Ducati

Global forum? Only partially true.
Short-sighted statement? Quite the opposite.

The SAR is a US instrument based on US federal law. There may be similar reports in other countries, but those are not SARs. This "global" thread is discussing the SAR.

Too many FTers staying in the Holiday Inn Express.

stifle

The United Kingdom also has a similar report called by the same name. Please stop being so presumptuous.

WhateverDude

BURN!!!!

Ducati

Right. Because the IRS and FinCEN are agencies in the UK.

No one is discussing any reports from any other nation. Read the title of this thread again.

Please tell us which jurisdictions permit disclosing the "SAR" to the suspect. You indicated that only "some" jurisdictions prohibit it. Where are the ones that actually allow it?

farwest101

Similar issue at the USPS today buying a few MOs - the desk jockey mistakenly clicked the "over $3K" button on her screen after the transaction was finished. They had already printed the MOs and I was walking away but then a form filled her screen and she called me back. She didn't know what to do - it was clearly a SARs or whatever the USPS equivalent is. She started asking for ID and I said no way, as the screen was filled with questions that would have taken a half hour to fill out (and what effin business is it of anyone's anyway if it's a legitimate transaction?) Since I refused, they then had to manually file a 1805 B form (think that was the number) and I walked away irritated.

As I was leaving, the manager said very loudly (I know the guy is very soft spoken from years of going to that PO, so it was unusual) that I wasn't supposed to even know such a form was being filled - was something the employee was supposed to fill out after I left. There were a series of 4 or 6 key questions at the very top that I saw (and dozen of detailed questions below) - as I recall, one asked if I was a "regular" (well, yes, I've being going to that same PO for ~20 years - but it was asking if I were a "regular" buyer of MOs). Another asked if I worked in a team (as if the PO employee would have a clue anyway). A third asked if it were over $3K transaction. I forget the others. Of course, none applied and there was no "none of the above", hence all the confusion as to why the form was needed at all and how to clear it/ignore it/cancel it.

I don't mind the scrutiny - happily fill out whatever form they want so long as it is quick, simple and doesn't take forever - and if it's a one time thing. But it seemed a royal PITA and the employee was clearly confused - the line waiting was 10 deep, so everyone was irritated at the already slow pace of service. If they are going to file a SAR for a lousy $2+K MO, I'll just buy $10K and be done with it - I could give a rat's patootie about what some silly bureaucrat/agency thinks so long as they don't waste my time with inane paperwork.

I was only doing it for the lousy 1/2 pt per dollar on my Alaska debit card anyway. Was one of my cheapest methods, but it's not worth the PITA if a lousy $2xxx.xx transaction activates such absurd spying/reporting nonsense.

Alcibiades

Umm yep. that was a SAR

Alcibiades

Umm nope, that was not a SAR

I can see for miles

When I make large payments through Checkfreepay (for the Skymiles) at Wal-mart, I am asked these questions too (name, address, phone, social security number, occupation, etc). Why? If not a SARS, what is being recorded or filed?

Stubtify

There's a lot of misinformation and confusion here.

There is a requirement to verify and keep records of anyone buying over $3k in MO or other cash instruments. Individual banks/MO stores, etc. do this their own way, so they don't get in trouble should anyone ask to see the log.

When you buy over $3k you are required to be "verified," in a way decided by the individual institution. Think of it as internal paperwork should anyone come asking "how many times did this guy come in and buy $6k in MO?" This is also why some places won't sell you more than $2k or whatever in MOs at a time--because they don't have or don't want to have an internal procedure in place for the record keeping requirement.

This is not a SAR. SARs are filled out and filed without your knowing.

I'm tired of people thinking that more exciting things are going on than what is happening in reality. The reality is there is a log of your purchases. That is all. You can run out screaming saying you don't want to give them your information... but think of how that looks. You need to understand the pieces of paper you are receiving are as good as cash, and hard to track. They ARE used by drug dealers, money launderers, and really bad guys. You are none of those--but you are playing in their world, and cannot just exempt yourself from the rules, without raising further suspicion.

The real worry is not getting SARs filed against you--but rather your bank shutting all your accounts and telling you to get lost. MOs, and lots of them, could potentially cost a bank big time if they turn out to be fake, and you skip out on them. Focus your attention where it can harm you the most, and SAR filings when you have nothing to worry about is not the area to focus on.

redtop43

I've had the same experience (specifically WM with ST card). I've never been sure what the threshold is, it's cleary no smaller than $3000, but it seems like I get asked this info sometimes for transactions between $2K and $3K.

farwest101

Well, in my case, the PO manager said distinctly - and loudly - to the PO employee, that I (the customer) was not supposed to be notified or "bothered" and that the report was to be made after I left. I only saw the form when the PO employee called me back to the counter - after I had made my purchase and already started walking away with MOs in hand.

I've been to WM and bought $4+K MOs, so I know the difference btw the two sorts of questions. At WM, they wanted my DL info - I had no problem with that - CC purchases at OD sometimes required that to mollify the cashier. In the USPS case, the questions were accusatory and the very fact the form was being filled out was based on triggering some "suspicious" activity in the first place.


It was clearly a SAR based on the questions being asked -- as it was only concerned about "suspicious" buying activities of MOs. Once I saw the first few questions and the tenor of the questions, I refused to cooperate. Let them fill it out in my absence - that's what they were supposed to do anyway.

I don't care how that "looks" to anyone. Maybe Federal prosecutors think nothing of invading one's privacy over baseless "suspicions", but I don't. Hell, I can go buy an assault weapon no questions asked, but I can't buy a MO at a USPS with cameras on me without being a "suspicious" person? F me.

IkeEsq

Well, it will start with a Federal Agent who investigates and perhaps sees a bunch of SARS and perhaps they look like you are doing something illegal so they contact the USPS and ask what happened.

The teller, who does not want to get in trouble for telling you about the SAR, skews the telling of the story a little to put him/herself in a better light. The agent reviews the video and it confirms what the teller said as there is no audio. So the agent decides to do a knock&talk. Rather than following my sage, non-legal, advice you get an attitude and mouth off to the agent.

The agent then writes up the memorandum of interview indicating that you said that you didn't want to waste time filling out their stupid bureaucratic paperwork that is none of their business anyway. The agent provides this to the Federal Prosecutor who has an open-and-shut case of structuring and sends out a target letter or files a criminal complaint and has you arrested.

If you are arrested and appear after the last docket of the day you are held overnight until your Initial Appearance the following morning. If you work someplace that involves finance or money, the agents will likely go talk to your employer to see if there is any other evidence of financial misdeeds. They will explain the charges in the complaint to your employer and make clear that these are just allegations and that you are presumed to be innocent. However, your employer will probably just let you go rather than take the risk.

Then you cough up tens of thousands of dollars for a lawyer and maybe come up with a deal or go to trial. Perhaps the charges even get dropped but I wouldn't count on it.

Obviously, this is a sort of worst-case scenario. However, the more hostile and uncooperative you are the more likely it (or some variant) is to come about. Stubtify has provided some excellent advice. Not least of which is that you are playing in a realm that is under close scrutiny. Attracting attention to yourself is a bad idea. Acting like a jerk is a horrible idea. There is discretion built into our legal/justice system and it is in your best interests to act in a way that convinces people to use theirs in your favor.

Andy2

IkeEsq, while I think your post is excellent, I was bothered by your comment that a federal prosecutor would have an open and shut structuring case. I think it is important to note that the purchase of money orders with a debit card has some characteristics that are a lot different than the purchase of money orders with cash. At the end of the day I understand Structuring to be systematic activity designed to avoid triggering reporting.

1. Most debit cards have daily limits. A person might be purchasing $2,000 - $2,999, or $9,000 - $9,999 of money orders each day because he simply cannot purchase more than that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the card which might happen to have maximum daily limits of $3,000 or $10,000. This seems to be different than the person who has $50,000 of cash in his basement and is choosing the daily amounts based on a desire to avoid transaction reporting.

2. The guy who walks around with $5,000 of cash in his pocket does not reduce his risk of loss by purchasing $2,000 of money orders and continuing to walk around with $3,000 of cash. A guy who has a debit card with a $5,000 daily limit does reduce his risk of loss if he chooses to buy $2,000 of money orders and carries around his debit card with $3,000 of remaining limit, i.e. a person is relatively more likely to get mugged in the parking lot if someone has observed him buying $5,000 of money orders and holding up the line while the transaction is recorded in the daily monetary log than the guy who quickly and quielty purchased $2,000 of money orders. Who would mug him? The guy behind him in line that got to hear everything the teller told him about the reports for transactions over $3,000!

IkeEsq

Sorry, I was not completely clear. That statement was based on someone saying something stupid to the investigator about wanting to avoid the paperwork require by the report. That is the mens rea (intent) that is otherwise difficult to prove. That is why my non-legal advice is to politely but unequivocally tell the investigating agent that you do not wish to talk about your money order purchases except in the presence of your attorney. Being belligerent and/or self-righteous does far more harm than any 'suspicions' an agent may get from your refusal to talk to them. And admitting to an intent to circumvent reporting requirements is really unwise.

Structuring does not really have to be systematic. If your grandmother sent you $1 everyday for 32 years and you decided one day that you wanted to deposit it all in the bank and deposited half on Monday and half on Tuesday so that they would not file a report, that would be structuring. If you did the same thing because your bag only fit half of the money, it would not be structuring. That is where your state of mind is important. But your examples are quite correct.

diburning

Structuring IS illegal, so without any other evidence, they WILL prosecute on that charge alone if they can't get you for anything else.