FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Manufactured Spending (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/manufactured-spending-719/)
-   -   Suspicious Activity Reports to the IRS when buying or depositing money orders. (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/manufactured-spending/1438710-suspicious-activity-reports-irs-when-buying-depositing-money-orders.html)

ezakipocky Sep 11, 2017 5:43 pm


Originally Posted by diburning (Post 28804111)
Does that article cite any official source?

As an accountant who handles the filing of BSA paperwork in a retail store, I once ran into a situation where an auditor tried to nail me for not having a CTR on file (BSA forms are filed electronically, but company policy requires a paper copy on file as well for CYA purposes) for a transaction that was over $10K but did not involve any cash (money orders only). The company's legal dept backed me up and told them that because no actual cash changed hands, a CTR was not necessary.

That auditor didn't fight back?

diburning Sep 11, 2017 6:02 pm

Not at all. The transaction involved the customer receiving a money wire in the form of money orders. Legal dept determined that as the currency was never under the custody of the store (MSB), it does not constitute "cash" as defined in Part II lines 26 to 27a on the CTR, and therefore, would be 0, which is less than the $10,000 threshold.

For those who have never seen a CTR, this is how it is set up:

26. Total Cash In:
26a. Foreign Cash In:
27. Total Cash Out:
27a. Foreign Cash Out:

And the lines below that are checkboxes for indicating the breakdown of the types of cash equivalents, but they do specifically say "Negotiable instruments cashed" and similar. Since nothing was cashed, and no cash changed hands, the legal dept determined that a CTR was not necessary.

I'm not sure who was correct, but this would fall upon the legal dept if they were wrong. I was still within the 15 day window to file a CTR, so I had all of the information needed to file with their guidance on how to fill out lines 26-27a if needed.

tuphat Sep 11, 2017 6:35 pm

Lawyers 1
Auditors 0
Thanks for playing.

Gitangali Dec 15, 2017 4:45 pm

It is one thing for filers such as Walmart or Banks to file SAR, nobody can stop them and they don't have to think too much beyond if it seems SA then they file the report. It is in their interest to error on the cautious side, they have nothing to lose, failure could have negative impact on them, so, so far so good.

Now comes the investigation/prosecution part. Typically if structuring is done to hide something there is invariably criminal intent involved. There is no criminal intent involved in MSing process, so doesn't there have to be criminality involved in order for them to prosecute you? As I said above filing there is no problem.

pharmawalk Dec 15, 2017 7:22 pm

nobody here is doing anything illegal.

Gitangali Dec 15, 2017 7:46 pm


Originally Posted by pharmawalk (Post 29179809)
nobody here is doing anything illegal.

I know
My question is, does structuring have to be coupled with criminality in order for prosecution? or can structuring on it's own is reason for prosecution? It is easy to prove structuring but no other violation of penal code.

Wonko Dec 15, 2017 8:17 pm

Sure would be nice if people wouldn't awaken zombie threads unless they had something useful to say.

Andy2 Dec 16, 2017 8:06 am


Originally Posted by Gitangali (Post 29179890)
I know
My question is, does structuring have to be coupled with criminality in order for prosecution? or can structuring on it's own is reason for prosecution? It is easy to prove structuring but no other violation of penal code.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/01/u...-for-some.html

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertw.../#2336ced45123

Here are a couple of articles for you to read that should answer your question. There was a policy change (not a law change) in 2014 or 2015 that makes it significantly less likely for the government to pursue structuring (and just as importantly less likely for them to seize bank accounts, since that was usually the damaging action, not the court case that never occurred), when no "other" criminal activity occurs.

That having been said, there is not usually true structuring in Manufactured Spending since Money Orders and Prepaid Debit Cards do not, in the opinion of most posters who have studied the issue, constitute the cash or cash equivalents necessary to cause Structuring.

If you read the posts back far enough, you will find reports of visits by the IRS CID to a couple of people who were doing this at a heavy volume with the debit cards that generated Delta miles. The IRS CID folks (who were focused on Structuring, not any civil tax collection) never pursued any action after gaining an understanding of what was occurring, and one of them laughed when the guy pulled out his debit card, apparently having heard the tale before.

We did not get as much information as what would have been desired, because one poster accused them of making it up, but one posted the IRS Special Agent business card, and I corresponded with one poster via PM, and I am certain they were being truthful. What you have to consider is that when Suspicious Activity Reports are filed with FINCEN, the government can't really tell that you are MSing with debit cards instead of cash, so that is why many of us try to avoid the generation of SARs by limiting our transactions. So sometimes information designed to discuss minimizing the possibility of SARs being generated will get belittled as a post about the risk of Structuring. And sometimes you deal with bad policies at the vendors. Many Walmarts program their systems to alert the teller to gather information for transactions involving $3,000 or more regardless of whether the person purchasing money orders is using cash or a debit card. Probably not correct, but many MSers simply made a decision not to exceed $3,000 on a single transaction, or do multiple transactions of the exact same type at WalMart that would exceed $3,000.

tuphat Dec 16, 2017 9:07 am

@Andy2 -- Hate to break it to you, but new administration is effectively reversing the policy changes, and seems to fully embrace civil forfeiture. See: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-...set-forfeiture

Gitangali Dec 16, 2017 11:34 am


Originally Posted by Wonko (Post 29179928)
Sure would be nice if people wouldn't awaken zombie threads unless they had something useful to say.

Learn something from these quality posts man instead of shutting yourself down!

Andy2 Dec 16, 2017 4:41 pm

I read that article and did not see where they reversed the policy the articles I linked to discussed.

It said the federal government is being more aggressive with asset seizures and forfeitures, and are using "federal adoption" to combat states that are adopting reasonable safeguards against government abuse in the area.

Personally, I find it unfortunate that the federal government is being more aggressive in this area, and even if it has not fully reversed the reasonable policy, it can very broadly define any underlying crime associated with structuring.

Gitangali Dec 16, 2017 8:25 pm

People say if a retailer was to file SAR, they have to do so without letting the suspect know. If you look at the SAR form it asks for driver's license, social security etc for identification purposes. So that means the retailer would ask for such information.correct? Do they need DL and SS both to file SAR? I would think they would need one or the other for sure.

Now this won't apply to banks because banks have both forms of IDs and they don't need anything from you as such but same can not be said for the retailer. All they have is encrypted CC numbers.

Andy2 Dec 17, 2017 8:02 am

That same information is needed by a retailer (or a bank if it does not already have it) for entry into the Daily Monetary Log that is required for cash transactions of $3,000 or more. Also, the guidance the government has issued to money Service Businesses suggests that they gather this information for cash transactions of $2,000 or more to evaluate whether SARs are to be filed. So this information is asked for in a tremendous number of situations in which a SAR is not filed, and there is nothing wrong with them telling you they simply need to gather information to let the transaction proceed. As I said, a tremendous number of retailers (or certain locations of those retailers) have programmed their computers WalMart $3,000, Kroger $2,000, etc., to gather this information. People can argue to the cows come home that there is no reason for them to do so when debit cards, credit cards, and money orders are involved in certain parts of the transactions (because they are not cash), but if your goal is avoiding your name and identification numbers going on paperwork that may (or may not) be used in filing SARs, those company policies are just as important as the law.
​​​​​​​

Gitangali Dec 18, 2017 11:14 am


Originally Posted by Andy2 (Post 29184123)
That same information is needed by a retailer (or a bank if it does not already have it) for entry into the Daily Monetary Log that is required for cash transactions of $3,000 or more. Also, the guidance the government has issued to money Service Businesses suggests that they gather this information for cash transactions of $2,000 or more to evaluate whether SARs are to be filed. So this information is asked for in a tremendous number of situations in which a SAR is not filed, and there is nothing wrong with them telling you they simply need to gather information to let the transaction proceed. As I said, a tremendous number of retailers (or certain locations of those retailers) have programmed their computers WalMart $3,000, Kroger $2,000, etc., to gather this information. People can argue to the cows come home that there is no reason for them to do so when debit cards, credit cards, and money orders are involved in certain parts of the transactions (because they are not cash), but if your goal is avoiding your name and identification numbers going on paperwork that may (or may not) be used in filing SARs, those company policies are just as important as the law.


Can someone confirm this? Retailer can gather the info but as long as they have not asked you for the social security number and or DL then they haven't filed the SAR on you? Not sure if they can file the report just based on whatever info they can get from the credit card transaction.

Henla Dec 18, 2017 11:48 am


Originally Posted by Gitangali (Post 29182986)
People say if a retailer was to file SAR, they have to do so without letting the suspect know. If you look at the SAR form it asks for driver's license, social security etc for identification purposes. So that means the retailer would ask for such information.correct? Do they need DL and SS both to file SAR? I would think they would need one or the other for sure.

Now this won't apply to banks because banks have both forms of IDs and they don't need anything from you as such but same can not be said for the retailer. All they have is encrypted CC numbers.

It means they try to gather as much of this information as possible, but SARs can be filed with incomplete information.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:04 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.