial institution shall verify and record the name and address of the individual presenting a transaction, as well as record the identity, account number, and the social security or taxpayer identification number, if any, of any person or entity on whose behalf such transaction is to be effected. Verification of the identity of an individual who indicates that he or she is an alien or is not a resident of the United States must be made by passport, alien identification card, or other official document evidencing nationality or residence ( e.g., a Provincial driver's license with indication of home address). Verification of identity in any other case shall be made by examination of a document, other than a bank signature card, that is normally acceptable within the banking community as a means of identification when cashing checks for nondepositors ( e.g., a drivers license or credit card). A bank signature card may be relied upon only if it was issued after documents establishing the identity of the individual were examined and notation of the specific information was made on the signature card. In each instance, the specific identifying information ( i.e., the account number of the credit card, the driver's license number, etc.) used in verifying the identity of the customer shall be recorded on the report, and the mere notation of “known customer” or “bank signature card on file” on the report is prohibited.

See post #1210398 above. If the CTR asked "Boxers or Briefs?" and the party conducting the transaction refused to provide the information it would be an attempt to cause the bank to file a CTR that was incorrect or incomplete.

OK, so the CTR form has a blank for the SSN of the person conducting the transaction, and the presence of the blank causes it to be considered a requirement although §103.28 requires the SSN of the person on whose behalf the transaction is being conducted but not the SSN of the person conducting the transaction. Do I have this right?

Yes.

The form has revised dramatically since the regulation was written. The issue is whether an attempt was made to cause the form to be incorrect or incomplete.

If you want to test the theory just leave the conductor's SSN out from now on.

Good one Ken. That one made me laugh out loud.

Ken, I should have started my initial post:

Dear Ken--

I write this to you from my prison cell...

(BTW, Ken, you stole one of my favorite lines when giving advice on an issue that is not completely clear.)

If you have worked with government regulations for a long time, you should know that most of them that require filing of forms require you to follow the form's instructions, sometimes in spite of what the regulation might say.

Here is why you have to have the SSN of the person conducting the transaction. Notice that this came from the C&D order against Riggs.

D. Violations of the CTR Requirements
FinCEN has determined that Riggs violated the BSA currency transaction reporting requirements set forth at 31 CFR §103.27(d) by failing to provide accurate information or omitting information on numerous currency transaction reports (“CTRs”). Under the BSA, banks are required to file CTRs for transactions in currency greater than $10,000 in a single day. 31 USC §5313 and 31 CFR §103.22. Banks are required to file CTRs in the form prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury and provide all the information called for by the form. 31 CFR §103.27(d).

Thanks Riggs. And I would not have questioned the form except we are talking about a SSN. I can understand why someone wouldn't want to give it out if it isn't required by law. The best I can tell, FinCEN has no right to require banks to obtain the person's social security number. And the person has the right to refuse without fear of some kind of prosecution. Another example of government by the people and for the people (sheeple)?

This is from the Social Security Administration (It does say "banks for monetary transactions," but that is only when it is statutorily required):

The Social Security number was originally devised to keep an accurate record of each individual’s earnings, and to subsequently monitor benefits paid under the Social Security program. However, use of the number as a general identifier has grown to the point where it is the most commonly used and convenient identifier for all types of record-keeping systems in the United States.

Specific laws require a person to provide his/her number for certain purposes. While we cannot give you a comprehensive list of all situations where a number might be required or requested, a Social Security number is required/requested by:

Internal Revenue Service for tax returns and federal loans;
Employers for wage and tax reporting purposes;
States for the school lunch program;
Banks for monetary transactions;
Veterans Administration as a hospital admission number;
Department of Labor for workers’ compensation;
Department of Education for Student Loans;
States to administer any tax, general public assistance, motor vehicle or drivers license law within its jurisdiction;
States for child support enforcement;
States for commercial drivers’ licenses;
States for Food Stamps;
States for Medicaid;
States for Unemployment Compensation;
States for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families; or
U.S. Treasury for U.S. Savings Bonds

The Privacy Act regulates the use of Social Security numbers by government agencies. When a federal, state, or local government agency asks an individual to disclose his or her Social Security number, the Privacy Act requires the agency to inform the person of the following: the statutory or other authority for requesting the information; whether disclosure is mandatory or voluntary; what uses will be made of the information; and the consequences, if any, of failure to provide the information.

If a business or other enterprise asks you for your number, you can refuse to give it. However, that may mean doing without the purchase or service for which your number was requested. For example, utility companies and other services ask for a Social Security number, but do not need it; they can do a credit check or identify the person in their records by alternative means.

Giving your number is voluntary, even when you are asked for the number directly. If requested, you should ask why your number is needed, how your number will be used, what law requires you to give your number and what the consequences are if you refuse. The answers to these questions can help you decide if you want to give your Social Security number. The decision is yours.