03/01/2004
This question is about BSA/Anti Money Laundering Operations. We have some conflicting points of view at our bank regarding when the clock starts (for 30 filing deadline) on SAR filings. Some staff are under the impression that we must file a SAR within 30 days of suspicious activity, whereas other staff believe the filing must occur within 30 days of when we determine that the activity appears suspicious. Which is it? We try to detect all suspicious activity through automated reports and research each month.
03/01/2004
This question is about BSA/Anti Money Laundering Operations. We have some conflicting points of view at our bank regarding when the clock starts (for 30 filing deadline) on SAR filings. Some staff are under the impression that we must file a SAR within 30 days of suspicious activity, whereas other staff believe the filing must occur within 30 days of when we determine that the activity appears suspicious. Which is it? We try to detect all suspicious activity through automated reports and research each month.
12/01/2003
There is nothing like a sunsetting provision in a law to draw everyone's attention to it. This time, it was the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
12/01/2003
Can redlining happen in the 21st Century? According to the National Fair Housing Alliance, the answer is a resounding yes. At PCI's annual CRA and Fair Lending Colloquium, Dr.
12/01/2003
The amendments to the Fair Credit Reporting Act would require reporters of information to conduct investigations into the accuracy of that information when a consumer challenges it.
12/01/2003
I recently attended a compliance workshop. During the workshop there was an internet compliance discussion regarding weblinking to realtors. It was stated that this practice could be considered a violation of Sec 8 of RESPA. I am in the process of doing some research on this subject but need further clarification. We do provide links to all local realtors on our website and if we are indeed in violation, would like to get that taken care of before we are cited.
09/29/2003
Recently my bank received a FedEx envelope containing a large cashier's check payable to a legitimate bank customer. The alert bank associate who initially received the delivery noticed that the envelope had been sent from Nigeria and further research was done instead of just complying with the request to deposit the cashier's check (which looked like a valid item) to the payee. The bank's customer was called. The customer had sold merchandise over the Internet and was expecting the funds. The check was payable for several thousand dollars more that what was owed, and they were instructed to wire back the extra amountzing. We called the alleged issuing bank of the cashier's check to confirm that the item was indeed fraudulent. Since my bank only accepted delivery of the item and never deposited it, and thus neither the bank nor the customer lost any money, should we file a SAR? Had the envelope been delivered to an unsuspecting associate, I fear the outcome could have been very different. I feel that my bank did have the potential to suffer a loss in excess of $25,000. I would appreciate your advice.
09/15/2003
Is the grantor of a trust required to be given the Truth in Lending disclosures when a loan is made to a trust?
07/21/2003
After getting bitten a couple of times from credit card checks (or lineofcredit checks) we decided to place 7/11 holds on all checks of this type. Recently, an external compliance auditor informed us that we cannot discriminate against any class of checks so he recommended that we send them for collection. This is causing even longer delays and confusion and it seemed that the 7/11 hold process was much better accepted by the customer. What are your thoughts on this?
06/30/2003
I am reviewing the final reg for the CIP and making adjustments to the program and procedure we compiled several months ago. At the end of the discussion of Section 103.121(b)(2)(iii) for Lack of Verification, the final reg indicates "...a bank must comply with other applicable laws and regulations, such as the adverse action provisions under ECOA and FCRA, when determining not to open an account because it cannot establish a reasonable belief that it knows the true identity of the customer." ECOA and FCRA deal with credit products, and I do not see how the current notices apply to denial because you cannot establish someone's identity. Even if you mark "Other" the notice portion refers to credit and I believe it would confuse the applicant. Any thoughts on this?