AlohaDaveKennedy

Indeed, there is no reason to sue a bank for shutting down customer accounts for suspicious activities for bankers know what is a suspicious activity. The nature of banking requires banks to look for suspicious activities. As proof I offer all the banks caught gaming LIBOR rates, money laundering, redlining and illegally foreclosing on home.

Bankers are experts when it comes to suspicious activities.

"Ask now not why banks shut down accounts for suspicious activity, but rather why so few banks have been shut down for suspicious activity" (to paraphrase President Kennedy).

AugustWest

Exactly this. Given their record, I have no qualms legally exploiting the loopholes the banks present. On Wall Street, the equivalent of churning or MSing would get you a huge bonus.

IkeEsq

One of many reasons I'll probably never be on a jury.

livelovelaugh00

It is shocking:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...-evidence.html

IkeEsq

Pffft. That is barely the tip of the iceberg. Next time the cops stop you with your $50K of MOs or a few cases worth of $1 coins . . .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/inv...top-and-seize/

PaulMSN

The article says nothing about what subsequently happened in the case.

lumangoy

Do MOs fall under structuring if one purchased more than 10k and deposited them into multiple banks?

Aren't MOs checks? So they are not cash that fall under structuring?

Andy2

They appear to fall under a special category. Strictly speaking, you are correct. When just the pure cash transaction rules are considered, they do not likely meet the definition of cash that causes the bank to do Currency Transaction Reports or entries in its Daily Monetary Log. So the form of the transactions would not likely cause the depositor to be a "structurer", although there have been reports of banks mentioning structuring concerns when discussing money order deposits with customers.

The big problem occurs because the regulatory guidance to banks requires them to give special scrutiny to money orders in determining whether the bank should file Suspicious Activity Reports. Money orders can be purchased with cash, and if money orders had no compliance issues, the guy who does not want to get a CTR filed by depositing $11,000 in cash, and does not want to be a felonious structurer by making subsequent cash deposits of $9,000 and $2,000, could use that $11,000 of cash to buy 11 money orders of $1,000 each and deposit them. Both the money order issuer and the bank accepting them as deposits can be fined if an examiner believes that SARs should have been filed. In other words, the bank is almost required to assume that money orders were purchased with cash when evaluating whether a SAR should be filed. So many banks close accounts when a lot of money orders are deposited. Of course, most don't close accounts. There are no easy answers.

If you ran a bank, you would probably close the deposit accounts of most FTers. There is little profit from the accounts and the possibility of fines.

And you would be amazed at how little most bankers really know about this stuff. I found a bank that allowed CDs to be opened at $5,000 a pop with a credit card. The deal is gone now, so no PMs please. I got a call from someone at the bank who asked very specific textbook, leading questions regarding structuring. I actually sent him written guidance on structuring to show him that credit card funding run as a purchase is most definitely not considered a cash deposit. I hated to do that, because one of the guidelines in filing a SAR is that the customer indicates that he has knowledge of SARs! How is that for Orweillian? But the point I am making is that bankers are not that knowledgeable about this stuff, their concern is minimizing their own potential fines, and their easiest solution to a potential problem is to close accounts.

satman40

MO are noted as Cash on your deposit...with your bank...

TopSpin46

My deposits are categorized under check deposits online and on my monthly statements (separate from cash deposits). They even have front/back images for me to see.

Not sure if this was what you meant tho.

IkeEsq

Money orders are not checks. Money orders are normally bearer instruments, meaning that they can be cashed by whomever has them, while checks can normally only be cashed by the Payee listed on the "To" line.

See https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/det...iable-monetary for information on what is considered a negotiable monetary instrument for reporting purposes, at least to Customs and Border Protection.

CWAL

delete

TopSpin46

I am not an attorney to a bank or anything but reading your link it sounds like that is internal policy (ie agency rules) for bringing monetary instruments into the US through CBP. I don't believe these rules or definitions are pertinent to banks ( or other govt agencies). I for one am certainly not gonna challenge my bank's categorization of money orders as checks.

IkeEsq

It might depend on whether or not they have a payee or other factors. I didn't have time to try to find a good IRS/FinCen definition but I'll look around.

shitrus

Legally, it is a check.

UCC § 3-104 (f) states that